Results 1 - 20 of 114
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Tim Sheasby Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | did the wine from the water make you dr | Bible general Archive 1 | Tim Sheasby | 22309 | ||
I would agree with this conclusion. The old testament is full of warnings about drunkenness (abuse of wine) but uses the identical Hebrew word to speak of wine as a blessing of God. Can the same thing be both a blessing and a curse? Yes it can. Abuse of anything can transform it from blessing to curse. Glutony is a sin. It leads to obesity. It is the result of eating too much. Does that mean we should stop eating? Sex is a blessing from God when it takes place in the right context (The marriage bed is undefiled) but at the same time it is condemned in all other contexts -- fornication, adultery, homosexuality etc. As was stated elsewhere in this discussion -- moderation and self control are the issues. Timothy was in fact COMMANDED to take some wine for his stomach's sake and all historic evidence I have been able to find clearly indicates that "the fruit of the vine" in Jesus cup at the last supper was, and could only be, alcoholic wine. Why the term "the fruit of the vine" instead of "wine"? Because to the Jewish reader of the day this was a blessing pronounced ONLY on grape wine that had fermented for at least 40 days and was not more than 3 years old. Which leads me to believe we should be using similar wine in our remembrance of the Lord's supper. Tim |
||||||
2 | did the wine from the water make you dr | Bible general Archive 1 | Tim Sheasby | 22311 | ||
Don't mean to be offensive but where on earth did you get that information from? The jars that were filled were water jars. This was not grape coolaid, it was real wine miraculously created by the Creator Himself. | ||||||
3 | did the wine from the water make you dr | Bible general Archive 1 | Tim Sheasby | 22312 | ||
AMEN | ||||||
4 | did the wine from the water make you dr | Bible general Archive 1 | Tim Sheasby | 22656 | ||
Amen, amen and amen! Tim |
||||||
5 | did the wine from the water make you dr | Bible general Archive 1 | Tim Sheasby | 22657 | ||
In answer: 1. There are 3 words used in the OT for wine. Not a single one can be shown to imply non alcoholic grape juice. 2. The whole point of the parable of the wine skins is that in the early stages of fermentation considerably more gas is produced which would burst old, inflexible, skins. This would of course result in the skin being ruined and the wine being spilt and therefore ruined. 3. I live in Cape Town in the heart of the wine producing area of South Africa. A friend of mine consulted a local winemaker concerning the potency of New Testament wine. The winemaker theorised that the wine then may in fact have been considerably stronger than many wines of today. His theory is that the water in the wine might transpire through the skin leaving a more potent, thick, almost syrupy wine. That is theory but the same friend consulted a Rabbi at one of the Universities in Israel (I can get the names and addresses if you want) who believed that New Testament wines may have been as strong as 17 or 18 percent As you point out, those drinks do not compare with the distilates of today but they certainly do compare with the wines produced today. It was as strong as or stronger than todays naturally fermented wines. |
||||||
6 | did the wine from the water make you dr | Bible general Archive 1 | Tim Sheasby | 22660 | ||
1. Not every non-Christian I know considers drinking alcohol a sin. Paul does say, however, that if eating or drinking is going to be a problem then he will not do it (Romans 14:21). 2. The Bible clearly condemns and warns against drunkenness. If people drank alcohol according to biblical principles ther would not be any alcoholics. The man who first defined alcoholism as a disease said that it took years of abuse to produce an alcoholic. Never just one drink. In our congregation we have a man who is a "recovering alcoholic". He drinks alcoholic wine every week at the Lord's Table yet this does not send him off on another alcoholic binge. According to my biblical understanding alcoholism is a SIN and not a DISEASE. 3. If you have never drunk alcohol you may not understand this but I know my limit when drinking alcohol. I NEVER go beyond this limit and get drunk. One of my co-workers, not a Christian, commented to another of my coleagues "Tim drinks the way we all SHOULD drink". My example stands sound - an example of self control. Remember even Jesus was accused of drunkenness. He spoke of himself in Matt 11:18-19 "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon!' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds." Did Jesus drink Alcohol? Yes. Did he get drunk? I don't believe so but still people knew that he drank alcoholic wine. 4. I agree. I don't want to be associated with something connected with death or which breaks up homes. However, it is not the wine that does this but the ABUSE of wine. Along with the verses in scripture that speak of the evils of wine there are also verses that speak of the BLESSINGS of wine. For example a) in the OT Law the people were commanded to give offerings of wine (Lev 23:13; Num 15:5ff et al) which were a sweet aroma to the Lord. b) Is 25:6 The LORD of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain; A banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow, And refined, aged wine. Is 55:1 "Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters; And you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk Without money and without cost." Joel 2:24 The threshing floors will be full of grain, And the vats will overflow with the new wine and oil." Joel 3:18 "And in that day The mountains will drip with sweet wine, And the hills will flow with milk, And all the brooks of Judah will flow with water; And a spring will go out from the house of the LORD To water the valley of Shittim.:" 5. Self control. Alcohol does not cause one to loose control -- ABUSE of alcohol does. I would be the first to condemn drunkenness. It is indeed an ugly and embarassing thing. There are times when I will not drink because of a weaker brother or sister but that does not mean I should never again drink what is a blessing from God. There is a danger of becoming Pharisaic about this. Jesus condemned the Phaarisees for binding their traditions on the people. Yet many of these traditions came about with the best intentions in the world. God drew a parameter -- in this case "don't get drunk". In order to protect ourselves we drew a smaller parameter -- "don't even touch the stuff". If that is what you choose to do then certainly that is your right but you cannot condemn someone for not having the same thinking. If it were a sin to drink alcohol then Jesus was a sinner -- an we know he was not. It is clearly a sin to get drunk -- that is what you must not do! In Christ The other Tim Tim Sheasby |
||||||
7 | did the wine from the water make you dr | Bible general Archive 1 | Tim Sheasby | 22661 | ||
I have seen everything you have seen. My wife's parents are alcoholics (drunkards according to scripture) and she grew up under horrific conditions. The problem is not alcohol however, it is self-control. Let us teach our brothers and sisters, our children, how to handle alcohol responsibly as a Christian should before binding on them a man made law "thou shalt not drink alcohol." Tim |
||||||
8 | unaffordable annulllment-How to? | Bible general Archive 1 | Tim Sheasby | 22662 | ||
I agree that divorce is a sin. My first wife committed adultery and decided she wanted to live with another man, who himself was also married. I was left with no option in that situation but to divorce her for she certainly would have divorced me (she told me so). But, I still believe that divorce is a terrible thing. I never want to have to go through that again in my entire life. God hates divorce (as I mentioned in my previous posting) Mal 2:16. However, Christians do sin. And sometimes that sin is the sin of divorce. Do I like that? No. Would I try and work with people to prevent that? Most certainly. Yet, it happens. What then are we to do if a Christian has sinned and got a divorce? Matt 5:32 "but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." We did an exegesis of this passage in our exegesis group and found an interesting thing. There is an alternative translation which goes like this "everyone who divorces his wife . . . causes her to be adulterated." She does not become GUILTY of adultery but the INNOCENT PARTY of adultery if you will. What do we do with the brother or sister who has sinned by divorcing for any reason other than adultery? We ask him to repent of that sin. Do we forbid him from re-marrying? I know preachers who would indeed do this but on what scriptural authority I do not know. One preacher I know asked a member to divorce his new wife and re-marry his old one because their divorce had been unscriptural. This flies in the face of biblical example. Deuteronomy 24:3-4 says that if a man has divorced his wife he CANNOT ever re-marry her "for that is an abomination before the LORD" Acknowledge the sin but trust in the grace of God to forgive. In Christian Love Tim |
||||||
9 | did the wine from the water make you dr | Bible general Archive 1 | Tim Sheasby | 22668 | ||
I have no problem with your decision. I drink rarely and when I do I seldom drink more than 1 glass of wine or one other alcoholic beverage. I do find it relaxing but hate any feeling that I am loosing control so I am an extremely cautious drinker. I have never been drunk. I must say that I can sense when I am reaching my limit and I either stop totally or slow down considerably. Abstinence is a personal choice that any Christian is free to make. Tim Sheasby |
||||||
10 | did the wine from the water make you dr | Bible general Archive 1 | Tim Sheasby | 22679 | ||
I stand corrected on the number of word translated "wine". However, the 3 principal words that concern us in the Old Testament are yayin (03196) wine, tiyrowsh (08492) sweet wine, and shekar (07941) strong drink. According to Rabbinic tradition (Talmud and Mishna) the product of the grape vine was called shekar from pressing until it was 40 days old (and already intoxicating). From 40 days old untill it was 3 years old it was yayin (and now totally intoxicating) and after this it was called shekar. There are places where the context does not indicate the intoxicating value of these beverages but I do not know of any example where they are CLEARLY not alcoholic. I do not know where you found the information that says they used wine skins to slow fermentation. Please let me know your source as this is something I would like to follow up myself. In the New testament there are 2 words, Oinos and Gleukos, that relate to wine. The other 2 words are derivatives of oinos. At the time of Pentecost in Acts there was no way they could have HAD freshly squeezed juice. By then the 'gleukos' must have been at least partially fermented. Certainly the 2 derived words, paroinos and oinophlugia seem to refer to a fermented wine, possibly very strongly fermented. Which brings us back to 'oinos'. In fact, as you mention, this could refer to anything from freshly squezed grape juice to fermented wine. It seems the ancients did not understand the mechanics of fermentation (that yeast caused it to take place) but they certainly knew that something changed that fresh juice into wine. If wine is not always alcoholic (though in the case of the Hebrew word 'Yayin' this cannot be supported) neither is it always NOT alcoholic. The wine Jesus made at Cana was not only alcoholic wine, but the best alcoholic wine ever. The master of ceremonies testifies to this. I am writing from work so some of my material is not at hand and my memory is not always perfect. I will try to remember to bring in better documentation and update this posting tomorrow. Tim Sheaby |
||||||
11 | did the wine from the water make you dr | Bible general Archive 1 | Tim Sheasby | 22841 | ||
Actually, to take this one step further, if grape koolaid did exist it might not have been able to ferment at all. Your point on fermentation is well made. The only way we can have grape juice available today without freshly squeezing it yourself is by pasteurising and preserving -- which in itself changes the substance. A friend of mine tried fermenting store bought grape-juice and found that it just went mouldy, not alcoholic. | ||||||
12 | how can we loose our salvation. | NT general Archive 1 | Tim Sheasby | 34479 | ||
Dear Lionstrong, Please excuse my interjection here. The verses Zach quotes show that it IS possible to loose your salvation. This is not a matter of God's inability to save or of our own merit. The verses show that while our salvation rests in God sometimes our damnation rests in ourselves. If we reject God and his salvation -- we walk away from it -- then our salvation is lost. |
||||||
13 | how can we loose our salvation. | NT general Archive 1 | Tim Sheasby | 34483 | ||
Actually, when are we truly saved? I recently read an article that asked this question. The writer, a Christian cartoonist named Bob West, makes the following observations: 1. Some scriptures suggest you are saved at the moment of belief (John 3:16; Acts 16:31) 2. Some scriptures say you can't be saved by faith alone (James 2:17,24,26) 3. Some scpiptures say you are saved by repentance (Acts 3:19 -- no faith mentioned) 4. Some scriptures say you are saved by confession (Rom 10:10; 1 Jno 1:9) 5. Some scriptures say you are saved by baptism (Mark 16:16; 1 pet 3:21) 6. Some scriptures say it is when we endure to the end (Matthew 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13) I have posted elsewhere on this forum my defence of the necessity for baptism in salvation. However, I have had to do some re-evaluation. Bob West comes from the same religious background as I. He goes on to make these observations: 1. Focus on baptism tends to make us believe this is the "sacrament" that saves. 2. Focus on "belief" also is problematic. The word "believe" today is somewhat diluted. There are many who think "I believe in God so I'm safe". 3. We are often concerned with "when" we are saved instead of "how" we are saved. Let me quote from Bob's essay: "So, when does God save us? The "when" question need never arise as long as people simply proclaim the good news, promise salvation to those who surrender themselves to Jesus, and faithfully baptize believers as they come to faith. "When" only becomes an issue when we take our eyes off what God has done in Christ to focus on ourselves and what we are doing. Those who truly trust in Jesus will want to do what He says. That certainly includes being baptized in Jesus' name. It includes observing all else that Jesus has taught, confident of His empowering presence, although we do not see Him with human eyes (Matthew 28:19-20). But our obedience will always be imperfect. Even our best efforts will always come up short of God's righteous standards. We can only trust in Jesus for salvation, never in anything we have done." In His Service Tim Sheasby |
||||||
14 | What Was The Curse Of Canaan? | Gen 9:25 | Tim Sheasby | 22828 | ||
A youngster in our church recently asked why Noah cursed Canaan instead of Ham. Initial reaction was to say it wasn't too important because it was the curse of a drunken man caught "in his nakedness". This youngster put us right by reminding us that Noah was inspired and that this curse was part of God's inspired message to us. Has this verse been abused? Absolutely. I live in post-apartheid South Africa but know many right-wing organisations who try to use this passage to proove that the black people should be our slaves. Well, we did further study of this and came to virtually the same conclusions as MacArthur. Our reasoning as follows: Gen 10:15-27 lists descendants of Canaan. As you look at these names you see names of the inhabitants of the land of Israel at the time of the conquest. The name of the patriarch (Canaan) is used here to refer to the descendant tribes who would be conquered by Israel (the nation) Joshua 3:10. Many of the same names as in the list of Canaan's descendants. Canaan was not the Black line as far as I know. His brother Cush (which means black in Hebrew) seems to have this honor. If Noah had indeed cursed Ham then this curse would have included the black people, but this is not the case. Conclusion: 1. The curse was on Canaan the nation -- descendants of Canaan living in the promised land. 2. The curse was because of the wickedness that the Canaanites would perpetrate -- eg. Human sacrifice to Molech and idolatry. 3. Why did this happen after Ham's embarrasment of Noah? Noah was clearly angry at Ham and this seems to have triggered the curse of Canaan. Pure theory here that perhaps God used the occasion of Noah's anger for this revelation/curse to be made. In Christ Tim |
||||||
15 | When do we become sinners? | Ps 51:5 | Tim Sheasby | 22341 | ||
AMEN | ||||||
16 | When do we become sinners? | Ps 51:5 | Tim Sheasby | 22344 | ||
I believe this is the ONLY place in scripture where the concept of original sin is even hinted at. Therefor we have to look elsewhere for clarity. Ezekiel 18:20 says "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself". A child has to know what sin is before he can be accountable for it. He cannot be guilty for his father's, father's father's or Adam's sin. What does this verse refer to then. I believe it is talking about the human condition -- we ALL sin sooner or later and are therefore all condemned Romans 3:23 In Christian Love Tim |
||||||
17 | Women's hair length and 1 Corinthians 11 | Amos 1:1 | Tim Sheasby | 22472 | ||
Have had a couple of VERY quiet days at work and so have been browsing several postings on issues of interest to me. In fact I believe we have had some interaction already on some of those. Don't know how a question on 1 Cor 11 got into Amos 1:1 but I have some thoughts on this matter. I grew us in an "anti" congregation of the church of Christ. This is an ultra conservative, legalistic, fundamentalist, splinter group of the church of Christ. In my late teens my whole family went through considerable trauma, both emotional and spiritual, which led us to re-evaluate some of our beliefs. One of the most sacred of these was the doctrine of the head covering. At our assembly hall we even had a rack at the entrance with several scarves or veils for visiting women to wear should they come without their own. We were almost offencive about it some times to the extent of pushing the covering into the hands of the offending women. That's background. What finally convinced me to change my mind? I attended Southern Africa Bible School, in Benoni, Gauteng, South Africa where students before me had done an in-depth exegesis of the passage in question. Without going into all the intricacies of that study it was interesting to note that the only place in the entire passage that an artificial covering was actually mentioned (in the original Greek this is) was in the very last verse -- 1 Cor 11:15 "but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering." NASB. The covering in this verse is a veil but in all the other verses it is a generic 'covering'. The word 'for' in this verse is the Greek word for 'instead of'. So what this says is that a womans hair is given to her instead of a veil. The rest of the passage shows a distinction between long and short hair so this leads to the final conclusion that a woman who has long hair is effectively veiled and covered. Women must have long hair, men must have short hair. How long long is and how short short is is a matter of discernment perhaps but that, in a nutshell is my view. In Christ Tim Sheasby |
||||||
18 | What is 'the fruit of the vine'? | Matt 26:29 | Tim Sheasby | 34629 | ||
Thanks for the quotes but . . . 1. Prov 23:29-33. This verse is talking about someone who drinks too much, not someone drinking in moderation. The Bible roundly condemns drunkenness but also speaks of the blessing of wine. Historic fact: Grape juice, in Jesus time, was only available for a day or two after harvest as in that warm climate fermentation began almost immediately. Grape juice as we have it today is the result of Thomas Welch developing the technique of pasteurising grape juice in 1869 (This can be verified by a quick visit to Welch's website). By Jewish tradition at the time of Christ pasteurised grape juice would have been unacceptable for passover because it had been boiled. Moreover the blessing on "the fruit of the vine" could only be prayed over wine. If they had had grape juice available at the time the blessing for that would have been "the fruit of the tree" (Mishna Berakoth 6.5). 2. Luke 1. This is talking about John the Baptist and has reference to the Nazarite vow. This vow actually forbade any consumption of anything that came from the vine including: pips, juice, grapes, wine and vinegar. However, Nazarites were not exempt from drinking the required cups at passover -- even though these cups contained wine. Another point of interest: grapes have yeast on their skins naturally. It is virtually impossible to wash off. Since this is the case, when grapes are crushed the resulting juice has yeast or leaven in it. If this juice is pasteurised (to kill any bacteria or yeast) the yeast remains in the resulting liquid. However, in the wine making process the yeast grows and multiplies while converting the sugar to carbon dioxide and alcohol. When the alcohol reaches about 18 percent the alcohol kills the yeast and the yeast begins to settle to the botom of the vat. Through a process of "racking" wine makers clarify the wine by pouring off the clear liquid from the sludge (leys) in the vat. In addition, ancient wine makers put clay into this wine to help the sedimentation that results in a clear wine. At the end of this process, wine is unleavened and grape juice is not. God provided a mechanism for the wine used at Passover to conform to the law that they have no leaven in their homes. Although the ancients did not even realise this I Believe this is another evidence of God's wonderful providence. I see a symbolism in this. There is an equation of sin with leaven. For the Lord's Supper, Jesus used unleavened bread. It was the job of the people to ensure that their bread was unleavened. So too with the church that the bread represents -- It is our job to keep the church as pure as we can. The wine that represents Jesus blood, however, is also pure of the yeast (sin) and that was God's job to take care of. God has always been responsible for the sinlessness of the blood. This is just my personal opinion but may be of interest to you and others. Jesus DID drink wine. When accused of being a drunkard or winebibber if he was a tee totaler he would have said so but instead he said "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon!' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds." Matt 11:1. Please note that Jesus did not deny drinking alcohol. There is a difference between drinking and drunkenness. |
||||||
19 | What is 'the fruit of the vine'? | Matt 26:29 | Tim Sheasby | 34630 | ||
Amen!!! I believe churches today have done what Jesus condemned the Pharisees for doing. In the 1800s the temperance movement started teaching that all alcohol was evil. I personally give them the benefit of the doubt here. I believe their intentions were good. Their reasoning may have been that since drunkenness was condemned by God then if you abstain from alcohol totally then there is no chance of ever becoming drunk. The result, however, is that instead of learning the biblical principle of moderation the church adopted the acetic principle of abstention. I read somewere that alcoholism statistics amongst people from alcohol drinking culture, like the Jews, French, Italians etc. is much lower than from cultures that condemn alcohol consumption (most of Protestant America). If we had a balenced view of alcohol and if we had been brought up in a culture that accepted alcohol consumption but still condemned drunkenness, we probably would have no problem with using wine for the Lord's supper. Alcoholics Anonymous has changed the biblical sin of drunkenness into a disease that is 'caught' from that evil alcohol. The man who first described alcoholism, Jelineck, said that alcoholism resulted from at least 14 years of alcohol ABUSE. Alcoholics are not born according to this evidence. They work very hard to get where they are. Let's go back to Bible definitions. My father in law is not an alcoholic -- he is a drunkard. Somehow being called an alcoholic has lost the stigma that being called a drunkard had. So we dilute the word of God. In His Service Tim Sheasby |
||||||
20 | What is 'the fruit of the vine'? | Matt 26:29 | Tim Sheasby | 34641 | ||
Hi Tim. Sorry about my reflection on American culture. Since we in South Africa generally only meet American missionaries we sometimes get a distorted view of American cultural standards. Since our previous discussion I have been on leave and I took that time to do further research into alcohol and specifically the Lord's Supper. In terms of the usage of the phrase "the fruit of the vine" I found Jewish references in the Mishna and Talmud that defined this phrase to mean wine either mixed with water or not. I found references to "mustum" being preserved by sealing in a jar and dropping down a well but further research showed that the same term in latin (mustum) was used in connection with an obviously intoxicating drink. I also checked up on the research done by Jim McGuiggan in his book 'The Bible, the saint and the liquor industry' and was apalled to discover some very bad exegesis when it comes to wine in the Bible. He proposes a 2 wine view and tries to say that whenever wine is spoken well of in Scripture it is grape juice and whenever it is condemned it is wine. Without going into an argument about alcohol per se, I am concerned about the actual meaning of the term "the fruit of the vine". When I first heard the claim that it was wine only (about 20 years ago) I rejected that claim but did no further study into the matter. However, when I decided to actually investigate this for myself I found that this might actually be the correct interpretation. The more I investigated the more convinced I became to the point that I am now convicted that we should be using wine for the Lord's Supper. Because of that I have got into trouble with my local congregation because I want to be able to take wine for the Lord's Supper as I believe Jesus commanded us. My strongest oponent tried to discredit my exegesis by asking people to study a book written by one of the prominent American missionaries in our area. Several of the members who read that book and then read my exegesis came and said that according to the rules of exegesis they had no doubt that we should be using wine. Since that has happened the man has now attacked the very book he recommended. I find this an alarming sign of insincerity. I am still searching for any evidence that the phrase was used generically in Jesus time. If I can find such a reference then I will no longer have a problem using grape juice instead. This is a matter of definition of terms rather than a defence of use of alcohol against abstinence. With regard to your question '... at what point does one cross the line' I think this is a very personal thing. As a minister or pastor it is probably very difficult to instill a concept of acceptable or unacceptable consumption. This is where cultural norms have an important influence. If I teach my children about responsible drinking in my home they learn from my example. I have "alcoholic" or drunkard in-laws so this problem is VERY close to home. If I drink at all, I have a very strict personal limit and I try always to eat while I drink. I find wine enhances a meal and relaxes me but I hate feeling any loss of control or dizziness. For that reason I never drink more than 1 or 2 glasses at a time and actually only drink 1 or 2 times a month. If I had to advise anyone I would let them know that drunkenness is a sin and let them determine for themselves where that point is. I would also recommend they stop well before that point if possible. I do know the difference between someone who has drunk moderately and someone who is drunk -- from personal observation. Oops, went further than I intended! :-) In His Service Tim Sheasby |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |