Once again, Michael
Let's not lose sight of what we are talking about here.

In <>, 
(Michael Kennedy) wrote:

> RF uses unleavened bread for Communion, as Jesus and the
>apostles did.
>It is the "fruit of the vine" only, which is under question. 

Well, that is news to me.
I know that most Protestant churches use leavened bread, and I assumed
you did as well, so I've learnt something out of this discussion.
Do you use the flat "Lebanese" style, or the dry stuff that looks and
tastes like a biscuit? I don't imagine you use wafers.

>>Firstly, maybe I should have made it clear that I meant "*oinos* is
>>never used to mean anything except fermented wine _in the new
>>testament_. 

>That "is" different to what you said before, but irrelevant.

Sorry, but usually whenever I bring any reference from outside the
scriptures in these discussions, I get the response "but it is only
the scriptural definition that matters".

>If "oinos" is used to describe grape juice as well as fermented wine,
>then NT uses of "oinos" are not as straight forward as you make out.

OK. I will concede that.
I assume that you will also concede that *bapto* and related words are
used to mean "wash" without the implication of immersion, and to mean
"baptise" ie. the ritual, outside the NT, so if we can look at *oinos*
in this way we can do the same with *bapto*.

>>Secondly, *Tirosh* is the less common word for "wine" in Hebrew, but
>>it stil means "wine". According to the Interpreter's Dictionary of the
>>Bible, *Tirosh* is occasionally rendered 'new wine' (with the
>>implication of 'grape juice'), but the usual translation is wine.
>>"Nevertheless, the drink was always intoxicating; it 'takes away the
>>understanding' (Hosea 4:11)." (IDB, s.v. "Wine".)
>So "Tirosh" can mean grape juice, and that word is STILL translated as
>"oinos" in greek. To me that makes "oinos" a generic grape drink term.

No, it makes it a word that means "wine", and is rarely used to mean
"grape juice".
In exactly the same way as *bapto* means "wash" with the implication
of immersion, and is rarely used to means "wash" by other means and/or
in a ritual way.

>>The Hebrew lexicon gives "Wine" as the definition of *tirosh*, and the
>>Greek lexicon gives "wine" as the definition of *oinos*. I am sure you
>>can find a few examples of *oinos* meaning grape juice, just as I can
>>find a few examples of *bapto* meaning 'wash', and not necessarily
>>'immerse', but the fact remains that the usual meaning of the word
>>*oinos* in NT Greek is "wine", which by definition is fermented, so it
>>is extremely unlikely from the linguistic evidence that Jesus used
>>anything other than wine at the last supper.

>There is a great tide of evidence against you here Nigel.

>In Hebrew the general term for wine is "yayin", this is translated in
>greek as "oinos" too. But agian, "yayin" can mean either fermented or
>unfermented wine. Again we find "oinos" being a generic term for any
>type of wine (fermented or unfermented).

The words *oinos* in Greek and *yayin* in Hebrew mean exactly the same
as the word "wine* in English. All three are occasionally used for
"grape juice", but the most common useage is "fermented, alcoholic
wine".

>I have another reference for "oinos" being a term for unfermented wine
>as well.

>Aristotle - Meteorologica (388).
>He refers to a sweet grape beverage "glukus" which though called wine
>"oinos", it does not have the effect of wine, for it does taste like
>wine, but doesn't intoxicate like wine.

Michael,
since you have access to all these quotations, why don't you look up
*bapto* and related words.
I have said that I have no particular problem with using non-
alcoholic wine for communion, although I think it most likely that
Jesus used alcoholic wine, because that is the most common meaning for
the words used in the NT (including "fruit of the vine" and "the cup"
in the context of a passover meal). 
What I am challenging you to do here is to realise that the evidence
for Baptism by immersion is just about as strong as the evidence for
communion with alcoholic wine. If we tackle the words at face value,
with their most common meanings, then that is what we would do.
You can find obscure references for the use of non- alcoholic wine at
passover, and the use of "wine" as a euphemism for grape juice, just
as I can find obscure references to rites and activities described as
*baptidzo* that involved sprinkling or pouring. We are on even ground
here. The only difference between us is that you say that what I do is
wrong.

>How about "The Halakot Gedalot" which is the earliest Jewish
>compendium of the Talmud.
>It says - "One may press out a cluster of grapes and pronounce the
>Kiddish over the juice, since the juice of grapes is considered wine
>"yayin" in connection with the laws of the Nazirite."

This is an interesting reference, but it does not prove that it was
the norm.

>>And remember Jesus' words. No-one who has drunk aged wine will
>>voluntarily drink grape juice.

I notice that you snipped the reference to the words of Jesus here.
You and Chris Graus have used the expression 'decayed grape juice' to
describe alcoholic wine.
I am sure that most wine drinkers would agree with Jesus' words in 
(Luke 5:39 NRSV)  ...no one after drinking old wine desires new wine,
but says, 'The old is good.'"


>You have not shown that it is "normal" in the Bible for "oinos" to
>mean fermented wine. All we have is examples that it can mean either
>fermented or unfermented grape juice.
>Just always repeating the claim doesn't make it true.

Exactly the same thing is true of Baptism. You have not shown that it
is "normal" in the Bible for *bapto* and related words to mean
immersion. All we have is examples that it can mean immerse, or wash,
or ritually cleanse. 
Just repeating the claim that Baptism must always be by immersion does
not make it true.

We cannot know for certain how much water John the Baptist, Jesus and
the NT Church used in baptism. From the simple, common meaning of the
words, it is likely that most, if not all of the Baptisms were by
immersion. On the other hand, there are enough references in the Bible
and elsewhere to suggest that it is at least possible that the rite of
"baptism" as commended by Jesus was a ritual act, and the amount of
water does not matter at all.

We cannot know for certain what was in the cup when Jesus said "take
and drink... do this in memory of me". From the usual Jewish practise
and the common meaning of the words, it is likely that it was
alcoholic wine. On the other hand, there are enough references in the
Bible and elsewhere to suggest that it is at least possible that Jesus
neither drank wine nor allowed his disciples to do so, and so would
have used non- alcoholic wine.

We have no certainty in either case. What we do know, from the
recorded teaching of Jesus, is that the intention of a person's heart
is much more important to Him than the outward form of our devotions.
A person who intends to do what Jesus commanded, and does not use the
same amount of water as he did, or who fills the cup of Communion with
a different kind of drink to what he did, or even who uses a different
kind of bread to what he did, is following his commands nonetheless.

I suspect that you do not agree, Michael, and that the amount of water
will continue to be an issue for you. I do hope that this discussion
has at least made you stop and think about your views, and can I end
with a word of scripture:

(1 Tim 5:21-6:8 NRSV)  In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and
of the elect angels, I warn you to keep these instructions without
prejudice, doing nothing on the basis of partiality. Do not ordain
anyone hastily, and do not participate in the sins of others; keep
yourself pure. No longer drink only water, but take a little wine for
the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments. The sins of some
people are conspicuous and precede them to judgment, while the sins of
others follow them there. So also good works are conspicuous; and even
when they are not, they cannot remain hidden. Let all who are under
the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honour, so
that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who
have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground
that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all
the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and
beloved. Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and
does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the
teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited,
understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and
for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander,
base suspicions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind
and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.
Of course, there is great gain in godliness combined with contentment;
for we brought nothing into the world, so that we can take nothing out
of it; but if we have food and clothing, we will be content with
these.

Be content, and at peace with God.

Nigel B. Mitchell