It is permissive for Christians to eat meat today

FredVB said:

There are evidences of more added, that gives me suspicion, such as fish with honeycomb, which is odd in itself. Clearly honeycomb was actually being removed! Caught that! There is a trend.

Click to expand...

Are you alleging that honeycomb was removed, or that fish was added?

I already spelled out some of the issues you face, but you did not respond.

a. There are extant witnesses indicating He ate fish, and there are extant witnesses indicating He ate fish and honeycomb. You have not demonstrated that there were any texts that allege He ate only honeycomb.
b. The word "it" is not in the text. You can see that from versions that place implied words in italics. The variant is in the verse about the honeycomb. I don't see variants of note in the apparatus for the part that says receiving He ate in front of them. You can see this from the KJV for instance:

Luk 24:43 And he took it, and did eat before them.
"It" is in italics because it is not in the text.

You can also see this in the academic translation the Lexham English Bible

Luke 24:42-43
42 So they gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it[a] and[b] ate it[c] in front of them.

Footnotes​

1. Luke 24:43 Here the direct object is supplied from context in the English translation
2. Luke 24:43 Here “and” is supplied because the previous participle (“took”) has been translated as a finite verb
3. Luke 24:43 Here the direct object is supplied from context in the English translation

FredVB said:

Earliest believers had been giving up meat. That information though true has been suppressed. Clement of Alexandria is a good read, speaking on the table of demons mentioned in the new testament. This has something to say about distinguishing followers.

Click to expand...

Earliest believers were shown eating fish in the texts above, which you seem to claim were added.

If you are going to cite Clement, please give the reference. The closest I could find was from the pseudo-Clementine literature. It refers to the table of demons, a reference to the things offered to idols, from I Corinthians 10:21

tall73 said:

Are you alleging that honeycomb was removed, or that fish was added?

I already spelled out some of the issues you face, but you did not respond.

a. There are extant witnesses indicating He ate fish, and there are extant witnesses indicating He ate fish and honeycomb. You have not demonstrated that there were any texts that allege He ate only honeycomb.
b. The word "it" is not in the text. You can see that from versions that place implied words in italics. The variant is in the verse about the honeycomb. I don't see variants of note in the apparatus for the part that says receiving He ate in front of them. You can see this from the KJV for instance:

Luk 24:43 And he took it, and did eat before them.
"It" is in italics because it is not in the text.

You can also see this in the academic translation the Lexham English Bible

Luke 24:42-43
42 So they gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it[a] and[b] ate it[c] in front of them.

Footnotes​

1. Luke 24:43 Here the direct object is supplied from context in the English translation
2. Luke 24:43 Here “and” is supplied because the previous participle (“took”) has been translated as a finite verb
3. Luke 24:43 Here the direct object is supplied from context in the English translation

Earliest believers were shown eating fish in the texts above, which you seem to claim were added.

If you are going to cite Clement, please give the reference. The closest I could find was from the pseudo-Clementine literature. It refers to the table of demons, a reference to the things offered to idols, from I Corinthians 10:21

1 Corinthians 10:19-22​

19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? 20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He? (NKJV)​

Philip Schaff: ANF08. The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementia, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First Age - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

ccel.org

Chapter XXXVI.—The Garments Unspotted.​

​

“But the ways in which this garment may be spotted are these: If any one withdraw from God the Father and Creator of all, receiving another teacher besides Christ, who alone is the faithful and true Prophet, and who has sent us twelve apostles to preach the word; if any one think otherwise than worthily of the substance of the Godhead, which excels all things;—these are the things which even fatally pollute the garment of baptism. But the things which pollute it in actions are these: murders, adulteries, hatreds, avarice, evil ambition. And the things which 143pollute at once the soul and the body are these: to partake of the table of demons, that is, to taste things sacrificed, or blood, or a carcase which is strangled,748 and if there be aught else which has been offered to demons. Be this therefore the first step to you of three; which step brings forth thirty commands, and the second sixty, and the third a hundred​

​

​

​

Click to expand...

Okay, I see the versions with honeycomb removed. That happened. Honeycomb is not controversial and never was. There is this that is evidence that passages change with copying and with translating. It is just a strange combination, fish and honeycomb together. Not really a natural arrangement. My suspicion has such basis, admittedly not proof, but legitimate suspicion, since early believers were not eating meat (this is historical), that there was meat, fish in this and other cases, added to texts. Honeycomb being odd with fish, there is the suggestion to me that it was there and meat (fish) was put in. But as it was one thing offered to Jesus after his resurrection, honeycomb is more believable, with no agenda behind it for having it added, an agenda by some to have meat that was not there put in is more credible. Feeding the multitudes: there were lots of crumbs, filling up baskets afterward. No suggestion of any bones or parts from fish. It is conspicuously absent from mention if it is considered to have been really present.

A reference? Book two chapter one, I thought I had mentioned it. Clement of Alexandria was a real person and really wrote.

FredVB said:

early believers were not eating meat (this is historical)

Click to expand...

It is not historical, it is fictional. There was a controversy about the meat sacrificed to idols in Corinth, so some believers who had a weaker faith ate just plants.

But not because of meat being bad or something, but because of the sacrifice to idols.

FredVB said:

Okay, I see the versions with honeycomb removed. That happened. Honeycomb is not controversial and never was. There is this that is evidence that passages change with copying and with translating. It is just a strange combination, fish and honeycomb together. Not really a natural arrangement. My suspicion has such basis, admittedly not proof, but legitimate suspicion, since early believers were not eating meat (this is historical), that there was meat, fish in this and other cases, added to texts.

Click to expand...

You didn't even address the 12 Old Testament texts which speak about meat, which were written before the NT was even being composed.

These were written over many years, by many authors, and the notion that they would all be edited to add meat, and no trace would exist of the meatless originals is far-fetched. Especially if you say it is because early Christians didn't eat meat. Christians were not the only ones with a stake in the OT text.

Now as to the honeycomb being removed

a. The readings not having honeycomb were earlier. So the idea that it was removed because of a conspiracy doesn't follow clearly from that. Why would it be removed from the earliest that took us some time to become aware of again, but not from the mainstream majority text, if the goal was to hide it?

b. The vast majority actually still have honeycomb. The majority text reading has honeycomb and fish. The Text Critical English Version Byzantine Text Edition quantifies what percentage of manuscripts have each reading. 91.9 percent of manuscripts that contain the passage include honeycomb. So if the removal of honeycomb were part of the pro-meat conspiracy, they did a really bad job of it.

FredVB said:

Honeycomb being odd with fish, there is the suggestion to me that it was there and meat (fish) was put in.

Click to expand...

Yet as mentioned before, there are none without fish. But there are (some) without honeycomb. If this was a far-reaching conspiracy, why not clean up all the evidence, and only have fish?

FredVB said:

Feeding the multitudes: there were lots of crumbs, filling up baskets afterward. No suggestion of any bones or parts from fish. It is conspicuously absent from mention if it is considered to have been really present.

Click to expand...

Mark 6:43 And they took up twelve baskets full of fragments and of the fish. (NKJV)

FredVB said:

A reference? Book two chapter one, I thought I had mentioned it. Clement of Alexandria was a real person and really wrote.

Click to expand...

Who claimed Clement of Alexandria was not a real person? But I couldn't find a reference to that passage in Clement of Alexandria's writings. I did find it in the later works from PseudoClement. I was not sure if you confused the names.

You did not give a reference earlier. And even now you did not give a full reference.

Is that Book 2 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers? He is in volume 2, but you haven't stated which of his extant works to look in,.

Why is it you are making the claim, but won't post any of the evidence?

tall73 said:

You didn't even address the 12 Old Testament texts which speak about meat, which were written before the NT was even being composed.

These were written over many years, by many authors, and the notion that they would all be edited to add meat, and no trace would exist of the meatless originals is far-fetched. Especially if you say it is because early Christians didn't eat meat. Christians were not the only ones with a stake in the OT text.

Now as to the honeycomb being removed

a. The readings not having honeycomb were earlier. So the idea that it was removed because of a conspiracy doesn't follow clearly from that. Why would it be removed from the earliest that took us some time to become aware of again, but not from the mainstream majority text, if the goal was to hide it?

b. The vast majority actually still have honeycomb. The majority text reading has honeycomb and fish. The Text Critical English Version Byzantine Text Edition quantifies what percentage of manuscripts have each reading. 91.9 percent of manuscripts that contain the passage include honeycomb. So if the removal of honeycomb were part of the pro-meat conspiracy, they did a really bad job of it.





Yet as mentioned before, there are none without fish. But there are (some) without honeycomb. If this was a far-reaching conspiracy, why not clean up all the evidence, and only have fish?



Mark 6:43 And they took up twelve baskets full of fragments and of the fish. (NKJV)




Who claimed Clement of Alexandria was not a real person? But I couldn't find a reference to that passage in Clement of Alexandria's writings. I did find it in the later works from PseudoClement. I was not sure if you confused the names.

You did not give a reference earlier. And even now you did not give a full reference.

Is that Book 2 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers? He is in volume 2, but you haven't stated which of his extant works to look in,.

Why is it you are making the claim, but won't post any of the evidence?

Click to expand...

I get criticized in other discussion for observing any of the old testament, in discussion of this I get old testament regulation thrown at me. I will pass on what others throw at me, I am not under old testament regulation.

Early Christians had stopped eating meat, apostles had done so. It is not about what Jews who were not believers were doing. What I believe with some reasons for it is that sacrifices were widely practiced by pretty much everyone, and eating any meat was already tied to it. People of Israel were going to continue with that anyway. It was not the most important issue, while there were restrictions God had to give those people. Human sacrificing was out, and God meant the sacrifices to be limited, though in reality they did not remain limited, and God made use of people sacrificing to show need of atonement and have them ready with faith they should have for Christ's coming. That is all I will say for it.

There is no issue anyone had with honeycomb earlier. There was an issue about those not eating meat with desire (very reasonably) to spread the gospel for more to come to Christ, among meat eaters. Who of them would give up meat? So there was motive for meat to be included in passages where it was not, few were copying and it was easier then to get a few things copiers believed in anyway into texts. Again there is not definite proof what Christ ate, I would not make a doctrine of it, and while crumbs from bread were extremely abundant there was no mention of bones or fish parts, which can be explained with those adding the fish in to have neglected that result that could be expected.

Clement of Alexandria book 2 chapter 1

It is a longer read there, but this is what I referred to.

There is this thing having some argument with those who respond for the interest to serve their bellies. This is a real motive and I recognize the addiction speaking, there are the addictive substances in animal products, like in meat but most especially in dairy cheese, where it is concentrated. They never know food that is much better tasting, that I know from experience. I am not hiding that but they won't hear it.

One way of eating was perfect, nothing else was called very good.