Text Size
   
Sep 30
Tuesday
English Croatian Serbian Slovak Slovenian

Did God Allow Noah To Eat Meat?

The passage of Genesis 9:2-4 was the subject of great debate and controversy. After years of study and research and virtually leaving no stone unturned on the subject, to date I have not read a commentary on the passage which is worthy of a serious consideration. Generally it is argued that here we have the first biblical passage where God explicitly told Noah that he may kill any animal he wanted to in order to eat its flesh. Even vegetarians who abhor meat eating and who practice vegetarianism on ethical grounds admit that here we are faced with a biblical text which clearly sanctions the killing of animals and eating of their flesh. All they can say is that due to the fallen and corrupt nature of humanity God gave a “concession” concerning meat diet but it was not His ideal as in Genesis 1:30 where God ideally prescribed a completely vegetarian diet. But nothing can be further from the truth.
 

Main Menu

Who's Online

We have 16 guests online

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.

Did Jesus Eat Fish PDF Print E-mail
Written by Administrator   
Wednesday, 29 April 2009 08:27

 

   

For the past twenty years I have abstained from all kinds of meat. I maintain that it is unethical and against the perfect will of the Supreme Deity to butcher and slaughter animals in order to eat their  flesh. In this article I will not deal with the sacrificial cult and the passages of the Hebrew bible which deal with the slaughter of animals, since I have written several articles on the subject. In this paper I will focus on Jesus so that we can see whether he actually ate fish - as commonly supposed. As late as yesterday, there was a debate on the subject - and as usually a certain Christian believer referred to Luke 5 in order to prove that Jesus helped fishermen catch fish and if this is so then he could not have opposed the eating of the same. The person also referred to the feeding of the 5000 with bread and fish. Others also quote Luke 24:41-43 to prove that Jesus ate fish and honey in Jerusalem, in the evening - the very day of his resurrection - in the presence of the Eleven during his first appearance to them. Others point to John 21 where we are told that after his resurrection Jesus helped his disciples catch fish, cook them and serve them as breakfast. It is also pointed that Jesus had to eat meat since he observed the Passover and hence was obligated to eat the lamb. I will not comment regarding the Passover lamb in this paper since I have written an article 'Proof Jesus Did Not Eat The Passover Lamb' and the reader can refer to it for details.

I do not refute the fact that in these passages of the Christian New Testament it is plainly shown that Jesus did indeed regard fish as acceptable for food and that he himself consumed their flesh. But I maintain that there is a satisfactory biblical explanation for these passages and when properly understood it follows that Jesus actually was a vegetarian. Here is the first passage, that of Luke 5:1-11:

"One day as Jesus was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret, the people were crowding around him and listening to the word of God. He saw at the water’s edge two boats, left there by the fishermen, who were washing their nets. He got into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, and asked him to put out a little from shore. Then he sat down and taught the people from the boat. When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, “Put out into deep water, and let down the nets for a catch.” Simon answered, “Master, we’ve worked hard all night and haven’t caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the nets.” When they had done so, they caught such a large number of fish that their nets began to break. So they signalled their partners in the other boat to come and help them, and they came and filled both boats so full that they began to sink. When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus’ knees and said, “Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!” For he and all his companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had taken, 10 and so were James and John, the sons of Zebedee, Simon’s partners. Then Jesus said to Simon, “Don’t be afraid; from now on you will fish for people.” 11 So they pulled their boats up on shore, left everything and followed him.

It is of colossal importance to determine just at what point of Jesus' ministry this incident supposedly took place. According to Luke's version, prior to this incident Peter, Andrew, John and James were not as yet the disciples of Jesus. However, by this point of time Jesus was already known throughout Galilee and his miracles and fame spread throughout. As a matter of fact, according to Luke's version, Jesus knew Peter before this incident for he was in his home and actually healed his mother in law who was sick [Luke 4:38-39]. At that time Peter was not as yet Jesus' disciple. If the version we find in Luke's gospel which is a forgery - in accordance with the synoptic principle - was the only version we have concerning the choosing of Peter, Andrew, John and James, then my task to prove that Jesus was a vegetarian would be significantly more difficult. But we also have the versions of Mark and Matthew and on the basis of  their versions I have no choice but discard the version given in Luke's gospel. Please note what Mark 1:14-20 has to say about the calling of the first four disciples - the fishermen - Peter, Andrew, John and James:

"14 After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15 "The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!" 16 As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. 17 "Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men." 18 At once they left their nets and followed him. 19 When he had gone a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John in a boat, preparing their nets. 20 Without delay he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him."

According to Mark, Jesus chose Peter and Andrew independently of John and James and at the very beginning of his ministry. Peter and Andrew were casting their nets into the sea and not washing them as Luke's version has it. Jesus did not preach from the boat at this point of time - as Luke's version has it - but actually later. After calling Peter and Andrew he then went on and saw John and James mending their nets with their father. He called them and they became his followers. Luke's version which insinuates that Jesus helped Peter and his fishing partners catch lots of fish is a synoptic forgery. In order to understand the synoptic problem and it's principle please read my article 'The Problem of the Synoptic Gospels.' In Matthew 4:18-22 we read the following of the same incident:

" 18 As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. 19 "Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men." 20 At once they left their nets and followed him. 21 Going on from there, he saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee and his brother John. They were in a boat with their father Zebedee, preparing their nets. Jesus called them, 22 and immediately they left the boat and their father and followed him."

The versions of Mark and Matthew nullify the version in Luke's gospel and therefore on the basis of these testimonies I can safely conclude that Jesus did not disturb the fishes of the sea nor did he catch them for human consumption. Now we can look at 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 specifically   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 the promised Prophet - promised by Moses who was to come. 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 also a synoptic 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 in the afternoon on the day of his resurrection.  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. Please note:

“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].

Luke therefore clearly places Jesus’ first appearance to his disciples at evening AT JERUSALEM, on the day he arose from the dead. 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 that evening and that his first appearance to his disciples was not that evening nor even in Jerusalem but rather later in Galilee. On the night of his arrest, Jesus said to his disciples:

“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 synoptic forgery. Now we can take a look at John 21.

Most critical and independent scholars believe that John's gospel ended with chapter 20 and that this chapter is a later addition or interpolation. Be it as it may, whether interpolation or part of the original Greek version, it does not prove what is claimed here. We are told that Peter with some other disciples decided to go fishing. This was after Jesus rose from the dead and after he supposedly already appeared to them two times. They fished all night but caught nothing. At sunrise Jesus allegedly appeared to them and told them to cast a net on the right hand side of the boat. When they did they caught a multitude - 153 fish, to be exact. As they came to the shore they saw a charcoal fire lighted with fish on it. He told them to bring some of the fish they caught. Then in verse 13 we are told that Jesus gave the disciples bread and fish to eat. Verse 14 states that this was the very THIRD appearance of Jesus to his disciples since his resurrection.

This very verse proves that the passage in question is a forgery and not a historical event. According to the gospel of John, Jesus' first appearance to his disciples was at evening on the first day of the week - the very day of his resurrection. In this respect John's gospel agrees with Luke although it says that Thomas wasn't present that evening while Luke's version has all ELEVEN present - including Thomas. John 20:19 confirms the first appearance. Then in verses 26-27 we are told  that a week later Jesus again appeared to his disciples and that this time Thomas was present. This was the second appearance. The third was allegedly the time he served bread and fish to his disciples as we have seen.

It was already pointed out that Jesus did not appear to his disciples at evening on the day he rose from the dead but rather later in Galilee. This is an irrefutable teaching of Mark's and Matthew's gospels. Since John's gospel is wrong about the first and second appearances, it must also be wrong about the third appearance. In Mark 16:9-19 - the additional verses - we also read of THREE appearances.

"Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told that that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not then which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God."

The first appearance was to Mary Magdalene. The second to two disciples on the road to Emaus. The third to the ELEVEN. The third appearance was the FIRST and LAST appearance to the ELEVEN. Therefore John 21 contradicts Mark and Matthew. In John 21 Jesus supposedly appointed Peter a shepherd over other disciples. But the Book of Acts disproves this and shows that James the Just - the brother of Jesus - was in charge of the Twelve. Now we are ready to deal with the issue of feeding the multitudes with loaves and fishes.

 In the Gospel of the Holy Twelve which is said to have been translated by Rev. GJ Ousely we are told that the crowd was fed by bread and clusters of grapes. The problem is that it cannot be proven nor disproven that this gospel was not forged by Ousely. Some scholars believe that fish was not served but rather FISHWEEDS. Church Father Irenaeus does not mention fish when he quotes the feeding of the 5000 or 4000 but only bread. This could suggest that the inclusion of fish is a later interpolation. Indeed, according to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus commanded his disciples to collect only bread in baskets and not fish. Later when he referred to the feeding of the 5000 and 4000 he always mentioned only the baskets of bread and never any baskets of fish. This, again, indicates that inclusion of fish could have been later interpolation. It is also worthy of note that the people were with Jesus two days before he fed them. It was spring - since they sat on the green grass. The young boy had two fish with him which he obviously took from home fried or cooked. Would the fish have been suitable to eat at least two days later? However, I have no problem at all if the story is true and if Jesus indeed multiplied the fish and if he served them to the hungry crowd. Jesus did not catch these fish nor did he kill them. They were already dead. He simply multiplied the dead fish. Having said that, I doubt very much that either grapes or fish were involved. I believe that Jesus multiplied only the loaves of bread. Be it as it may, this does not prove that Jesus condoned the butchery of animals and the eating of animal flesh. In some parables Jesus spoke of the feasts where animals were killed and meat served. But he spoke to the people who practiced this and obviously it was logical to use the manner of speech they could relate to. I, myself, sometimes do the same even though I am vegan, usually for convenience sake. At no time does this speech prove that I condone the practice I may use for an example. The same is true of Jesus. In the parable of the Prodigal Son the father commanded his servants to kill a fattened calf. The father represented God. Obviously God does not butcher animals in His realm. Jesus used the speech that related to the meat eating people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments (52)Add Comment
0
Jesus ate fish.
written by DM, April 29, 2011
Dear I thank you for your information.

But I would like to remind you that Jesus is Christ the son of God.
It would have been a forgery,if this had happened before resurrection.Since this happened after resurrection,HE is Omniscient.He is able to appear any place in heaven or on earth at same time.
He ate fish,to show His disciples that He was real,risen and He was not a ghost.

Thank you again for your word.


DM
0
Jesus never taught to eat meat
written by Mike, June 18, 2011
Great article and well presented. It is to the astute, common knowledge that the Bible has many contradictions and forgeries that periodically were added to confirm man made doctrines. All origonal writings were lost in the Alexandrian Library fire in Egypt back in the 4th century, but not before the Catholic Church translated the original Koine Greek into Latin. So many scholars admit this situation allowed the Latin to take on new meaning to suit Catholic doctrine descended from Mithra and Christianity. Its a long story, but well worth the research. To get the truth about Jesus, one needs to read original exerts, and these can be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hamai Library that clearly show that Jesus was indeed an astute Vegetarian and taught this as well. If in doubt, think of how Divorce was allowed by Moses because of complaining Jews, but Jesus said that was not the way in the beginning. So it is with eating meat, before the great flood Gods people only ate grown food from the ground.
0
Edit
written by Mike, June 18, 2011
I forgot to add.... many believe it was a man from within the early RCC that set the Library alight on purpose to remove all evidence of the original manuscripts. History also tells us that they also destroyed all evidence of other original writings found outside the library and made orders for all such to be destroyed. Some were even killed for want of keeping copies of the originals.
0
...
written by john vujicic, June 18, 2011
I agree with you Mike.
0
Meat eater
written by John Medwin, June 24, 2011
Well if Jesus did not eat Lamb, then he sinned and broke God's commandments. Sorry, but Jesus was a carnivore!
0
Be wary...
written by Monster, June 28, 2011
Jesus, at two separate occasions, used fish to feed a large multitude. If He was against eating meat, do you really think he would have fed thousands upon thousands meat? Do you think those passages are forgeries too? Do you not think if it was really important to not eat meat, Jesus would clearly make it known? And yet instead He clearly serves meat to thousands. Further, it is written in more than one Gospel that He said "it is not what goes in a man's mouth that defiles him, but what comes out that defiles him". Paul, an apostle of the risen Christ, declared as much when he specifically stated that eating meat or not is an individual decision. As Paul said, those who feel they cannot eat meat have a weak conscience. It's not for us to judge our brother in this respect, but neither is it proper for our brother to judge us in this respect. Further, the apostles in Acts decided that one should not partake of blood, or meat sacrificed to idols, or of strangled animals. They did not forbid meat.

Take heed: Paul says in 1 Timothy 1-5 that those who teach abstaining from certain foods are hypocritical liars, believing lies taught by demons.

Christians are no longer under carnal law, they are under spiritual law. This thing that you teach is against what the Messiah and His apostles taught. You are spreading lies and are a false teacher, and a Judaizer, the kind of person the apostles warned us against. Repent and remove this site of lies from the Web. It's fine if you personally want to abstain from meat, but to teach others, as it is written, is evil doctrine. How dare you cause your brother to stumble!
0
...
written by john vujicic, June 30, 2011
How can you brand me a Judaizer when I claim that the Jews were not a chosen people and that even Jesus was not Jewish??? You have not read my articles but condemn me. That's OK.You trust in the bible which was corrupted and whichj is not even necessary for salvation. Jesus said "in the beginning it was not so?" And in the beginning there was no bible and Abes, Enoch, Noach and many others lived before the bible existed and were right with God. God's Law - and the Law of Preservation - which includes vegetarianis is written in our hearts and in Nature but you do not wish to accept it trusting Paul, the false apostle and perverted scriptures. If Jessu really said that nothing defiles what enters our mouth why didn't Paul refer to it when he dealt with those who would not eat meat? Why were there brothers in Rome, Corinth and Collosae who refused to eat meat and drink wine in the first place if Jesus and the Twelve were meat eaters and wine drinkers? It is obvious to me that you are unaware of many historical facts and only rely on what is written in the bible. Apostle Peter said in Clementine Homilies that though something may be written thousand times in the bile he would not believe it if it contradicts the nature of the True God. There are so many appaling things in the bible credited to the true God that I could never acdept. If I did accept them then I would have no choice but say that God is a monster. But I know that El Elyon is a God of justice and ethics and not bloodshed. No, I will not remove my articles from the Net even though most would condemn me for my beliefs. It is interesting how you guys always come with the same stuff: demons speak through those who would not slash the throat of an innocent animal. But I ask you: who speaks through you and those who are willing to murder animals and subject them to terror and suffering??? God, Jesus and the Twelve??? Not as far as I am concerned because such acts a re cruel and EVIL!!!
WOW, Low-rated comment [Show]
0
...
written by john V., August 08, 2011
Thanyou Nick. The Holy Spirit surely spoke through you and through me the demonic cohorts. Nothing new under the sun. Jesus was charged of being demon possessed and the prophets were butchered and murdered. You would crucify me too if you had the power to do so. But I forgive you and do not hate you because I know that you do not realise the weight of your words.
0
...
written by Guest, October 15, 2011
Even if being a vegetarian/vegan was against Christianity, it does not mean that you should support the wrongs of the current meat industry.
0
administrator
written by john vujicic, October 15, 2011
Absolutely correct. The modern meat industry is a living hell for the innocent creatures of God.
0
Did Jesus Eat Fish?
written by M Brown, October 24, 2011
To the author of this thread, please note that if you believe Yahshua kept His Father's commandments, He was obligated to eat "LAMB" every Passover to fulfill the ordinance given to Israel. To say he did not eat lamb is alledging that He was not obedient to His Father's law, and therefore He was a sinner.

Why is it even an issue regarding whether or not he ate meat?

Would He give fish to others, at least on 3 different occasions if He did not want us to eat meat?

Why didn't he just give loaves of bread and lentils to the multiple thousands he fed twice?

No the example we clearly have is that He must have eaten lamb every Passover, and when He ate with a variety of people, or when He is in charge of a meal, He made sure FISH was there to be given to those followers of His.

Therefore eating fish and lamb are two types of flesh that Jesus/Yahshua did eat.
0
...
written by johnvuj, October 24, 2011
You obviously did not read my article 'biblical vegetarianism'nor'the problem of the canonical gospels,' otherwise you would not say what you did. According to the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke Jesus never went to Jerusalem during his entire ministry except at the very end several days before his death. Thus according to these gospels he did not observe the passover nor other festivals becasuse he never was in Jerusalem during his ministry. John gives different version but that is beside the point. John also shows that the last meal was not the passover meal nor was it the passover night. The gospels are unreliable and they were changed. Originally there was only one gospel. If Jesus was obligated to eat the lamb in order not to breat the alleged command of God concerning the passover then John the Baptist was also obligated to eat the lamb and observe the festivals in Jerusalem. Yet John spent all his life in the desert and never went to the temple or Jerusalem for the passover. Besides, Josephus, the Jewish historian and the contemporary of the apostles wrote in the slavonian version that John the Baptist was a strict vegetarian and that he specifically refused to eat the passover lamb. James, the brother of Jesus, according to you should be regarded a sinner because he too did not eat the lamb since even the church fathers agree and the church in general that he was a vegetarian from his mothers womb and that he never tasted flesh. The gospels are so unrelaible that it is difficult to ascertain just about anything that happened in the life of Jesus. Just read my article'the problem of the canonical gospels' and then tell me that I am wrong. If Jesus ate the passover lamb then you can be sure that he would not have changed the emblems nor would he have given breadand cupt instead of the lamb since according to the church the lamb was the perfect symbol of Jesus. The flesh would have represented his body and the blood his blood. Read some of my articles which deal with sacrifice and the problems of the canonical bible and you will see how it was currupted and chnaged.
0
Did jesus eat Fish
written by Carolyn, November 29, 2011
For me its not important to figure out if Jesus ate meat when he was on earth. I believe he wouldnt eat it now because of factory farming and the cruelty that takes place. And in new Jerulsalem his perfect kingdom we will all be vegans.
0
...
written by administrator/John, November 30, 2011
I agree with you in principle. Even if God originally allowed people to eat meat - which He didn't - it would be wrong to eat meat from animals slaughtered in modern slaughterhouses. Billions of animals are cruelly butchered and transported and only demons inspired nations could treat animals like that.
0
...
written by Heather, December 06, 2011
Well I was searching the web for verses in the bible where Jesus ate meat.I came along this post, and wow I am amazed at how people who call themselves Christians tear one another apart over, what the bible would call idle babblings.
1.1 Timothy 6:20
[ Guard the Faith ] O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge—
I am sure that once we accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior and become born again nothing then we have the assurance of heaven.Isn't that what is important.For the administrator of this post,it seems to me you do not believe in the bible.I am sad for this because we know that it is written by man's hand but God breathed and inspired.We know that it is Gods guidelines for us and it is a comfort.It is a place we go to read of God's love and plans for our life.If you don't believe in the inerrant word of God and you are basing your trust in man made and inspired historical documents, you are allowing yourself to be deceived by the enemy. You've allowed yourself to get so caught up in legalism and you are not spreading truth and love. I am sure that in your heart and mind everything you are spreading is truth.I just pray that you pray and seek the Lord before writing anything else that may lead another to stumble. God loves you, meat eater or not and that is what is important. Remember as believers in Jesus Christ, we still live in a sinful flesh, but we have the hope of eternal glory.We have salvation.If you are telling me that the bible is wrong then how do I know that Jesus did any of the things the bible says, how do I know that Jesus wasn't a big meat eater and a drunk, or a lunatic. How do I know that He died on the cross and rose again. How do I know that I can be forgiven of my sins and washed clean. How do I know that He is coming again, or that Heaven is even real.If the bible is not true and if it is filled with misinterpretations, false doctrines, or lies, then everything I believe must be a lie and I must not really have salvation, and Jesus must not be who He said He is. You see I live by faith, and I believe the bible is the inerrant word of God,I believe Jesus gave His life for me so that I can be forgiven and that He rose again and is coming back. If I didn't have the word of God (which I reference to everyday) I would be confused and I would be leading a life that would be in vain.So while I know this was a post on whether Jesus was a meat eater or not I think that a bigger issue is the fact that you do not believe God's word is true, and in that you can not believe any of the bible.SO with that being said does it really matter if Jesus was a meat eater because the bigger question would be do you really think He is who He says He is if you don't believe His Holy word.

0
...
written by administrator/john, December 06, 2011
Heather, I understand your point of view. But you don't understand mine becasue you have not read my articles concerning the bible. I do believe the bible to be God's Word but what you don't realise is the fact that God Himself shows that there are bad and evil laws and commands in the bible which we must not do. There is good and evil nature just like there are good and evil scriptures. But God is in control of all. Ezeliel 20 shows that God gave the Israelites some evil and bad laws in order to bring them to their senses. Read it for yourself. Because they rejected God's Law which gave life He gave them laws which were evil and bad and which could not impart life. Yes, God even told them to sacrifice their children so that they would realise the hooror of their evil ways. Read it for yourself and then tell me that I have made it up. In Jeremiah 8:8 God says that there are things in the Mosaic Law which were written by the lying pen of the scribes. It is not hard to tell the true sayings from the false in the bible. Jesus summarised it in one sentence: "Do unto others what you want others to do to you." Just read my article "The Cosmic Law of Right and Wrong" and you will see that there is a way to tell good scriptures from evil. Scriptures which condone slavery are nullified by other true scruptures which condemn it. Those which ostracise eunuchs and illigitimate children are nullified by those which accept them. Sacrificial cult is nul;lified by those which condemn it. Holy War is nullified by those which condemn it. Polygamy is nullified by those which prohibit it etc. Evil nature exists so we can tell right from wrong and so that we can be rational beings and choose right from wrong and become God's children. Evil scriptures are given so that it could be manifested who would dare believe things written against the good God - as apostle Peter explains in Clementine Homilies. Jessu himself said that we should be wise bankers so that we could tell false scriptures from the true just as a wise banker can tell true notes from those which are forged. Read those articles which deal with the inspiration of the bible and then you will see that the bible contains truth and falsehood just as God Himself shows.
0
In support of Mike; the lying hands of scribes and the N.T. Fallen Christians?
written by James, January 01, 2012
It is said, "To be carnally minded is death...to be spiritually minded is life." The one mainstream Christian New Testaments refer to as "Iesous Kristos" or "Jesus Christ" as opposed to "YahShua," nick name: "Yeshua" shosrtened familiar name: "Yeshu." It must by now be quite clear to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear whether they be a child of the darkness or a child of the light...the Father of Lights...that the identity of the one the Pharisees, the Saduccees, Orthodox Jews, Reformed Jews, Conservative Jews, Hasidic Jews, secular Jews that reject both Jesus Christ and Yeshua HaMashiach as His contempory Jewish Disciples become Apostles knew him, as Miriam the Magdela, Apostle to the Apostles, who kissed his lips knew Him, who bore His child, Sara (Princess) in France, who lived with her risen husband Yeshua in Europe, who was hunted down by a violent murderous bounty hunter under contract to the Pharisees who once went by Saul of Tarsus, who murdered Yeshua's wife, child princess, and severed the head of Yeshua, which the Knights Templar carried with them in their battles for the Holy Land...lets get back to that "Holy," it should be clearly seen from the Humane Gospel of Peace, The Gospel of The Holy Twelve, The Gospel of Didymos Judas Thomas: the once doubting Thomas...who became St.Thomas in India..and from the unambigous statement made to Yeshua made to the Holy Twelve Disciples, "Do not let flesh meat pass your lips. that being a carniverous serpent-reptile predatory flesh ripping flesh tearing blood splilling incompassionate, indifferent, unmerciful, unjust, child of darkness that refuses to come into the light lest his great sins be exposed...for "to be carnally minded is death to be spiritually minded is life," that you should BE SILENT and HUMBLE Yourselves in the LIGHT of YOUR MASTER whom you say is the one your hope and faith and good works..whom your ritual cleansing, whom your ritual purification fasting, whom your repentance for a great light has shown, for your being born again of spirit which does not mean continuing to live the carnal ways of the world...but that if your are a prodigal child who has long ago left your Father in enmity (hostility)return and he will clense you and give your a clean royal garment to wear...your garment is your skin...your body is spiritual within your outer garment...you a prodigy child of God the one you wish to have the right to be called a child of, certainly would not even think of mixing your your blood and plasma, and biopchemistry with that of any dog, cat, pig, innocent lamb protected by the good shepard instead of slaughtered and consumed. Do you not know that mainstream religous authorities have always loved eating meat and meat vendors/ industries and religious authorities and taxing / regulating authorities have been in collusion and by accusing Yeshua of trumped up charges such as performing miracles on the Sabbath and getting the Roman Authorities to murder Yeshua was because Yeshua his teachings, his Essene-Nazarene VOW--HIs being an Essene Priest in the Line of Melchidezik..."The Prince of Salem /Shalom /Peace" who Abraham tithed to. The Pharisees would say to Yeshua "Shalom," Yeshua would reply, You say peace, but there is no peace in your heart." Pharisees sacrificed lambs at the temple courts hoping that the spilling of the lambs blood would wash away their filthy sin. When you overcome the mainstream new testaments rejection, concealment, and oppression of "The Gospel Of Thomas, The Humane Gospel of Peace, the Essene testimony from Mt. Sinai of the two different sets of commandments Moses distributed...those that accepted God's commandment to not kill any living thing and not consume their flesh, were called by God, children of the light, those that Moses had to plead with God not to reject so they too might become children of God, were called by God, children of darkness. Each one must work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. Paul was not for Yeshua but was hostile to Yeshua's teachings, and rather than teach and desseminate what Yeshua taught he lead gentiles astray but that must have been o.k. because Paulianity appealed to the gentiles as it does still. Still if Yeshua said don't let flesh meat pass your lips to the disciples (studentys) which became his Apostles, this must have been what they taught in comparison to Saul of Tarsus-agent of the Pharisees...who infiltrated the Essene-Nazarene Way because it was in opposition to the carnal ways of the Pharisees.
0
Chances are that Jesus was a Vegetarian
written by Spiritual Learner, April 03, 2012
If we could, for a moment, remove us from all Books of all religions (still believing in God), we will get a broader idea. There are later on interpolations in every single religious book. This is especially true to both Bible and Quran, because the followers of both Prophets had ulterior motives and engaged in power battles - both the caliphs and the unholy union of RCC with Paul. The very essence of Jesus teaching is love and compassion for every living being - this is the very basic foundation of Buddhism as well; in fact every religion in the world, be it Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Sikhism or any other "ism". We all know that early Buddhists were pure vegetaratians, so were early Hindus, Jains and other related sub-religions. If we are willing to buy Russian scholar Nicolas' views of Jesus spending his early life in India and Tibet, the chances are that his eating habits would be have been moulded by the early Hindu and Buddhist practices. In such an event he could have been a practicing vegetarian. I would like to tell my audience that I am neither a vegetarian nor an Advocate of any particular religion - my post is purely based on my judgment of the subject.
0
...
written by Lind, June 21, 2012
Ichabod!smilies/shocked.gif What a mess you are displaying to the whole world. YOU are the deceiver! Like Heather stated above, 1 Tim. 6:20. If you believe the Bible, it sure doesn't show it. You are trying to tear down everyone else's faith in it. Quit striving to "prove" and start believing. You could always find somebody's theses (that word means thesis in plural)to back up yours if you look long enough (the world is full of deceivers), so quit striving to prove you are right and just believe the Bible is God breathed. This is foolish arguments that you are going to lead others astray yourself and be judged for it.

Besides that, why would anyone want to believe your foolish arguments when you can't even spell right? Do you not have a spell-checker? You make yourself out to be an idiot speaking of all this so-called research you do into all these writings when you can't even speak and write with decent English grammar enough to communicate anything other than nonsense. I'm not wasting my time reading your stupid so-called research and I pray no one else does either!!!
0
A New Angle in Support of Vegetarianism
written by Molly, July 08, 2012
We can all go back and forth, arguing about our personal convictions for eternity... and especially considering that most people refuse to admit fault or wrong-doing, staunch carnivores will be damning this page as long as it's up and running. Personally I myself eat meat. However, unlike most people, I admit that this is wrong. I apparently was a better person as a child as in 1994 at 10 years of age I made the big decision to stop eating animal products all-together and stuck with this decision for 9 years.
The point of my "comment" here actually wasn't intended to cover my personal shame of supporting factory farms and carnage in regard to my diet... albeit this is the case, my point is this:

In the animal kingdom, carnivores have intestinal tracts that are three to six times their body length, while herbivores' are ten to twelve times theirs'. Human beings' matches the ratio of the latter.

Carnivores' acid levels in their stomachs are 20 times that of an herbivore's. I'm sure no one is surprised to hear that our own, again, matches that of the plant-eaters.

Carnivore spit is acidic, Herbivore spit is alkaline. We are alkaline.

Carnivore bowels/intestines are smooth, like a pipe so that meat can pass quickly through it. Anyone ever wonder why your dog and/or cat has to take a crap so soon after eating? Yeah... that's probably why. Herbivores have a bumpy (and long) intestinal tract, so that plant matter moves slower in order to absorb its nutrients. On that note, wonder why we get colon cancer, anyone? Ever heard of a big cat or a gray wolf dying of such a cancer in one of those confinement parks we call zoos? I haven't. Wonder why fiber supplement makers' business is and has been booming? All that flesh we ingest that our bodies weren't equipped to process is moving down our colon like rush-hour traffic in Atlanta, taking way too much time chilling in the back alley of our guts, wreaking havoc while it rots... cell damage anyone? I'm no scientist, but I'm observant and I love to learn... to me, all of these things I've learned over the years says that animal flesh is something that nutrients can and should be pulled out of quickly. A lengthy stay-cation in the pipes doesn't bode well for anyone. It wouldn't even be a good idea for the animals no one would argue about being meat-eaters.. hence that hyper-speed number 2ing.

Leads me to my next point. Carnivores don't require fiber at all b/c of the shape and length of their intestines. Herbivores such as horses, cows, elephants, you get the drift, need fiber to keep stuff moving along that long road so it doesn't clog up with rotting food. Rotting food of any kind is a bad idea, but imagine what rotting meat inside the colon of a creature not intended to ever ingest it would do? Nice.

Next... CHOLESTEROL! Carnivores can handle high cholesterol diet with zero health consequences. Our bodies manufacture all of the cholesterol we need as humans, so we have zero dietary need for it, and it's only found in animal foods.

Final point is Claws and Teeth. Carnivores have sharp front teeth, but more importantly (as even some veggie animals have sharp teeth, such as horses with their "wolf" teeth and gorillas with their fangs), they have no flat molars for chewing. Herbivores have no claws or sharp teeth designed for subduing prey. Many herbivores do have small "fang" type teeth. A lot of people use our own little sharp fang teeth as some kind of "proof" that we are meant for tearing into flesh. Ever look in a horse's mouth before an equine dentist gets a hold of it and "floats" those wolf teeth?
0
Continued
written by Molly, July 08, 2012
The point is, that one or two of these things probably wouldn't prove much to many determined people who really, really, really like meat and feel they couldn't survive without it. But all together, I really can't see how a person could argue with what nature intended for us.

The fact is, people enjoy playing top dog and they like eating animals. Omnivores are more similar to carnivores than to herbivores (bears, dogs, wolves, rats, etc). People may say that just b/c we CAN, that perhaps we SHOULD... but mere behavior doesn't indicate suitability. There's a lot of things we can do, or could do, that probably aren't a great idea for survival it everyone thought of them as okay default behavior.

When we, as individuals, mess up the natural order of things, our science and medicine step in to put the years back on that we've whittled away at by eating and living the way we do.

We're arrogant. We CAN thrive, not just survive, as herbivores. Yet, we choose to kill. I believe that most animals who are scientifically considered omnivores would perish if they were to attempt an entirely plant-based diet as they are more biologically similar to carnivores. People prove every day that cutting dead animals out of their diet makes them feel better.

The difference between me and the other omnivores on this website who are fist-pumping and accusational, is that I admit that I eat meat because I want to and I admit that it isn't the right thing to be doing. Not because God told me to or because we are MEANT to on some religious aspect. I'm not trying to justify my actions through tedious scripture-searching. The people who edited the good, vegetarian stuff out of that book are probably the same type who are on here trying to make sense out of their food choice.... the typical, insecure person, is not going to speak out against something they do. I am not being a hypocrite. I am admitting a weakness. And that's the first step in recovery. It's okay to be wrong. We are fallible, we are imperfect. We are observant and smart animals, though. We have the power to do more than just argue our side b/c we're afraid to be wrong. If something doesn't have to lose its consciousness, its life, to give us life, why do it? I'm almost there again. Davinci and Einstein and Gandhi hoped for an herbivorous world someday. I'm working on it.
0
...
written by shamar, July 11, 2012
Just stumbled across this site today, and to the author of the article - you are spot on. Thank you for writing this and bringing it out to the public. People need to learn the truth, and you speak the truth. AHYH bless you !
0
@ Nick
written by shamar, July 11, 2012
Nick, you have a seriously limited understanding of demonic activity if you accuse John of demonic animal worship. I was glad to see that John basically ignored your comment as it is entirely meaningless.
0
...
written by TB, July 21, 2012
Having witnessed angelic beings and spiritual phenomena for over a quarter of a century, I have had plenty of time to reflect on its reality. I won’t say more as it would be too much and detract from my point. However, my point is that a Being with a pure Soul Who was reconnected with the Godhead He had left - the only pure One to ever have inhabited a human body - namely, Christ, Who could turn water into wine, Who could fill nets with fish and feed thousands by materialising matter, Who could calm a storm no less with a thought - well, such a Being would not find it difficult to be in two places in one time, nay in a thousand places at one time. Come now, please, give to Him - through Whom was created every wonder in creation - the credit He deserves.
0
VEGAN YESHUA
written by dominick virgilio, August 20, 2012
as a christian vegan for 26 years and a follower of the "essene" and the gospel of peace yeshua never let any (FLESH) enter HIS MOUTH Math 5:17 he kept the LAW moses said 'THOU SHALL NOT KILL' in the hebrew "LO TIRTZACK" NO ANY KIND OF KILLING,he whip them in the synaygauge for selling animals for salughter GENESIS 1:29 GOD DIET TO MAN FOR ALL TIME, LEV 17:11,14 WHATEVER YOU PUT IN YOUR BODY (G0DS) temple 1cor 3:17 goes in your blood live food (apple) life dead food (flesh) death, yeshua says whatever rots your body rots yours soul JESUS IS VEGAN AMEN!
0
...
written by TB, September 03, 2012
The question is did Jesus the Christ eat fish?

The Master said that “It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin”...

And yet He Himself performed a number of miracles (the ones recorded at least) which encouraged thousands upon thousands of people to eat fish as well as make a living from fishing.

That didn’t mean that Jesus of Nazareth ate fish but it does mean that He certainly didn’t consider it a sin...that is if we are going to be honest with ourselves and lay our prejudices aside for a moment.
0
...
written by TB, September 04, 2012
Furthermore, Jesus did eat fish. The Master of all Creation, after He had been to preach to sinners in the spiritual world (1 Peter 3:18 & 4:6) easily lowered His spiritual vibrations to assume a material condition in order to be seen by human eyes and consume fish (ichthus = fish) to convince frightened humans unaccustomed to witnessing life after death that He did in fact live (Luke 24:36-43).

Would the Great Teacher who lived a life of Perfection and warned the world about the consequences of sinning then Himself commit sin? Even the thought holds revulsion.

However, I personally believe there will be a time when man will be able to draw his sustenance from the air but that time is clearly not any time soon.
0
...
written by TB, September 04, 2012
Question: “Did Jesus eat fish?”
Answer (without any spiritual interpretation):
“And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish...And he took it and did eat before them”. Luke24:42,43
0
...
written by TB, September 04, 2012
Shall we then say that the recorded miracles performed by the Light of the World which produced thousands of fish specifically for people to eat were “made up by someone who wanted to be a carnivore”? If so, we are not honest enough with ourselves to notice our dishonesty.
0
john the administrator
written by J. Vujicic, September 09, 2012
It is impossible to believe everything in the gospels written about the miracles of Jesus. According to Luke Jesus caused Peter to catch a great amount of fish by casting his nets and right then he chose Peter to be his disciple. This of course contradicts Matthew and Mark who clearly state that Peter and Andrew were chosen earlier by the Lake of Galilee and under different circumstances. Therefore if Matthew and Luke are correct, then Jesus did not and could not have performed this miracle recorded by Luke. Also if we accept the testimony of the synoptic gospels then Jesus never visited Jerusalem during his entire ministry. If so, then the miracles recorded in John's gosepls simply could not be true since they were perfored by Jesus in Judaea. Many claim that Jesus could not have been vegetarian since he, under the Law, was obligated to eat the passover lamb. But if he was obligated to eat the lamb lest he sins and breaks the Law, how is it then that John the Baptist was not obligatewd to eat the Passover lamb or worsip at the temple? The bible clearly states that he spent his entire life in the DESERT until he began his ministry? Josephus states that the Baptist was vegetarian and that he refused to eat even the passover bread, let alone the lamb. The gospels were corrupted and originally there was only one gospel and not four.
0
...
written by TB, September 09, 2012
If one episode of catching fish and choosing disciples was correct then the other was wrong because they dealt with different people? Rather, these were in fact two quite separate events and Christ performed both miracles but these people did not have diaries. After all, if the great Miracle Maker can do it once, He can surely do it many times.

But then again, it is also easy to dismiss the recordings of feeding four thousand people with fish and also a separate occasion of feeding five thousand people with fish as only one being true, or even as none of these recordings being true - the latter being preferable by those who say humans were never meant to eat fish. After all, we cannot have Jesus the Christ promoting the eating of fish, so let’s just say it was all made up?
0
A different scenario
written by Murali, October 15, 2012
Let us accept what the modern day Bible says and forget all the manipulations Paul and RCC did to be Bible for a moment. Yet, Jesus belonged to the Essene order of Judaism. Essenes were strict practitioners of vegetarianism and non-violence. Even Joachim and Anna of Nazareth (Jesus' grand parents) were magnanimous people who kept only a third of the increase of their wealth, distributing two thirds equally amongst temples and poor people. Anna was also a prophetess. With such a background, it is difficult to believe that Jesus was not a vegetarian.
0
...
written by TB, October 19, 2012
Whether the Perfect Ascetic abstained from fish-consumption Himself or not, what does it signify if He fed a hungry body of people with fish?
0
"sin of diet"
written by dominick virgilio, November 06, 2012
yeshua's says"LET NO FLESH ENTER THY MOUTH" "GOSPEL OF THE HOLY TEWELVE" AND "THE ESSENE GOSPEL OF PEACE" THE TRUE WAY TO SALVATION!
0
...
written by TB, November 06, 2012
The true way to spiritual salvation is to follow the self-denial of Christ, the sacrificial spirit of Christ, the self-less love and compassion of Christ, and just as importantly the unthinkable humility of Christ. Those who do not have eyes to see the simplicity of the Christ Way need to feel that their collection of words is better than the collection of words of others.
0
Under Construction
written by Costar Pel, January 09, 2013
God permits meat eating.

Before the flood(debatable)
NOAH
Genesis 7:2 (KJV)
2[Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that ] are[ not clean by two
ABRAHAM
Genesis 18:8 (KJV)
8And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.

ISAAC
Genesis 27:1-11 (KJV)
[And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, so that he could not see, he called Esau his eldest son, and said unto him, My son: and he said unto him, Behold, ] here am[ I.] 2[And he said, Behold now, I am old, I know not the day of my death:] 3[Now therefore take, I pray thee, thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow, and go out to the field, and take me ] some[ venison;] 4[And make me savoury meat, such as I love, and bring ] it[ to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless thee before I die.] 5[And Rebekah heard when Isaac spake to Esau his son. And Esau went to the field to hunt ] for[ venison, ] and[ to bring ] it[.] 6[And Rebekah spake unto Jacob her son, saying, Behold, I heard thy father speak unto Esau thy brother, saying,] 7[Bring me venison, and make me savoury meat, that I may eat, and bless thee before the ] Lord[ before my death.] 8[Now therefore, my son, obey my voice according to that which I command thee.] 9[Go now to the flock, and fetch me from thence two good kids of the goats; and I will make them savoury meat for thy father, such as he loveth:] 10[And thou shalt bring ] it[ to thy father, that he may eat, and that he may bless thee before his death.]

JACOB (ISRAEL NATION)
Genesis 32:32 (KJV)
32Therefore the children of Israel eat not of the sinew which shrank, which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day: because he touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh in the sinew that shrank. (They don't eat the sinew when eating meat)

DANIEL(mentions he did not eat meat for three weeks. Was it necessary to say that if at all he was vegetarian?)
Daniel 10:2-4 (KJV)
2In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks. 3I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, till three whole weeks were fulfilled.


ELIJAH

1 Kings 17:4-5 (KJV)
4[And it shall be, ] that[ thou shalt drink of the brook; and I have commanded the ravens to feed thee there.]
1 Kings 17:6-7 (KJV)
6And the ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening; and he drank of the brook.

Paul
1 Timothy 4:1-2 (KJV)
[Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;] 2[Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;]

3[Forbidding to marry, ] and commanding[ to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.]


The Bible does not support the current day preaching of vegetarian doctrine. I know you will tell me that all these verses were forgeries.

0
Clean and unclean Genesis 7:2 (KJV)
written by Costar Pel, January 09, 2013
Why was Noah asked to save 7 couples of 'clean' animals and 2 couples of 'unclean' animals. Doesn't being clean have to do with eating? How was Noah to know that if there had been no meat eating before?
0
Wrongskis
written by Benjamin, January 11, 2013
Jesus saying he is going to meet them in Galilee and will be there before them is not proof of the story of the men headed to Emmaus being a forgery. That's like saying one plus one equals 400. If I say I will be waiting for you somewhere and ask you to meet me there doesn't mean I can't be somewhere else in the meantime, as long as I am there when you get there. He walks through walls and vanishes out of there sight, I suspect to go to Galilee and keep the appointment. Then he cooks fish for Peter. He ate the Passover meal and asked them to prepare it, it has Lamb.
You're an idiot.
0
...
written by john/administrator, January 15, 2013
Jesus could not have appeared to the disciples in Galilee prior to his meal with the 2 disciples nor could he have met them in Galilee at any time that day. The two disciples came to Jerusalem that evening and Jesus came and met the eleven [according to Luke]. According to Matthew, Jesus met the disciples in Galilee at a later date and not on the day of the resurrection. You obviously don't see the facts. By calling me an idiot it only shows how smart you are. Jesus did not and could not have eaten the passover lamb according to John since the passover meal was eaten the next day. But that is another story.
0
dung
written by DOMINICK VIRGILIO, February 07, 2013
when ezekiel cryied out to GOD NOT TO USE HUMAN DUNG TO COOK THE BREAD BECAUSE OF ITS DEFILEMENT, INSTEAD COWS DUNG GOD BLESS THE VEGAN COWS,YOU PHONY MEAT EATER ONE SCRIPTURE TO JUSTIFY YOUR LUST FOR "FLESH" ALL MIGHTY GOD WILL JUDGE YOU FOR IT "REPENT" OR DIE IN YOUR "SIN OF DIET"
0
...
written by Matt Larson, February 08, 2013
To the author of this, I would love to learn more about what seems to be a conspiracy to cover up who Jesus really was. I have a terminal illness and constantly think about death. I would love to feel as if there truly is a heaven for me to go to when I die. But for many years now I have rejected Christianity because of the simple fact that I couldn't come to terms with a God who is ok with people killing animals. Because of what I have always been told about the bible and Jesus, T thought Jesus was a fisherman, meateater, and encouraged people to eat meat, It is because of this I have rejected Christianity. If you could show me that Jesus was in favor of and in fact himself a vegetarian, It might change my outlook on life. Could you maybe give me some references on where to read up on this stuff. Thanks
0
administrator
written by john vuj, February 10, 2013
Mr. Larson, you should read my article 'biblical vegetarianism' for there you will find many references and sources which deal with Jesus' vegetarianism. Also read the articles which deal with the sacrificial cult for if it can be proven that God never instituted sacrifices then it follows that Jesus would have objected to it and the meat eating. Also read the article 'ebionite beliefs and practices.' Early so called christianity was known as 'jewish christianity' - more particularly as Nazarenes and Ebionites. Both groups revered James, the brohter of Jesus, and were vegetarian. I am sorry to hear that you are terminally ill but there is more to life than the present one. May the Most High bless you abundantly in your quest for the real Jesus.
0
maybe gods laws?
written by ed, March 01, 2013
i find myself here as i continue to search for (god?)i was raised eating meat and NEVER gave it OR religion a second thought,but to be honest i guess once in awhile in the back of my mind i would wonder why one species had to die for another to survive.one night out jogging as i had many times i had what was thought to be a mini stroke (later turned out to be an on set of a neurological disorder)anyway i have struggled with what seems to be some kind of spiritual essence or being? i was 30 now 40 and have pretty much given up meat as when i try (sounds crazy) BUT i get this incredible sense of what honestly feels like EVIL that comes over me.its one of many things that i now feel like i am supposed to change,whatever happen to me that night seem to give me what i can only describe as a sense of absolute TRUTH that i believe as human i or we as human could never live up to, there was ONE line in the bible that i came across (as i have NOT read much of the bible)that made me come to believe Jesus was a real person and preached about the true GOD and i believe it was (i represent the one you do not know and he is TRUTH) when i read that it kind of blew my mind, as sense that night (jogging) i struggle EVERYDAY with what is truly RIGHT or WRONG or what is the absolute TRUTH??
0
...
written by TB, March 05, 2013
Indeed, the God that men knew was not the God Jesus the Christ knew and tried to show to man.

The God Jesus knew was hurt when His child was hurt, suffered when His child suffered, longed and longed and longed for His child to turn to Christ and see in Him the visible manifestation of the invisible God and say: “This is my God whom I adore, this is the God I will follow, this is the God I will seek to love with all my heart and mind and soul and strength”.

Jesus came to demonstrate the Love of God, Jesus came to demonstrate that God is Love. Jesus the Christ came to demonstrate God Himself in the most exquisite Form of teaching, the perfect Teacher, the perfect Example of the Divine available to the limited understanding of souls in human form: Christ, in every way, demonstrated the God whom He manifested in Human Form.

And today the majority still turn back to the old notions and diminish Divine Love by adding to It conditions that are purely human - man misunderstands his God, man assumes his God is like himself with his hatred, anger and desire for revenge which he deceives himself is somehow righteous.

Man in his own conceit cannot attribute to the Creator of all life a Love that is perfect, that requires only love in return, that seeks not to punish, that seeks to save His child from causing himself untold suffering as he reaps what he has sown because he has violated the laws of Love that are in force everywhere, as the laws that govern all life take their toll for they cannot circumvented.

Man must create his own idea of God, Jesus Christ in His simplicity is too simple for him, he must add creeds and doctrines and dogmas. No, the God that Christ taught is the God they did not know and today they still do not know.
0
Mistranslations - many plain and precious truths lost by tampering
written by Sophina, September 07, 2013
I know that when I consume a diet that is pleasing unto God, I cleanse my inner temple so it is suitable for the Holy Ghost to linger with me, rather than touch and flee as He must do where there is more pollution.

As we prepare our personal temples to be more like His, we prepare for the time of the Second Coming to be less physically taxing.

People who continue to pollute their temples have a very hard time understanding the damage they are doing, and an even harder time conceiving that there's any reason they should stop. They like what they are eating; they don't see, and don't want to see, the harm. They love going back to the scriptures to try to prove their own views. But even among people who admit that there are errors, the struggle can be to prove exactly WHERE the errors occurred.

http://www.tomrodgers.org/Correspondence.htm#Honey - A Sweet Delusion
http://www.tomrodgers.org/BroiledFish.htm

And it's a little hard to argue that there wasn't some major DNA and telomere damage done after the flood when the Lord permitted meat to be eaten by people for the first time ever, and suddenly lifespans dropped to about 1/8th as long as they'd previously been.

With soils washed out and depleted, the earth would no longer bring forth lushly and spontaneously, and the Merciful and Loving One provided us that we might be able to save our lives in time of famine... yet some of us today eat like "mighty hunters before (Hebrew, 'against') the Lord".
0
Mistranslations - many plain and precious truths lost by tampering
written by Sophina, September 07, 2013
I know that when I consume a diet that is pleasing unto God, I cleanse my inner temple so it is suitable for the Holy Ghost to linger with me, rather than touch and flee as He must do where there is more pollution.

As we prepare our personal temples to be more like His, we prepare for the time of the Second Coming to be less physically taxing.

People who continue to pollute their temples have a very hard time understanding the damage they are doing, and an even harder time conceiving that there's any reason they should stop. They like what they are eating; they don't see, and don't want to see, the harm. They love going back to the scriptures to try to prove their own views. But even among people who admit that there are errors, the struggle can be to prove exactly WHERE the errors occurred.

http://www.tomrodgers.org/Correspondence.htm#Honey - A Sweet Delusion
http://www.tomrodgers.org/BroiledFish.htm

And it's a little hard to argue that there wasn't some major DNA and telomere damage done after the flood when the Lord permitted meat to be eaten by people for the first time ever, and suddenly lifespans dropped to about 1/8th as long as they'd previously been.

With soils washed out and depleted, the earth would no longer bring forth lushly and spontaneously, and the Merciful and Loving One provided us that we might be able to save our lives in time of famine... yet some of us today eat like "mighty hunters before (Hebrew, 'against') the Lord".
0
Did Jesus Eat Fish
written by Elsje Massyn, April 15, 2014
John Vujicic you are a pure soul and the Holy Spirit speaks the truth through you. Thank you for taking the time to search the scriptures and presenting it in the face of the meat-eating blood-thirsty accusers of the truth. Its amazing. I am a believer in the Creator and have only turned vegan a few years back once I realised the cruelty of the meat-industry. But the minute the issue of meat-eating and Hebraic roots and feasts are discovered some kind of blood-thirsty demon arises in the bodies of the people whose meat-eating traditions are challenged or questioned. The first thing Christians or other religious meat-eaters shout is that vegans/vegetarians are demonized. That is so crazy, because as far as I am aware the only people who love to sacrifice animals to their gods ARE Satanists and RELIGIOUS folk. In this case their stomachs are their gods and they have to sacrifice animals to it. Their stomachs are a grave to dead animals. They are so blinded and mind-controlled by their upbringing that they dont even question traditions and their religious upbringing. They just accept what everyone says as law, whether its translated by their rabbi, pastor, priest or pope.

God gave us a MIND so that we can use it and change it where it is necessary and become changed people.

The book of Galatians speak about the lust and fruit of the flesh and the opposite the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

Its not difficult to figure out in what spirit meat-eaters are walking, of which I was one years ago.

If God changes our hearts and He pours out His love in our hearts, we become changed and WANT God's creation to live, we dont want to destroy anything anymore. We want to build up not tear down. We want to heal and not destroy. That is the character of God.
0
I appreciate yur efforts
written by Alphabaker, April 16, 2014
But by applying your apparent hermeneutics, that only those things that appear in the 3 synoptics are trusted Scripture, quite a bit of sound doctrine would be eliminated, and all kinds of false beliefs substantiated. Perhaps even some of your other pet doctrines would be unsubstantiated.

I appreciate the time and effort that you have taken with the research into some of the subjects here, especially idolatry and sexual sin, but it seems to me that one simple error exists in your approach to Scripture.

Exegesis vs eisegesis:
eis·e·ge·sis
noun, plural eis·e·ge·ses [ahy-si-jee-seez]
an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.

If we approach Scripture simply to justify our own opinions or behaviors, rather than have Scripture shine a light on our own sins and misconceptions, why bother?
0
And then
written by Alphabaker, April 16, 2014
there's the "argument from silence" that you employ. After rejecting canonical Scripture that clearly states that Jesus ate a piece of broiled fish, you say that there is no evidence that He did.

Therefore He didn't? Not so fast. There is also no evidence that he used soap, took a real bath, changed his undergarments or cleaned his teeth.

There's no evidence that Jesus ate with His mouth shut, or didn't get a divorce, or that He kept up with His alimony payments.

And that's just for starters. Nobody said he didn't run around naked, abuse young children, or make snide remarks about Caesar.

All that to say, as far as actual evidence of your hypothesis, there is none, and the plain evidence to the contrary, you dismiss as copyist tripe.

But what about the continuing revelation in Scripture? The NT is clearly built upon the foundation of the Law and the Prophets, the OT. In the OT, post-diluvian anyway, meat eating was actually mandated in the time of Egyptian captivity, as has been pointed out here already. Not just permitted, but mandated by the I AM Himself.

Nothing in the NT was done or said to cease the eating of meat, on the contrary, the Apostles in Judea instructed the gentile believers to abstain from eating meat with blood, indicating that the followers of Jesus were commonly comprised of serial meat-eaters.

I have exactly zero issues with veganism, but Scriptural error cannot go unaddressed. Once these incorrect methods of interpretation are applied broadly, then who is to say what destructive errors would result?
0
Fish far best natural source of Essential Omega-3 EPA & DHA
written by Waken, April 21, 2014
Caring for the temple...

"Flaxseed oil or ground flaxseeds ... should not be relied on as a source of omega-3 due to their inefficient conversion to EPA and DHA ... Research suggests you need to take almost 10 times the amount of flaxseed oil to get the equivalent amount of DHA and EPA found in fish oils..." Dr. Joey Shulman, DC, RNCP

http://www.drhoffman.com/page.cfm/84

"EPA DHA is an essential fatty acid which stands for docosahexaenoic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid. This essential fatty acid is an Omega 3 fat, which is found in cold water fish"...

"DHA plays a very important role during fetal development, early infancy, and old age. High concentrations of DHA are found in the brain and increases 300-500% in and infant's brain during the last trimester of pregnancy."

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/omega-3-fats/

"...Results from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study and others show that men whose diets are rich in EPA and DHA (mainly from fish and seafood) are less likely to develop advanced prostate cancer than those with low intake of EPA and DHA. (6) At the same time, some-but not all-studies show an increase in prostate cancer and advanced prostate cancer among men with high intakes of ALA (mainly from supplements, [i.e. flax-seed etc.])..."

http://advances.nutrition.org/content/3/1/1.full

Abstract:
"Omega-3 [(n-3)] fatty acids have been linked to healthy aging throughout life. Recently, fish-derived omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA have been associated with fetal development, cardiovascular function, and Alzheimer’s disease. However, because our bodies do not efficiently produce some omega-3 fatty acids from marine sources, it is necessary to obtain adequate amounts through fish and fish-oil products. Studies have shown that EPA and DHA are important for proper fetal development, including neuronal, retinal, and immune function. EPA and DHA may affect many aspects of cardiovascular function including inflammation, peripheral artery disease, major coronary events, and anticoagulation. EPA and DHA have been linked to promising results in prevention, weight management, and cognitive function in those with very mild Alzheimer’s disease. "

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/omega-3-fats/

"...omega-3s are an integral part of cell membranes throughout the body and affect the function of the cell receptors in these membranes. They provide the starting point for making hormones that regulate blood clotting, contraction and relaxation of artery walls, and inflammation. They also bind to receptors in cells that regulate genetic function. Likely due to these effects, omega-3 fats have been shown to help prevent heart disease and stroke, may help control lupus, eczema, and rheumatoid arthritis, and may play protective roles in cancer and other conditions."
0
...
written by Samantha, June 05, 2014
To all the people who say that to keep "The Law" Jesus would have to have eaten lamb at passover..."The Law" is not what you think it is. If it was then Jesus also broke "The Law" by not stoning the adulteress. When will you guys get it that Jesus came to correct all that had been screwed up by the doctrines of men?

Write comment

busy
Last Updated on Tuesday, 15 April 2014 08:52