buttercup
Diamond Member
- Apr 9, 2010
- 10,244
- 7,533
- 2,020
Of course you're not going to get into it because it completely destroys your argument.Debatable. But I'm not going to get into that on this thread. Not worth it, with people whose minds are stubbornly made up on this entire topic of flesh eating.Jesus ate fish. End of argument unless you want to argue that Jesus was a sinner.
Luke 24:41-43
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43 And he took it, and did eat before them.
He also served fish to thousands and filled the nets of fishermen so the fish could be eaten.
No it doesn't. Always dig deeper. There is historical evidence that James, the brother of Jesus was a vegetarian. And there's also evidence that a number of the disciples were vegetarian. So, in light of that, it would be very odd if Jesus wasn't, since the student is not greater than the Master.
Also, Jesus had a heart for God's ORIGINAL design, before the world got corrupted. So for that and for numerous other reasons, many people believe that Jesus was a vegetarian.
When Jesus Himself relayed the story about multiplying the loaves, he did not mention fish at all. (Matthew 16:8-10) Interesting, huh? Also, at least one of the early church fathers (Irenaeus) who wrote about that story made no mention of fish. So that could suggest that the inclusion of fish was a later interpolation.
One thing that is undeniable, which you seem to be strangely against... is that God's original intent and perfect will - which we can see in the PRE-FALL world as well as in the future when God restores the peaceful world He created in the beginning does not include killing and flesh-eating.
Last edited: