It is permissive for Christians to eat meat today

The Liturgist said:

Actually new wine is not strictly speaking fresh grape juice, rather it is wine that has not undergone a complete course of fermentation. There is a world of difference between that and the pasteurized grape juice which has no potential for fermentation, unlike new wine (because pasteurization kills the yeast). It is an error to use pasteurized grape juice on a par with using white wine (which some churches use).

Click to expand...

Quite true. It was not until Louis Pasteur developed his method that grape juice, or milk, or any other beverage, could be rendered incapable of fermentation. Grape juice became popular in churches primarily as the result of the WCTU and other temperance groups at the end of the nineteenth century.

BobRyan said:

True in English -- not true in Greek or Hebrew. The Bible has the term for "New Wine" specific to fresh grape juice.
.

Click to expand...

The Liturgist said:

Actually new wine is not strictly speaking fresh grape juice, rather it is wine that has not undergone a complete course of fermentation. There is a world of difference between that and the pasteurized grape juice which has no potential for fermentation,

Click to expand...

When I fresh squeeze/press oranges/grapes/lemons etc -- I call it orange juice / grape juice / lemon juice - even though I did not also pasteurize it before I drank.

But I certainly agree that it could "go bad" if left out for a long enough period of time.

bbbbbbb said:

Quite true. It was not until Louis Pasteur developed his method that grape juice, or milk, or any other beverage, could be rendered incapable of fermentation. Grape juice became popular in churches primarily as the result of the WCTU and other temperance groups at the end of the nineteenth century.

Click to expand...

Grape juice was being used for the Christian communion service/ and Jewish Passover etc -- long before the end of the nineteenth century.

The Greek “oinos,” is used 28 times in the New Testament, but NEVER for the contents of the Passover cup. For passover it is "the cup" and "fruit of the vine".

The term “fruit of the Vine” properly represents His blood (Luke 22:20). But is that fruit of the vine fermented, or is it the pure, unadulterated juice of the grape? Had the New Testament writers used “gleukos,” the specific word for fermented wine (occurring one time in Acts 2:13), the meaning would be clear.

But they never used “gleukos” in reference to the Passover cup.

BTW - how did we switch from "Vegetarian vs meat eating" into "what word for wine is specifically fermented grape beverage vs grape juice?" ??

BobRyan said:

BTW - how did we switch from "Vegetarian vs meat eating" into "what word for wine is specifically fermented grape beverage vs grape juice?" ??

Click to expand...

That would have been you in post #379.
Personally, I have not seen any evidence that any ancient culture drank unfermented grape juice.

prodromos said:

That would have been you in post #379.
Personally, I have not seen any evidence that any ancient culture drank unfermented grape juice.

Click to expand...

Nor have I. Likewise, vegetarianism, although a form of fasting, was never commanded in the Church or in the Bible as a necessary diet for the believer throughout life. It is an option, even as some denominations have opted to use grape juice rather than wine.

prodromos said:

That would have been you in post #379.
Personally, I have not seen any evidence that any ancient culture drank unfermented grape juice.

Click to expand...

They probably didn’t, because the whole advantage of drinking fermented beverages was that the fermentation process made drinking it biomedically safeqr (as recently as the early 20th century: see the use of India Pale Ale in the British Raj due to the lack of potable water sources).

bbbbbbb said:

Nor have I. Likewise, vegetarianism, although a form of fasting, was never commanded in the Church or in the Bible as a necessary diet for the believer throughout life. It is an option, even as some denominations have opted to use grape juice rather than wine.

Click to expand...

Fun fact: the early church anathematized a sect which used water instead of wine in the Eucharist. So this ancient anathema also attaches to the Mormons, who do this, although that is far from the only error they make...

The Liturgist said:

Fun fact: the early church anathematized a sect which used water instead of wine in the Eucharist. So this ancient anathema also attaches to the Mormons, who do this, although that is far from the only error they make...

Click to expand...

Another interesting fact. The Mormons did use wine (not grape juice or water) until 1911 when the President (aka Prophet, Seer and Revelator) received the divine revelation to use water rather than wine. In fact, up to that time the Mormons grew their own grapes and made their own wine. As with the earlier revelation banning polygamy, it is commonly understood that the ban on wine was in response to the wider American culture, in this case being the Prohibition movement.

The Liturgist said:

They probably didn’t, because the whole advantage of drinking fermented beverages was that the fermentation process made drinking it biomedically safeqr (as recently as the early 20th century: see the use of India Pale Ale in the British Raj due to the lack of potable water sources).

Click to expand...

Also, claims that wedding guests were drinking large quantities of unfermented grape juice ignores the physical impossibility of consuming that much sugar. They would literally put themselves into a coma

prodromos said:

Also, claims that wedding guests were drinking large quantities of unfermented grape juice ignores the physical impossibility of consuming that much sugar. They would literally put themselves into a coma

Click to expand...

It also ignores the direct statement that by that stage of the wedding the guests, having drunk the better wine, would have been in a state of inebriation where they would not discern that inferior wine was being substituted.

It seems that we've drifted off-topic, since drinking wine is not the same as eating meat. However, it's just wishful thinking that the wine consumed in the NT wasn't fermented.

Acts 2:15, Peter said: "In spite of what you think, these men are not drunk, for it is only nine o’clock in the morning." He never would have said this if drunkenness wasn't common.

Romans 13:13, "Let us live decently as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in discord and jealousy." Likewise Paul never would have written this if drunkenness wasn't common.

Ephesians 5:18, "And do not get drunk with wine, which is debauchery, but be filled by the Spirit" Paul never would have written this either if drunkenness wasn't common.

Now, back to the OP topic...

pescador said:

It seems that we've drifted off-topic, since drinking wine is not the same as eating meat. However, it's just wishful thinking that the wine consumed in the NT wasn't fermented.

Acts 2:15, Peter said: "In spite of what you think, these men are not drunk, for it is only nine o’clock in the morning." He never would have said this if drunkenness wasn't common.

Romans 13:13, "Let us live decently as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in discord and jealousy." Likewise Paul never would have written this if drunkenness wasn't common.

Ephesians 5:18, "And do not get drunk with wine, which is debauchery, but be filled by the Spirit" Paul never would have written this either if drunkenness wasn't common.

Now, back to the OP topic...

Click to expand...

Yes, back to the OP. I think most of us are in agreement that eating meat is entirely permissible, if not completely normal, for most Christians.

Albion said:

Jesus certainly approved of eating the flesh of animals, so that's the end of the argument about what's permitted to Christians to eat.

Raising them in humane conditions, etc. is another and separate issue that most people do agree with, however.

Click to expand...

Approved is quite a strong word to use, which should have passages to justify that. And as I was not discussing what is permitted, this was not ending anything. What information I show just gets overlooked without response, while other things are said that have nothing to do with those. Except for saying raising animals in humane conditions is an issue, which is then left off, while I already had a lot to say for that. Any look into animal industry will show why there would be objection to using meat and products from that. All other objections were just overlooked and ignored. for this questionable claim that 'Jesus certainly approved of eating the flesh of animals'. What about the the original design according to God's perfect will? What about the healthiness of eating whole foods from plants, which is better for us than including animal products, and certainly processed foods? Cancers, and heart attacks and strokes from clogged arteries, and high blood pressure, and rheumatoid arthritis, and obesity, and overall mortality, can be fought off effectively with that healthy way. Is it God's will that we have a way of eating less healthy for us? And what is done to animals for that doesn't matter? (Proverbs 12:10) And what is happening with the world, with more land, water, and resources used up, for animal agriculture, doesn't matter?

RDKirk said:

If a vegan diet were what the human body is currently fitted for (post Fall), then somewhere on earth there would be vegan human social groups. There are none. There have been none. There have been, however, social groups that are almost purely carnivore.

Click to expand...

The term vegan is contemporary, and was not used for any people before 1949. There were vegetarians before then, and many among them also avoided eating animal products. And there is just no attention given to any groups that might have not used animals for food. There really were some such people in central Asia. And in the Bible Daniel and his group of friends were not still eating animal products through their captivity in the Babylonian empire. And there could be others, that you don't know about. You don't know that many early Christian believers, and known apostles, and James, avoided animal products.

bbbbbbb said:

Actually, there is an identifiable biological determinant regarding dietary intakes of mammals. Many animals such as cows have extremely long dietary tracts (cows have four stomachs which permit them to regurgitate the fodder and chew every last nutrient out of it) which are fitted for a plant diet only. At the other extreme are mammals with extremely short digestive tracts which mean they need to have a diet with nutrient-packed food. These animals are carnivores such as lions, tigers, and bears (oh my!). They will perish just as quickly eating only vegetable matter even as herbivores will perish if fed only meat.

In between are omnivores with moderately long digestive tracts which can process both vegetable matter and meat relatively effectively. Humans are omnivores, like it or not. Humans do fairly well on a meat diet and fairly well on a plant-based diet, but a balanced diet of the two sources works best for humans.

Curiously, there are a few animals which have the digestive tract of a carnivore, but which eat only plants. Two that come to mind are pandas (which are really in their own category) and koalas. The pandas only eat one particular species of bamboo and spend virtually all of their waking moments to eating bamboo in order to sustain themselves. Koalas, likewise, eat eucalyptus leaves only. They have the advantage that eucalyptus leaves ferment in their digestive tracts, producing alcohol, which leaves them in a perpetual state of inebriation.

Click to expand...

Hi bbbbbbb. Balanced diet is a contemporary myth. Having animal products is not better for us, if we have a variety of whole food from plants, including the various sorts of vegetables, and fruits, seeds, nuts, grains, and maybe some dried seaweed that is good to have. There are health issues from animal products. Studies show this and there are doctors who know this. The most realistic of what we can say for human design for eating meat is that we are adapted for that. It never was better for us, unless we are not getting much of the good variety of the food from plants that we should have.

pescador said:

Innocent animals are not tortured. They are killed as humanely as possible.

"To kill someone innocent because of something so self-absorbed as taste for meat is very dark in my world." Agreed. We should not be cannibals! BTW, an animal is not "someone".

How do you feel about murdering innocent vegetables? They are ripped from the ground and often eaten RAW!

Click to expand...

I am sorry to see this ignorance, perhaps willful, while there really is abusive treatment of animals in the animal industry. There is nothing humane done while they are being killed. And there are no laws or regulation for treatment of birds and other nonmammals.

You just use your own definition of 'someone' there. It is just arbitrary.

And vegetables, without any brain or any nervous system for any awareness at all, are murdered?! Ripped from the ground as they are screaming? Hahaha! That's really funny that you believe that! But it gives you no basis to use animals, which takes a lot more vegetation being grown and used to maintain that.

pescador said:

There are no foods that God condemns under the New Covenant.

Click to expand...

So you too continue with believing that God's mind changes. Then, what God's will was to start with doesn't matter.

GreekOrthodox said:

My prayer over a meal trumps how it was prepared.

BEFORE MEALS:
O Christ our God, bless the food, drink, and fellowship of Thy servants, for Thou art holy always, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.

AFTER MEALS:
We give thanks to Thee, O Christ our God, that Thou hast satisfied us with Thy earthly blessings; deprive us not also of Thy Heavenly Kingdom. As Thou didst come to Thy disciples and didst grant them peace; so come to us and save us, O Savior.

Click to expand...

@PsaltiChrysostom this is a post of yours I particularly love. Could you share with us the longer blessing of food that the priest and choir sing in some Orthodox churches, like Russian and OCA churches, while the people face the icons in the trapeza?

The Liturgist said:

@PsaltiChrysostom this is a post of yours I particularly love. Could you share with us the longer blessing of food that the priest and choir sing in some Orthodox churches, like Russian and OCA churches, while the people face the icons in the trapeza?

Click to expand...

No idea what the Russians or OCA do. I did find Ps 22:26 as part of the Russian prayers at dinner: The poor shall eat and be satisfied; and they shall praise the Lord that seek him: their heart shall live for ever.

The original design from God shown in Revelation to us was according to God's perfect will, it was without death and killing, and without even suffering, there will be everything this way again, for creation that groans for it and the redeemed who are repentant and restored to God, shown in prophecy. How is it that there are believers who believe God's mind changes? Claiming permission persistently regardless of anything is serving one's belly, it serves their own appetites, it is not looking toward God's perfect will.

It is known from valid studies that we will be healthier with whole foods without animal products and just getting needed vitamins with it, this way eliminates many problems to health. Why wouldn't God want this way instead of wanting what is worse for our health for us? It is worse treatment to animals, contrary to righteousness, Proverbs 12:10, along with many other verses showing the Creator's care for creatures. Animal agriculture is ruinous to this world and using a great amount more of land, water, and resources, contrary to the stewardship to this world which we are supposed to have. This isn't meant to continue, according to God's will.

Spiritual growth is desirable to all true believers, those who are repentant and in Christ restored to God. This growth goes beyond what is necessary to be saved in Christ, real change is yet to happen. As shown in Galatians 5:22-23, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. God's perfect will was shown with what was in place in the beginning with creation, including Genesis 1:29. Regardless of much later permissions in other circumstances that were not of God's perfect will, God's will did not change. God still cares for the creatures of God's creation, many psalms show this, just as it is shown with Proverbs 12:10, and prophecies are with return to this way of harmlessness to all, such as in Isaiah 11:6-9. In view of the healthiness of eating whole foods without animal products, as it was in the beginning, living this way is something desirable with the spiritual growth.

There certainly is logic to not keep using animal products. But there are the fellow believers I find in communication who will avoid that, apparently knowing that doesn't work for their position, and use scripture passages to make an argument, though they avoid context to have their own interpretation and disregard conflicting passages through the scriptures. The design without flaw from God and the prophesied restoral that will include repentant believers who are redeemed is without using animals or any harm to them.

1. Causing needless suffering and environmental harm is wrong.
2. Producing animal products causes suffering and environmental harm.
3. Animal products are unnecessary (for health, etc.)
Conclusion: Producing animal products is wrong.

We see everything arranged as shown in Genesis 1 was very good. In Genesis 9 all people in the world had become thoroughly and unredeemably corrupt, and God saw the need to destroy the world as it was because of them, saving the selected animals with one man who found favor with God, with his family, and no others even wanted to join them, when there was warning. So then, after the worldwide flood, there was not enough growing yet for the people and those animals for food, and animals were given into man's hand, quite like Job was given into the hand of Satan, expressed just the same way, fear and terror of men would fall on animals, and God saw that evil and wickedness were always in the hearts of men, far removed from the very good design, when God told Noah he could have meat from them only with meeting parameters, that you who claim that as permission generally don't meet at all, in the same sentence talking about responsibility of murder.

I never see anything that is humane slaughter, so I don't accept what is called that. And I know virtually all meat at a store is from animals slaughtered in industrial agriculture.

There is a high incidence of serious health issues generally later in life though not necessarily so, including heart attacks or strokes from clogged arteries, high blood pressure, cancers, diabetes, morbid obesity, and rheumatoid arthritis, which can be avoided and possibly reversed only with the right way of eating which is without animal products and avoiding processed foods but with meals made from whole foods.

The healthiest diet known to science is easy, fast, delicious, and affordable. Any of us could be looking into that healthy way of eating, which there are sites online for that are easily found, just having whole foods from plants and avoiding processed foods as it can be managed.

All that should be done should involve the godliness that we can reflect showing love, grace, and compassion, as Yahweh shows and which was modeled for us. In this we are not hurtful to others. And should there be exceptions to this? Unless you or those you can protect are directly threatened with violence, I don't think there are exceptions for such fruits of God's Spirit to be shown from us, with us caring for others. There should not be ongoing contribution to any misery or suffering. Our lives show change if we have come to repentance. And God does uncountable things for us.

BobRyan said:

BTW - how did we switch from "Vegetarian vs meat eating" into "what word for wine is specifically fermented grape beverage vs grape juice?" ??

Click to expand...

prodromos said:

That would have been you in post #379.

Click to expand...

???

In 379 I am responded to the person that actually did link meat and wine in his post #378 which is a post that does nothing but link wine and meat.

============================== here is my 379 verbatim

ReluctantTheologian said:

My simple answer: Jesus ate meat and drank wine, so I think it is safe to assume we as New Covenant believers are allowed to do that as well.

Click to expand...

True-- and the word translated in English as "wine" is more accurately the english phrase "grape beverage" where the attribute of it being fermented or not depends on context.