You have accused me of “preaching a false gospel” to “justify” my vegetarianism. This is not the case, and I’m not sure how you concluded I was a vegetarian simply because I’m sharing evidence that I believe Jesus was. In fact I am vegetarian, but was not when I first researched this topic, and I was not vegetarian when I first became convinced by the evidence that Jesus was. It’s the other way around, I was a meat-eater who was convinced Jesus was a vegetarian, who then later become convicted that killing animals was not right; but am most certainly not a vegetarian pushing the idea Jesus was too, in order to ‘justify’ my lifestyle as you say.
And as to the idea that this is a “false gospel”, it seems then that you would agree with this analogy: that if you were in a room with a lamb, Jesus, the devil and a butcher knife, that it would be Jesus (the truth) commanding you to kill the lamb and eat it, and the devil (false gospel) telling you not to kill it and instead eat a diet that doesn’t necessitate violence or cruelty against animals.
To me, this just seems completely backwards. Why would God want bloodshed and slaughter and it is the ‘devil’ (evil) via this ‘false gospel’ that wants to stop the slaughter, bloodshed and create peace on earth?
Do you also believe Isaiah was a false prophet then, for prophesying that Jesus would be raised a vegetarian from childhood (only curds and honey would he eat), or do you not believe this prophecy was of Jesus as most Christians, or how do you explain this (Isaiah 7:14-15)? This description of Jesus being raised a vegetarian matches perfectly with the description of his brother James as also having been raised a vegetarian from birth...
And I must ask, as you haven’t made it 100% clear, do you believe God WANTS us to kill and torture animals for food (as is done in factory farms to supply meat to the masses), or even just to kill animals in general; is this why animals were created, to be killed for food, or is this only a result of ‘the fall’?
I’m just trying to understand why exactly Christians who support killing animals to eat them in the name of God do so.
If God does not actually WANT innocent animals to be killed by mankind, then we obviously shouldn’t be doing it. Jesus taught his followers to always do the will of the Father just as he did. He taught us to pray to God in this manner: “Your kingdom come, your will be done, ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN.” And unless the angels are killing animals in heaven, which I think we can agree is not taking place, then Jesus clearly does not want us killing animals on earth. It would be entirely self-contradictory and self-defeating to pray for one thing while doing the opposite, particularly when such action is within our grasp, such as living a vegetarian lifestyle.
Isaiah’s vision of the kingdom on earth with animals and men all living in peace together seems to disagree with the idea that God actually WANTS animals to be killed, for he says it is because “the knowledge of the Lord” has spread across the whole earth that such peace has been realized. And Jesus says in John 17 that eternal life is to know the Father (have knowledge of God), and the Christ.
It's arguable that man was meant to live off the land in Eden (seeing as there was an abundance of fruit), but now man is fallen. Sacrifices were sanctioned right after the Fall for this very reason.
Slavery is also sanctioned ‘after the fall’, does this mean you support and defend human slavery as ordained and desired by God? I certainly don’t! I think most Christians can agree that human slavery is morally wrong and not desired by the loving Father revealed by Jesus, despite such slavery being ordained and permitted in the law of Moses.
There is also at this point in time an abundance of fruit and vegetables, grains, nuts, seeds, etc. In fact such an abundance that some 1/3 of fresh produce ends up in the landfills! It is not difficult nowadays to live without consumption of animal flesh, at least not for those of us living in western society. There may still be some few remote tribes like the Massai in Africa where this is not the case, but lack of vegan food supply is not a valid argument for most people living in this modern age.
So it appears you admit God did not originally want animals to be needlessly killed for food, then? It seems you are saying this was only a concession in response to ‘the fall’ and that it is only the case now because ‘man is fallen.’ But James and Malachi both state unequivocally that God does NOT change(Malachi 3:6, James 1:17). This idea also seems to have been presented by Moses in Numbers 23:19. This would seem to indicate it was man who changed when he began to sacrifice animals and eat their meat, rather than God changing to allow it.
Jesus himself taught that the way God had originally set things up in the beginning superseded the law of Moses when there was a clear contradiction, as explained in regards to divorce which was allowed in the Mosaic law, but not originally ordained by God in the very beginning. God did not want divorce, but “Moses permitted it because of the hardness of your hearts,” Jesus explained. The same can go for animal sacrifice and meat-eating.
I do not believe God ever wanted or commanded sacrifice, as Jesus said, “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.” On two occasions he quotes this verse from Hosea, which reads in full: “I desire mercy and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.” (Hosea 6:6) This is the same ‘knowledge of God’ which Isaiah speaks of covering the earth when men and animals no longer kill each other.
And as it is written in Jeremiah, God never commanded sacrifices. Isaiah also says much the same way when he denounces animal sacrifice in the first chapter of his book. Isaiah makes it clear that God is sick of animals being killed and sacrificed in his name. How such commands concerning sacrifice made their way into the scriptures is explained in Jeremiah 8:8, that the scribes had turned the law of God into a lie. Jesus also warned us to beware of the scribes.
It seems you are suggesting that it is acceptable to needlessly kill animals for food because of the fallen state of man as you put it. I think we can agree this fallen state is a state of sin. And Jesus came specifically to free man from sin, not just the penalties of sin as some Christian doctrines teach. He came to set mankind free from this fallen state, in other words he came to bring the kingdom of heaven to earth. In John 8 he teaches that anyone who keeps his word (follows his teachings/commandments) will be set free from sin, and he makes this clear. He also tells the woman taken in adultery to “Go, and sin no more,” and teaches his followers to: “Be perfects, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.”
Then you'd have to disagree with the 4 canonical Gospels universally accepted by the early fathers, as in them Jesus and his apostles share fish. The church historians aren't infallible, they're men just like we are and many contracted inaccurate information and traditions.
Well, since the early fathers are infallible as you state, then how can we trust their judgement when it comes to their choice of which gospels to include and which ones to exclude from the now-accepted canon of scriptures?
Regardless, only one of these four gospels has Jesus eating fish, in Luke and only after his resurrection. This same gospel of Luke has Jesus warning his disciples against the eating of flesh and intoxication of wine, in the oldest Syriac transcripts.
And while only Luke has Jesus eating fish, all four gospels agree that he disrupted the animal sacrifice system in the temple and freed the animals - which actions directly led to his death.
Also, in regards to the miracles of multiplying the fish and loaves, though the gospels do say Jesus fed the multitude with fish and bread, when he refers back to these miracles himself he only mentions the bread, indicating the fish was potentially a late scribal addition. These same gospels also have Jesus calling the disciples away from professions as fishermen to instead become ‘fishers of men’ (rather than of fish obviously), at which point “they immediately left their nets and followed him.” They gave up their professions of killing fish for profit and followed Jesus.
Of course, Jesus didn't mean we should not love our neighbour and only wish the best for our enemies, because the entire Sermon of the Mount is about applying the Law not just to its letter, but to its spirit.
Agreed. It isn’t the ‘love your neighbor’ part Jesus is denouncing in this reference but the ‘hate your enemy’ part. We are supposed to love both our neighbors and enemies, whereas the commandment to love neighbor in the law clearly permits for hatred towards enemy, for it states the Israelites may take slaves only from the nations outside Israel, and may kill these foreigners in war, etc. Jesus was expanding from love of neighbor exclusively to love of both neighbor and enemy, which precept is not found in the law of Moses, at least not set forth clearly as Jesus here did.
I disagree with your interpretation in regards to ‘eye for an eye’ that Jesus was only correcting a Rabbinical teaching in regards to personal revenge and that such applied only to governments. I believe the teaching of Jesus applies to all of humanity, from the individual to the community all the way up to the nation-state level as well. It is the solution to human suffering, but only if universally applied as opposed to only on the individual level.
I do not see how anything that is wrong for an individual can somehow be ‘right’ for a government or higher authority. If it is wrong for me to kill my enemy, then it is much more wrong for my government to do so on a massive scale in warfare. And if it is wrong for me to kill someone in an act of revenge, then I believe it is wrong for the state to do so as a form of ‘punishment’.
Ditto for oaths, and of course Jesus didn't mean all oaths are bad, considering Hebrews notes Jah's oath himself, and Paul (who you do seem to accept) does swear oaths.
I cannot say I agree 100% with everything attributed to Paul in the Bible, but do accept much of his teaching as truth, yes. I however disagree with your assessment that Jesus didn’t mean what he said when he flat out prohibited swearing oaths of all kinds and specifically stated that “anything more” than a simple yes or no was “from the evil one.” His words, not mine.
James agrees:
“But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.” (James 5:12)
In our fallen state (at least) there's nothing going against killing and eating animals for food, as there is for murdering a man.
Except the precept set forth by Jesus that the way God designed things in the beginning takes precedent over later teachings, and that we are to do the will of the Father on earth now just as it is being done in heaven.
And the commandment, “thou shalt not kill,” is not restricted to humans; that idea is a matter of human interpretation not found in the Ten Commandments themselves. Also Isaiah plainly says that, “He who slaughters a bull is as if he kills a man, and he who sacrifices a lamb as if he cut off a dog’s neck.” (Isaiah 66:3)
You see, while a part of our job is to bring heaven to earth, the Kingdom of Heaven won't just be brought into earth by our own actions. It needs to be brought by the Messiah himself,
You see, the Messiah already came and “brought the kingdom of heaven to earth,” and taught us how to expand that kingdom reality to the entire earth - by following his teachings. When walking the earth, he said the kingdom had already arrived. When on the cross, he said “It is finished.” Are you saying his job to bring the kingdom to earth actually wasn’t finished like he claimed? He did his part, and showed us the way, now it is up to us to follow him.
and a massive war needs to make that happen (Battle of Gog and Magog/Armageddon),
I agree in a sense, though disagree this war is a literal war at the end of time, but is rather an internal war being waged within every single person throughout every age, between our higher natures (Christ within us) and our lower selves (carnal nature as Paul called it). When the Christ nature defeats the lower carnal nature, the ‘second coming of Christ’ has arrived, that is the resurrection of the Christ within, and the kingdom has been brought to earth in you. As Jesus taught, the kingdom will not come by waiting around and looking for it, but rather, “the kingdom of God is within you.” When that kingdom within is realized in a person, then that person begins to manifest heaven on earth. When enough people do so, then the kingdom of heaven begins to physically manifest on earth. Much of Paul’s teachings are on this internal battle and the spirit of Christ within us.
in-fact God used wars to punish others in the last 2000 years, directly paving the way for heaven on earth.
While I do agree that God uses all things for his purpose, I do not believe he orchestrates wars, but rather that men living in sin wage wars. Nor do I see how war paves the way for heaven on earth, for war is hell on earth.
Not until all is fulfilled will swords be turned into plowshares and spears into hooks, and will the wolf and lamb live in peace.
I would argue instead that, it is not until men beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks will all be fulfilled, and then will the wolf and lamb live in peace.
If it is clear that God’s will is for the whole earth to be filled with peace, I do not understand how not working towards this ideal, when it is both possible and relatively easy to do so, is not exactly what we should be doing as followers of Jesus. Is it not our job as followers of Jesus to act as ambassadors of the kingdom of heaven and beacons of light in this world of darkness? And are not the cruel conditions present in factory farming and the needless killing of billions of innocent animals for pleasure and profit a great darkness on the face of the earth? I certainly think so. Maybe you disagree.