Are christians to be vegetarian?

[Astravalon]

Jesus never spoke against eating meat. He did said I believe "that which God has made pure...something something"( I dont quite remember )

But it was something about eating meat that was originaly prohibited, and that it was okay.

Yes, I think it was the following, in the book of Acts:

Acts 10:15 ~ "The voice spoke to him a second time, 'Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.'"
​

The above was in reference to a large sheet that had come down from heaven and which contained "all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air", and concerning which Peter was told by God to "Get up, kill, and eat".

Romans 14 contains a couple of tidbits as well:

Romans 14:14 ~ "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean."
​

I take that to mean that if one is, say, a vegetarian, and they sincerely believe it's wrong to eat meat, then for that vegetarian it would be wrong to do so. Or, if I believe drinking coffee is a sin, and I myself drink it, then for me it is a sin. That sort of thing.

Romans 14:2 ~ "One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables."
​

Note: I think this verse could be taken a couple of ways: that it's okay to eat meat, or that there were people who literally didn't eat anything other than veggies, as in no bread, no fruit, no nuts, etc.)

-

 

[SageTree]

I've never heard of the Gospel of the Ebionites, thats what i meant.
As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I only believe the bible is 100%, and belief that none of the apocryphal books are in anyway inspired of God

Let me introduce you,

Gospel_of_the_Ebionites, Meet Jehovah'sWitness.

Jehovah'sWitness, Meet The Gospel_of_the_Ebionites

 

[Shermana]

Let me introduce you,

Gospel_of_the_Ebionites, Meet Jehovah'sWitness.

Jehovah'sWitness, Meet The Gospel_of_the_Ebionites

Thanks for posting that Sagetree, now that I read it, I realize that I may be wrong and that Epiphanius may also have been wrong, and that the charge may have been exaggerated based on an incorrect reading of what they said.

So the Gospel of the Ebionites may in fact NOT endorse vegetarianism after all. This is what happens when I don't check my source before I fire off and go by the common idea.

 

[Jehovah'sWitness]

Thanks for the official introduction
Gospel of the Ebionites really seems like a conspiracy to put a Jewish twist on Christianity though from reading that

 

[mycorrhiza]

If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. - Romans 14:15

I'd say that Christians are supposed to be vegetarians, to cause as little harm to their fellow brothers and sisters as possible. A diet rich in meat requires more resources and causes more harm to the environment, leading to a more widespread starvation.

Eating meat, however, does not go against the Christian faith, but as the meat industry now has grown to be a cause of starvation, it should be avoided by Christians.

 

[Shermana]

Jesus never spoke against eating meat. He did said I believe "that which God has made pure...something something"( I dont quite remember )

But it was something about eating meat that was originaly prohibited, and that it was okay.

This is a common mistranslation. It says it was a parable, and the context was about ritual handwashing. The context is ignored by virtually all "Christians" using Mark 7 as an excuse to eat ham. If Jesus said you could eat pork, he'd be contradicting himself in Matthew 5;17-20 and Luke 16:17-31, but since when do Contradictions matter to these antinominan "Christians"?

Did I address this already here?

 

[Shermana]

Thanks for the official introduction
Gospel of the Ebionites really seems like a conspiracy to put a Jewish twist on Christianity though from reading that

Christianity started off with completely Jewish roots. It was the gentiles who put an Anti-judaizing twist conspiracy on it later with works like the Pauline epistles. The gentile churches later conspired to stamp out all the original Jewish influence.

 

[Me Myself]

This is a common mistranslation. It says it was a parable, and the context was about ritual handwashing. The context is ignored by virtually all "Christians" using Mark 7 as an excuse to eat ham. If Jesus said you could eat pork, he'd be contradicting himself in Matthew 5;17-20 and Luke 16:17-31, but since when do Contradictions matter to these antinominan "Christians"?

Did I address this already here?

Don´t know but havenr read it and would like to know your take on it.

Which were the translation errors?

 

[Shermana]

Don´t know but havenr read it and would like to know your take on it.

Which were the translation errors?

Note the NIV of Mark 7:14, compare to the KJV. The NIV and others deliberately change the tense to past tense to get their Theological presumption in play to placate their readers.

This is what it SHOULD say, notice the present tense, Jesus is talking about the Stomach.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

Douay-Rheims Bible
Because it entereth not into his heart, but goeth into the belly, and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats?
Darby Bible Translation
because it does not enter into his heart but into his belly, and goes out into the draught, purging all meats?

This is what the supremely dishonest Translators change it to.

International Standard Version (©2008)
Because it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and is expelled as waste." (By this he declared all foods clean.)

[URL="http://niv.scripturetext.com/mark/7.htm"]New International Version

(©1984)
For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")[/URL]New Living Translation (©2007)
Food doesn't go into your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then goes into the sewer." (By saying this, he declared that every kind of food is acceptable in God's eyes.)

What do we call it when the writers deliberately change the tense to suit their Theology?

Also, note this little word that practically never, ever gets addressed:

17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable

Oh it says its a parable.

So in addition to completely ignoring the context, which is about Pharisee hypocrisy and changing the Law, they also ignore that little pesky word "Parable", which means "Not everything said was true, but there's a point to it". The point was about the Ritual handwashing. No need to address that little part when it comes to getting Jesus to contradict himself and say all foods are now clean, directly clashing with what he says in Luke 16:17 and Matthew 5:17-20.

And then there's Peter's vision in Acts 10 which the moral of the story that Gentiles are now allowed in the church rarely gets addressed in favor of the idea that you can now eat lizards and dung beetles.

 

[Jehovah'sWitness]

Christianity started off with completely Jewish roots. It was the gentiles who put an Anti-judaizing twist conspiracy on it later with works like the Pauline epistles. The gentile churches later conspired to stamp out all the original Jewish influence.

I agree that it started with Jewish roots, but Christianity was to replace Judaism, the law was nullified but the principles still remain.

So you are trying to say that the writings of Paul aren't inspired?

 

[Shermana]

I agree that it started with Jewish roots, but Christianity was to replace Judaism, the law was nullified but the principles still remain.

So you are trying to say that the writings of Paul aren't inspired?

The Law was never nullified, that would make Jesus a liar when he said "Until heaven and earth collapse, not a single jot or tittle shall be made void, until all things are accomplished".

The point of contention is the "All things are accomplished". I don't think the cross was "All things being accomplished", apparently there's still plenty left to do.

And it would also make God a liar when he said "For all generations". He didn't say "For 50 generations until the Messiah".

And yes, I have discussed extensively on this forum that Paul's epistles are not inspired. But this is not the thread for it. Feel free to start another thread on it.

 

[Jehovah'sWitness]

The Law was never nullified, that would make Jesus a liar when he said "Until heaven and earth collapse, not a single jot or tittle shall be made void, until all things are accomplished".

The point of contention is the "All things are accomplished". I don't think the cross was "All things being accomplished", apparently there's still plenty left to do.

And it would also make God a liar when he said "For all generations". He didn't say "For 50 generations until the Messiah".

Daniel 9:27 “And he must keep [the](law) covenant in force for the many for one week; and at the half of the week he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease" So the law covenant was to cease and in verse 26 we are told "And after the sixty-two weeks Mes·si′ah will be cut off, with nothing for himself"

I've got lots more reasoning if you want it too.

So you still offer all the sacrifices required by the law?

 

[Shermana]

Daniel 9:27 “And he must keep [the](law) covenant in force for the many for one week; and at the half of the week he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease" So the law covenant was to cease and in verse 26 we are told "And after the sixty-two weeks Mes·si′ah will be cut off, with nothing for himself"

I've got lots more reasoning if you want it too.



So you still offer all the sacrifices required by the law?

Daniel is referring to Antiochus and the Selucids conquering Jerusalem and taking over the temple. Obviously the sacrifices commenced again after they are "ceased", so its clearly referring to a temporary time. Unless you have some different explanation of what Daniel was talking about.

Read Zechariah 14, the sacrifices come back again in the end times. Even gotquestions.org, a site I hate, agrees with this.

Sacrifices are simply not possible without a working Temple and Priesthood. Saul lost his kingdom because he tried to do his own sacrifices.

With that, Zechariah 14 quashes any claim that the sacrifices are altogether done away with. And Jesus said "Before you make your gift on the altar, make peace with your brother", what a waste of breath if this was to never be the case again that we offer gifts on the altar.


Any other parts of the Law you feel are void now? Can you now slap your mom and marry your sister? Or is it just the sacrifices? Usually this anti-Law talk ends up being solely about the sacrifices, which Zechariah 14 clearly portrays as occuring in the end times. In fact, the Egyptians and nations have to go to Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts or they will suffer plagues and droughts.

But once again, this is NOT for this thread. If you want to discuss this, start another thread (there have been many and all have gone the same way...quashed) and I'll be happy to give the same rhetoric there as the others.

 

[Jehovah'sWitness]

Okay no need to get heated, I can see that you are as strong in your views as I am in mine, and if your not willing to accept the whole bible then theres not alot I can say, any furthur conversation on this would seem relatively pointless, but yes I do believe there are other void parts of the law...just not the two that you mentioned.

Peace.

 

[silenceinmotion]

Are Christians to be vegetarian?

No. Even Jesus ate fish (and probably other things as well, it's just that the disciples' testimonies aren't exactly about Jesus' diet)

 

[SageTree]

Specifically scripturally founded or not.....

Where I've arrived in my life I take 'Do not kill' in as many ways as I possibly can, rather, in all the ways I can REFRAIN from it.

There is human/animal /form death physically, yes...

But aren't there other ways to understanding 'killing' as well?

We 'slay' with our words and actions all the time... no blade needed.

And while it's not perhaps specifically noted.... responsibility to the Earth and all our Neighbours Is.

For me, my decision is justly founded in reason.
It's good for my life.

Not pushing or anything.... just laying out my thoughts.

:namaste
SageTree

 

[eunice]

Being a vegetarian is just a matter of choice. In the garden of Aden God provided food both plant and animals and Adam and Eve were at liberty to eat anything since they were given dominion over every living creature by God

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Being a vegetarian is just a matter of choice. In the garden of Aden God provided food both plant and animals and Adam and Eve were at liberty to eat anything since they were given dominion over every living creature by God

Please post the verse or verses that you have in mind.

- Genesis 1 vs 29,30

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Genesis 9: vs 3 - 5.
First man was given all fruits from plant for food, now here man is given meat as well - at least with no lifeblood on it. All meat (animals) have lifeblood, unless I believe cooked where there appear no blood (compositionally there is still blood).
So, what do christians think - are men to be vegetarian or not? Please clear up this bible teaching.

Compositionally there was Not the life's blood but vascular residue.

Before the Flood mankind was given vegetation as food according to Gen. 1 vs 29,30

In reference to the time during Jesus 1000-year reign over earth Isaiah wrote that God said mankind would have livestock [cattle] at Isaiah 30 v 23.

Since we are nearing the 'time of separation' of Matthew [25 vs 31,32] then we will know more details during Jesus messianic millennial reign over earth.
-Psalm 72 v 8.