Text Size
Feb 26
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 13 guests and 1 member 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.

John's Gospel and the Synoptics PDF Print E-mail
Written by Administrator   
Monday, 01 October 2018 01:26



John’s Gospel is most loved by Christians and it is regarded as the most beautiful and inspiring. This may be so but how reliable is this Gospel? How much historical truth does it really contain? The Gospel of John is strikingly different from the Synoptic Gospels. Only about eight percent of its content is actually paralleled in the Synoptics. In the Synoptics the disciples are referred to as Apostles. This word never appears in John’s Gospel. The Synoptics [especially Matthew and Luke] contain many parables which Jesus actually taught the public. In fact, it is expressly said that Jesus never spoke to the public in any other way but the parables. There is not even one single parable in John. On the contrary, Jesus engages in many long doctrinal and theological discourses with the Jews.

In the Synoptics, Jesus never claimed to be the “Son of God” or “Messiah.” In fact, when someone tried to identify him as the “Messiah” or the “Son of God,” Jesus sternly forbade them to ever mention that again or to say so to anyone. According to John’s version, Jesus does not only tolerate such statements but actually personally states and makes it public on many occasions that he is the “Messiah” and the “Son of God.” He does not only say so but actually expects others to identify him as such, as was the case with the man born blind [John 9].

In this Gospel he tells the Jews that he is one with God. He tells them that he came down from heaven. He tells them that Abraham saw his day and was glad. All these statements clearly imply his pre-existence. In the introduction of the Gospel we are told that Jesus as the Word was with God in the beginning and that everything was created through him. This Gospel places Jesus in Jerusalem and Judea virtually throughout his ministry. In fact, according to this Gospel Jesus spends most of his time in Jerusalem and among the Jews in Judea.

In the Synoptics, Jesus never visits Jerusalem. Throughout his ministry he restricts himself to Galilee and the region of Sidon. He never visits Jerusalem – even when the annual festivals were observed there. But John depicts Jesus observing at least two Passovers in Jerusalem, one Feast of Dedication, and the Feast of Tabernacles.

On several occasions the Jews attempted to stone him but he miraculously escapes. The Synoptics are full of stories how Jesus cast out many demons. Not even a single word is said of this in John’s Gospel. Many miracles are recorded in the Synoptics. John records only seven miracles. In the Synoptics, Jesus offers only the sign of Jonah as proof who he is. In John's Gospel he offers seven signs. Here they are in their chronological order:








Miracles three, six, and seven, could not be historical events if the Synoptic Gospels are correct. For there we discover that Jesus never stepped on the soil of Jerusalem until he actually went there several days before he was killed. In fact, when he finally entered Jerusalem, the Jerusalemites did not know who he was. They had to be told that it was Jesus a prophet from Galilee [Matthew 21:10-11]. Even the temple guards could not identify Jesus although he supposedly spent most of his time in the temple. Judas allegedly identified him with a kiss.

If the Synoptics are correct, that is, if Jesus restricted his ministry to Galilee and the Gentile regions, then these Jerusalem and Bethany miracles are fictions. The Synoptics show that Jesus did not begin his public ministry until John was actually imprisoned [Mark 1:14]. But the Gospel of John has Jesus and John both working and preaching at the same time. John says that Jesus, through his disciples, baptized and made more converts than John did. The Gospel has Jesus baptizing in the Judean countryside while John in Aenon – near Salim [John 3:23]. Verse 24 explicitly states that all this took place “before John was put in prison,” and therefore directly contradicts the account of the Synoptic Gospels – especially that of Mark 1:14.

John contradicts both Mark and Matthew as well as the account of Luke as to how the first disciples were chosen.  Mark and Matthew show that Peter and Andrew were chosen first – at the Sea of Galilee. They were chosen together and at the same time. Shortly afterwards, James and John were chosen at the same sea.

But John’s Gospel maintains that Andrew was originally a disciple of John the Baptist  and with him also another person, presumably John. John’s Gospel says that it was not really Jesus who chose and selected Andrew but rather Andrew offered himself – after hearing John the Baptist’s remark concerning Jesus. According to John, Andrew became the disciple of Jesus  the day after John baptized Jesus.

The first thing Andrew did after being accepted as a disciple of Jesus, says John, he looked for Peter and when he had found him he told him that he had found the Messiah. Then Andrew brought Peter to Jesus and he became a disciple of Jesus [John 1:35-42]. The day after, Jesus found Philip and he became his disciple. Philip found Nathanael who also became one of the twelve. All this took place in the next few days after his baptism.

But according to the Synoptic Gospels, immediately after his baptism Jesus went to the wilderness in order to be tested by Satan. Only after his 40 day trial did he return to Galilee in power and only then did he choose Peter and Andrew and then James and John. John’s account therefore cannot be reconciled with the Synoptic story. In John 2 we are told how Jesus went to Jerusalem in the very beginning of his ministry and from the temple drove all those who were buying and selling.

He set loose all the animals and birds which were intended for sacrificial ritual. This account directly contradicts the Synoptic record. According to the first three gospels this event is placed at the very end of Jesus' ministry and this event triggered his sudden death. According to the Synoptic record, this event could not have taken place for two reasons. First, Jesus never went to Jerusalem during his entire ministry. And, secondly, because they say that he cleansed the temple only several days before he was actually killed.

The Synoptic Gospels  report that on the night of his arrest, Jesus prayed to his Father to bypass death if at all possible. This prayer can nowhere be squeezed in the narrative of John. In John's Gospel Jesus could not pray to bypass the cup since he was divine and God in the flesh. The Synoptic Gospels say that Jesus was crucified at “the third hour” – that is, nine in the morning. But John’s Gospel says that it was “the sixth hour” when Jesus was still before Pilate [John 19:14].

This account cannot be reconciled with that of the Synoptic Gospels. Oh, there are some enthusiastic Christians who try to reconcile the problem by insisting that John used Roman computation of time while the Synoptists the Jewish. By Judean computation the “third hour” would be nine in the morning – being the third hour from daybreak. John’s sixth hour, they argue, would be six in the morning – being the sixth hour from midnight. But this argument cannot hold water.

Elsewhere in the Gospel of John we find irrefutable evidence that John did not use the Roman computation of time but rather the Judean. In John 4:6 we are told that Jesus stopped at Jacob’s well in order to have a drink – since he was tired from his journey. His disciples have gone to town to buy some food. The Samaritan woman met Jesus “about the sixth hour” – that is, about noon. Jesus could not have been before Pilate at six in the morning since Luke says that it wasn’t until daybreak that the Jewish Council arranged the trial of Jesus.

Only after the Jewish trial ended was he led to Pilate. John’s Gospel clearly states that Jesus was before Pilate at noon and most modern versions so render the text. It therefore flatly contradicts the Synoptic accounts – especially that of Mark. The Synoptic Gospels show that Jesus refused to drink wine that he was offered by the Roman soldiers. But Luke goes further than this. He points out that Jesus made a vow on the night of his arrest that he would never again taste of the wine until he drinks it anew in the Kingdom:

“For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the wine until the kingdom of God comes” [Luke 22:18].

But John clearly states that while hanging on the stake Jesus actually drank wine:

“Jesus knew that by now everything had been completed; and in order to make the scripture come true, he said, I am thirsty. A bowl was there, full of cheap wine; so a sponge was soaked in the wine, put on a stalk of hyssop, and lifted up to his lips. Jesus drank the wine and said, It is finished” [John 19:28-29].

The Synoptic Gospels say that the women took spices with them to the tomb on Sunday morning in order to anoint the body of Jesus. They did so since they did not have time to do so on the day of the crucifixion – since it was too late. But John flatly contradicts the Synoptic testimony. John’s Gospel plainly says that Nicodemus brought one hundred pounds of spices and that they have anointed the body of Jesus – according to the Jewish burial custom [John 19:39-40].

For this reason in John's Gospel there are no women going to the tomb with spices in order to anoint his body since it was already done on the day of his burial. Everything else reported about the resurrection contradicts the Synoptic accounts. Luke’s Gospel points out that all eleven disciples were present on Sunday night when Jesus allegedly appeared to them in Jerusalem.

The Markan added text also confirms this. But John maintains that Thomas was absent and that he later refused to believe that Jesus was alive. When finally he saw him a week later he said "my Lord and my God." Whether he addressed Jesus with those titles or simply in the moment of shock referred to God as we do sometimes when we say: Oh my God! Oh my Lord! is neither here nor there, since this appearance was not historical if we accept the versions of Mark and Matthew.

The Gospel of John also maintains that Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene and therefore gives her the pre-eminence above all other Apostles. For this reason the same author in 2 John refers to the leader of the congregation as lady. The Markan version has Jesus first appearing to Peter. The Jewish Christian Gospel has Jesus appearing first to James, his brother. Now the Tridentine Council has stated that every word in the Bible was dictated by the Holy Spirit. Did the Holy Spirit dictate the Synoptic Gospels in such a way that generally two gospels would agree against one and the gospels of Matthew and Luke to disagree?  Historically we can deduce that the current Gospel of Matthew is not the same Gospel that Matthew actually wrote. Church Father Jerome – who lived and wrote in the 4th century – was aware of the Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew.

This Gospel was used in the early centuries by the believers commonly called Jewish Christians or Pristine Christians. St. Jerome wrote that this Hebrew Matthew was preserved in the library of Caesarea even in his own time. Please note what Church Father Jerome actually said concerning this Gospel:  

“Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library of Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it” [The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, p. 362 WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan].  

Papias was the first to refer to the Hebrew Gospel of Mathew. Hegesepius also spoke of its existence. Church Father Epiphanius and Church historian Eusebius – both of the 4th century – also testified of the existence of the Hebrew Matthew. This Hebrew Matthew has since disappeared. We now have only some fragments of it preserved in the quotations of the Church Fathers. But enough has been preserved to demonstrate that this Hebrew Matthew was strikingly different from the present Greek Matthew – incorporated in the Christian New Testament.

The earliest followers of Jesus who were known as Nazoreans and later by their derogatory name Ebionites, rejected the four canonical Gospels and they used the Gospel of Matthew which was strikingly different from the canonical Matthew. From what we have seen, it is no wonder that they could not accept all these conflicting versions. Finally, I want to state why the Gospel of John was written and also that it was not and could not have been written by Apostle John.

We know from the writings of the Church Fathers that allegedly the bishops of Asia compelled Apostle John to write a Gospel in which he would repudiate the doctrine of the Ebionites concerning Jesus' origin and his divinity. Church Father Jerome wrote:

"John, the apostle whom Jesus most loved, the son of Zebedee and brother of James the apostle, whom Herod, after the Lord's passion, beheaded, was the last one to write a Gospel, at the request of the bishops of Asia, against Cerinthus and other heretics and especially against the growing doctrine of the Ebionites, who asserted that Christ did not exist before Mary. For this reason he was compelled also to announce his divine nativity" [Jerome, Vir. ill. 9].

Eusebius of the 4th century also quotes St. Clement of Alexandria and states that he also wrote of this fact [Ecclesiastical History, 6.14.7]. Church Father Epiphanius also confirmed that John wrote his Gospel in order to repudiate the Ebionite Christology [Panarion 51:2; 69:23].

At least this proves that the Ebionites were already in existence and flourished before the end of the first century and during the lives of the original Apostles of Jesus. I have argued in this book that the Ebionites were the true believers who were ostracised by both the rabbis of Judaism and by the Pauline Christianity. Why would Apostle John write against the Ebionites and the true doctrine that the Twelve taught? In order to accept this testimony concerning the Gospel of John and Apostle John, we would have to nullify and reject all the arguments I have presented this far concerning Jesus and his nature.

It is generally agreed that John's Gospel was not written before 95 A.D. Many scholars prefer even a later date. It is also generally held in the traditional Christian circles that Apostle John was also the author of the three epistles and the book of Revelation. But many scholars reject the idea that the Gospel of John, the epistles of John, and the Book of Revelation were written by the same author.

The Book of Revelation was written in a poorer Greek and the style and vocabulary differs. Even the name of Jerusalem is spelled differently in Revelation than in the Gospel of John. Many independent and critical scholars believe that the Gospel and the epistles were written by John the Elder. As a matter of fact, the author of the second and third epistles identifies himself as an Elder.

The Elders were not Apostles. This is clear from Acts 15:6 since Apostles and Elders got together at the council. James also stated that if a believer was sick he should call an Elder to anoint him and pray for his recovery. Elders were not Apostles. Therefore on this basis alone John the Apostle could not have written second and third epistles of John.  




















Comments (1)Add Comment
John and Authorship
written by Mr C, October 09, 2018
What do you think about the book of revelation?

What do you think about the possibility of the gospel of John being a Gnostic gospel? For instance, Jesus being an emanation of the Logos/Word.
Jesus being the Pleroma/Fullness...Jesus is the bread of heaven that gives the Fullness. Jesus is the living water that fills you up and makes you never thirst again (fullness/pleroma).

Write comment