Written by Administrator
Wednesday, 29 April 2009 08:27
Did Jesus Eat Fish?
There is only one passage in the whole of the New Testament where it is explicitly and specifically said that Jesus actually ate meat. If this text is true and genuine and in fact inspired by the Holy Spirit, then it would follow that Jesus was not and could not have been a vegetarian. But if on the other hand it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that this passage in Luke 24 is actually a forgery, then it follows that Jesus must have been a vegetarian, since a lying hand felt a need to insert a lying passage in order to portray Jesus as a carnivorous being. Let us therefore take a close look at this passage of Luke and see whether you can really believe it. Here is the text of Luke 24:41-43 which explicitly says that Jesus asked for food and that he actually ate FISH and HONEY which the disciples gave him:
“He [Jesus] said to them: Do you have any food? And they gave him a piece of BROILED FISH and some HONEY. And HE TOOK IT AND ATE IT in front of them.”
This is the only passage in the entire New Testament where we are told that Jesus in fact ATE MEAT. Those who believe in every word of the Bible but who also practice vegetarianism [like the Reformed Adventists for example] explain that Jesus only ate of the HONEY but not of the FISH. They argue that FISH and HONEY should not be combined and that if Jesus ate both together he would have been sick. The problem with this theory is that there are Greek manuscripts that omit honey. This fact is also reflected in the English translations - where most translators mention FISH only and exclude the honey. [See for example: The Bible for Today, The Moffat Bible, The New American Bible for Catholics, The Jerusalem Bible, The New English Bible, The Living Bible, The New American Standard Bible, New International Version, Good News Bible, Jewish New Testament, Rotherham Emphasized Bible, The Interlinear Greek English New Testament by Marshall, etc.,]. All these translators omit HONEY since these scholars regard these manuscripts as more important. Therefore it follows that according to most English versions of Luke, the disciples handed FISH to Jesus and he ATE IT while they watched. If this passage is authentic and inspired then no words could justify vegetarianism - unless of course we reject the authority of Jesus and say that he was an impostor. I however, firmly believe that Jesus was not an impostor but rather a promised Prophet and the Messiah - the very Son of God. How then do I explain the passage in question where it is said that the Son of God - as a resurrected and immortal being - actually ATE MEAT? The passage is very simple to explain. It is a FORGERY.
Luke says that Jesus appeared to two disciples who were on their way to Emmaus. One of them was named Clopas. He was invited to their place late on Sunday afternoon. When he broke bread before meal, the two disciples realised that it was Jesus. As soon as they realised this they immediately returned to Jerusalem which was about 10 kilometres from Emmaus.
“And they rose that very hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the ELEVEN gathered together, and those who were with them, Saying, Truly our Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon. And they [two disciples] also reported those things that happened on the road, and how they knew him as he broke bread. And while they were discussing these things, Jesus stood among them, and said to them, Peace be with you...and as they still did not believe because of their joy, and they were bewildered, he said to them, Have you anything here to eat? They gave him a portion of BROILED FISH and of a honeycomb. And HE TOOK IT AND ATE BEFORE THEIR EYES” [Luke 24:33-43 KJV].
Luke therefore clearly places Jesus’ first appearance to his disciples on Sunday evening AT JERUSALEM. He says that ALL ELEVEN WERE PRESENT - even though John, who also says that Jesus appeared to his disciples at evening on the “first day of the week” actually says that Thomas was missing.
Matthew and Mark however clearly show that Jesus was not in Jerusalem on Sunday evening but was rather in Galilee and therefore he could not have appeared to his disciples in Jerusalem that Sunday evening and he could not have been eating fish that evening. On the night of his arrest, Jesus dsid:
“But after I’m raised to life, I’ll go ahead of you to GALILEE” [Mark 14:28].
The angel said to the women at the tomb:
“Now go and tell his disciples, and especially Peter, that he will go ahead of you to GALILEE. YOU WILL SEE HIM THERE, JUST AS HE TOLD YOU” [Mark 16:7].
According to the testimony of Mark, Jesus clearly told his disciples that after he is risen from the dead he would go to GALILEE and that is where the disciples were going to see him. Matthew 26:32 also quotes Jesus as telling his disciples that after he is risen from the dead he would go ahead of them to GALILEE:
“But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.”
Matthew quotes the angel as saying to the women:
“...Now hurry! Tell his disciples that he has been raised to life and is on his way to GALILEE. Go there, and you will see him” [Matthew 28:7].
Jesus himself appeared to the women and said:
“Don’t be afraid! Tell my followers to go to GALILEE. They’ll see me there” [Matthew 28:10].
Then in Matthew 28:16 we read the following:
“Jesus’ ELEVEN DISCIPLES went to a mountain in GALILEE, where Jesus had told them to meet him.”
According to Matthew, the ELEVEN APOSTLES went to GALILEE to a mountain Jesus specified. There, IN GALILEE, the disciples saw Jesus for the first time after his resurrection. The account of Luke therefore cannot be reconciled with the text of Mark and especially that of Matthew. Therefore the text of Luke so often cited as proof that Jesus was a meat eater and therefore not a vegetarian - as many sources prove - is a forgery. God said that no testimony can be accepted against someone without at least two witnesses. Luke is the only witness who testifies against Mark and Mathew and therefore his testimony cannot be accepted. I have two witnesses, Mark and Matthew who plainly testify that Jesus was not in Jerusalem at the time and in the place where Luke says he ate fish and therefore on the basis of God’s Law the passage of Luke 24 must be rejected. This passage which is so often referred to by those who are opposed to vegetarianism does not prove that Jesus was a carnivorous being. For an in depth study of the problem between the gospels, please read my article entitled Synoptic Problem and the Gospel of John.
Last Updated on Sunday, 14 August 2011 02:08