It is permissive for Christians to eat meat today

BibleBeliever1611 said:

By considering the fact that the Bible calls veganism the doctrine of demons (literally) I'm pretty sure that we can eat meat today.

Click to expand...

The term there, βρωματων, can have reference to foods in general, not only meat. Without more context it is tough to know what is indicated, though there are various theories.

FredVB said:

You say Jesus gives endorsement which I see is not said.

Click to expand...

Of course it is, and has been posted again and again:


And He gave meat to thousands, which He would certainly not do if He thought it was a problem.

And we have the Scriptures showing He ate meat, and cooked it for His disciples, and speaking of the fattened calf positively.

FredVB said:

Everything God made was very good, as God said, and never said again of anything.

Click to expand...

Yes, everything was good. That was not in dispute. But God also said a fish or egg is a good gift for a father to give a child.

So apparently they are not only good, but good for eating, as God said so.

FredVB said:

You say right here what I was going to pin on you "God did change."

Click to expand...

Of course, I did not say that.

What I said was:

tall73 said:

God not changing doesn't mean you understood what was indicated. Everything God made was good.

God later eating meat and giving it to people, and saying a fish is a good gift, and instituting the sacrificial system either means that God did change, or you took a lesson from something that wasn't there.

Click to expand...

You took a lesson from something that wasn't there.

tall73 said:

I am going with Scripture. Jesus did eat meat. He also gave meat to eat for others, He also said a fish is a good gift.

And you haven't refuted any of the Scripture evidence, or addressed the early church evidence.

Click to expand...

Still stands.

FredVB said:

I know this way to be healthiest, your testimony is that of exvegans, which I give no credibility,

Click to expand...

You don't even give credibility to the various scriptures cited. Not believing me is a small matter compared to that.

FredVB said:

there is animal abuse, there are the issues in the world and use of a lot more land, water and resources, while environments are being diminished and many species go extinct, and climate is changing. Your position then is that none of it matters, you have the endorsement.

Click to expand...

Already addressed earlier. But, you just repeated the same talking points.

Your choice.

But there is not much point in continuing, if:

• You won't accept numerous Scripture passages
• You won't address specific evidence from the early church fathers showing the readings with fish are very early
• You won't explain why the NT manuscripts are all the opposite of the readings you put forward

This thread is reminiscent of those arguing for a flat earth. It doesn't matter what argument you put forward or what evidence, their mind is made up already and they won't accept any evidence to the contrary.

tall73 said:

The term there, βρωματων, can have reference to foods in general, not only meat. Without more context it is tough to know what is indicated, though there are various theories.

Click to expand...

If you read the verse, it says that people are going to start abstaining from certain foods. What types of food do people commonly abstain from today? The answer to this question is how we know what it's referring to.

Veganism is demonic and that's clear in scripture.

1 Timothy 4:
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

BibleBeliever1611 said:

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats

Click to expand...

Since there are two elements listed, and the term for food is more broad than just meat, my point is that it is not the most straight-forward argument on the subject.

How do you relate forbidding to marry to veganism?

tall73 said:

Since there are two elements listed, and the term for food is more broad than just meat, my point is that it is not the most straight-forward argument on the subject.

How do you relate forbidding to marry to veganism?

Click to expand...

They are related by the fact that they're both doctrines of devils, did you read the passage?

But even if we accepted that it's just talking about food in general, we would still come to the conclusion that the food which the verse is talking about is meat due to the fact that nowadays people are forbidding to eat meat. There's no any other type of food that people want to abstain from, I've never seen anyone wanting to abstain from vegetables. So the verse must be talking about meat specifically.

BibleBeliever1611 said:

They are related by the fact that they're both doctrines of devils, did you read the passage?

Click to expand...

Yes, I did read the passage.

The forbidding of marriage and foods appear as part of a larger list of characteristics describing certain ones who will depart from the faith.

1 Timothy 4:1-6

So the Spirit says some shall

• Depart from the faith
• Giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils
• Speaking lies in hypocrisy
• Having their conscience seared with a hot iron
• Forbidding to marry
• Commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

He appears to be describing a particular group of apostates, with these characteristics.

tall73 said:

You don't even give credibility to the various scriptures cited. Not believing me is a small matter compared to that.


Already addressed earlier. But, you just repeated the same talking points.

Your choice.

But there is not much point in continuing, if:

• You won't accept numerous Scripture passages
• You won't address specific evidence from the early church fathers showing the readings with fish are very early
• You won't explain why the NT manuscripts are all the opposite of the readings you put forward

Click to expand...

I don't think you do. Are you already avoiding all the blood? You checked that all the animals were not strangled? You acknowledge animals being abused is wicked, that you verifiably avoid any involvement whatsoever with in your choices? God hates all that. God gave the perfect way for us to live and it did not include any of that, animals were not used, there was originally good stewardship, with which the image of God was possible. God does not change, this way is the will of God. Any differences with what is permitted is not of the will of God but for accommodating humans sinful since the fall, that they would come to God at all though not perfect. As Jesus said, it was not so in the beginning, but there are hard hearts among the people. That accommodation is what I see in suggested scripture passages. I can actually show where passages were changed, and it was said that there were scribes writing their lies.

FredVB said:

I don't think you do. Are you already avoiding all the blood? You checked that all the animals were not strangled?

Click to expand...

FredVB said:

your testimony is that of exvegans, which I give no credibility

Click to expand...

I posted earlier on various points of my personal experience, and you said you can't give any credibility to the statements of ex-vegans about their practices. So why ask me now?

FredVB said:

I can actually show where passages were changed, and it was said that there were scribes writing their lies.

Click to expand...

But you haven't. So far you have only said all the original manuscripts that didn't have meat are gone. Which is not the same as other various readings where we have a variety of extant readings.

And you have posted theories about how the meat was added later, but the church father quotes I referenced show they were already familiar with them quite early.

tall73 said:

I posted earlier on various points of my personal experience, and you said you can't give any credibility to the statements of ex-vegans about their practices. So why ask me now?




But you haven't. So far you have only said all the original manuscripts that didn't have meat are gone. Which is not the same as other various readings where we have a variety of extant readings.

And you have posted theories about how the meat was added later, but the church father quotes I referenced show they were already familiar with them quite early.

Click to expand...

I can't give credibility to testimony that not eating animal products was unhealthy. I know that is not true. Of course there are unhealthy ways some practice veganism. I am bewildered by vegans responding with hostility to me speaking of healthy ways, showing they don't want healthy ways, like it would take away from their showing they care for animals. These things or other good things about not using animals are not exclusive. Of course, you need the vitamin supplements. That is not unusual. With any diet available to us now there are some things needing to be supplemented. And you should not have processed stuff with the good variety of whole foods you should have. You should not need oils, sugars, or salt being added to you meals, you might use seasonings and spices, which are healthy. If you don't do such healthy ways, it would not be as healthy. But the healthy way, which works with being vegan, is not hard.

So I can ask you about these biblical things, which have nothing to do with that. I doubt you had the healthy way and walk away from it saying it is not healthy. You can tell me still you observe these biblical things, or do not.

I said there were changes from the original writings. There are. 1 John 5:7 is a well known example, and there are others, even known about. There is no basis to dismiss there might be others though not known. That there is not a manuscript known showing text without fish where it is claimed is no basis to say it could not be put in afterward. If it was not altered afterward, I have still heard it might be interpreted differently than as fish. But it is significant that when Jesus mentioned later they gathered up many baskets full of bread fragments, there was no mention of fish or their bones, in that passage. Nevermind the other passages, this one suggests it was one passage neglected in the added alteration. Otherwise, why would it be so negligent of acknowledging fish remains, which would have certainly been there?

Even that early there were contested views all around Christianity. You have not acknowledged the early Christians (not followers who went with Jesus, you know who I mean). The believers still in the land of the Jews, where did they go?

FredVB said:

I can't give credibility to testimony

Click to expand...

I am done talking to you about my personal experience, because you will simply dismiss it. We can stick to the biblical evidence, which anyone can verify.

FredVB said:

I said there were changes from the original writings. There are. 1 John 5:7 is a well known example, and there are others, even known about. There is no basis to dismiss there might be others though not known.

Click to expand...

This was already addressed. Those instances had various readings extant, so we know there is a variant reading. You are alleging changes where no reading that you advocate for exists. Those are not the same at all.

FredVB said:

That there is not a manuscript known showing text without fish where it is claimed is no basis to say it could not be put in afterward.

Click to expand...

This is admitting the lack of evidence.

And there is no reason to think that this was added. The early church father witnesses to the fish reading show these readings were early.

FredVB said:

If it was not altered afterward, I have still heard it might be interpreted differently than as fish.

Click to expand...

The only folks with an interest in doing so would be those ideologically opposed to eating fish. And "I heard" is not evidence.

But perhaps you should spell out how that works. I am interested to know how the fishermen-turned-disciple John, for instance, didn't know how to describe what a fish was without confusing people.

FredVB said:

But it is significant that when Jesus mentioned later they gathered up many baskets full of bread fragments, there was no mention of fish or their bones, in that passage.

Click to expand...

This has been addressed previously as well.


Regarding Jesus' later statement, try reading contextually. The discussion was that they didn't bring bread, and He pointed out bread was not an issue. He also made a play on the bread with the yeast of the pharisees.

FredVB said:

Even that early there were contested views all around Christianity. You have not acknowledged the early Christians (not followers who went with Jesus, you know who I mean). The believers still in the land of the Jews, where did they go?

Click to expand...

Didn't you just say what you could show us? Why have you not shown us? The only time you tried to your own source referenced eating fish as great, citing the example of Jesus providing it.

If you want to post evidence, put your primary source material, with links to it so we can all view it.

I have posted various church father quotes, with links, and various Bible texts, and you have not responded, other than to claim that all of the texts were doctored--but we have no record of it in the form of manuscripts without meat in those sections.

Here are some of the texts you are claiming were doctored:

A baseless claim that all of those Scriptures are doctored is not convincing.

Here are various church fathers who do reference fish in feeding the multitudes, or eaten with honeycomb, or as a good gift, etc. some at quite early dates.

Ignatius Died around 108
To the Philippians

And how can He be but God, who raises up the dead, sends away the lame sound of limb, cleanses the lepers, restores sight to the blind, and either increases or transmutes existing substances, as the five loaves and the two fishes, and the water which became wine, and who puts to flight thy whole host by a mere word?


Justin Martyr 100-165
On the Resurrection

And when they were by every kind of proof persuaded that it was Himself, and in the body, they asked Him to eat with them, that they might thus still more accurately ascertain that He had in verity risen bodily; and He ate honey-comb and fish.

Origen 185-253
Commentary on Matthew

It must be observed, however, that while in Matthew, Mark, and Luke,5349 the disciples say that they have the five loaves and the two fishes, without indicating whether they were wheaten or of barley, John alone says, that the loaves were barley loaves.



Cyprian 210-258
To Antonianus About Cornelius and Novatian.

23. The Lord also in His Gospel, setting forth the love of God the Father, says, “What man is there of you, whom, if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give good things to them that ask Him?”2494 The Lord is here comparing the father after the flesh, and the eternal and liberal love of God the Father.



Lactantius 250-325
The Divine Institutes

And when He had tarried there three days, and the people were suffering from hunger, He called His disciples, and asked what quantity of food672 they had with them. But they said that they had five loaves and two fishes in a wallet. Then He commanded that these should be brought forward, and that the multitude, distributed by fifties, should recline on the ground. When the disciples did this, He Himself broke the bread in pieces, and divided the flesh of the fishes, and in His hands both of them were increased.


Augustine 354-430
Sermon on the Mount, Harmony of the Gospels, Homilies on the Gospels

For after saying, “There is a lad here which hath five barley loaves and two fishes,” he likewise subjoined, “But what are they among so many?” And this last clause really means the same as the expression in question, namely, “except we should go and buy meat for all this people.”



Constitutions of the Holy Apostles 375-380

He that made Aaron’s dry rod put forth buds,3027 will raise us up in glory; He that raised Him up that had the palsy whole,3028 and healed him that had the withered hand,3029 He that supplied a defective part to him that was born blind from clay and spittle,3030 will raise us up; He that satisfied five thousand men with five loaves and two fishes, and caused a remainder of twelve baskets,3031 and out of water made wine,3032 and sent a piece of money out of a fish’s mouth3033 by me Peter to those that demanded tribute, will raise the dead.


John Chrysostom 347-407
Homily XLIX.Matt. XIV. 13.

But John saith also, that they were “barley loaves,”1928not mentioning it without object, but teaching us to trample under foot the pride of costly living. Such was the diet of the prophets also.1929

2. “He took therefore the five loaves, and the two fishes, and commanded the multitude,” it is said, “to sit down upon the grass, and looking up to Heaven, He blessed, and brake, and gave to His disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.1930 And they did all eat and were filled, and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full. And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.”
Jerome 347 – 420
Letter CVIII To Eustochium

24. And now do you in your turn answer me these questions. How do you explain the fact that Thomas felt the hands of the risen Lord and beheld His side pierced by the spear?29782978 Joh. xx. 26–28. And the fact that Peter saw the Lord standing on the shore29792979 Joh. xxi. 4. and eating a piece of a roasted fish and a honeycomb.29802980 Luke xxiv. 42, 43. If He stood, He must certainly have had feet. If He pointed to His wounded side He must have also had chest and belly for to these the sides are attached and without them they cannot be.

tall73 said:

I am done talking to you about my personal experience, because you will simply dismiss it. We can stick to the biblical evidence, which anyone can verify.

Click to expand...

Of course you are. I did not expect one who says they were unhealthy from being vegan was honestly eating, and will not admit they were not, in the way I know to be healthy, from huge studies showing it, benefits to many individuals known from their change to this way, and benefits I have that I can believe would be from this way I had for well over nine years, and while Christians are especially resistant to hearing this I was Christian as I am now and have been for well over four decades, and I thank God so often that I was not so resistant, I knew verses better even well before giving up meat and several years later the other animal products.

Aside from the massive China Study and many other studies done earlier, there are newer ones still confirming it, other than ones with corporate business interests involved and invested in results.

Vegetarians have 12% lower cancer risk and vegans 24% lower cancer risk than meat-eaters, this study finds. An analysis of 79,468 North American Seventh-day Adventists in the Adventist Health Study-2 found that, after adjusting for lifestyle and demographic factors, vegetarians had a 12% lower risk of all cancers combined and vegans had a 24% lower risk compared to nonvegetarians.

The study tracked participants for almost eight years, matching cancer cases to state and provincial registries. Reduced risk was strongest for colorectal, stomach and lymphoproliferative cancers, with vegan diets showing notable protection against breast cancer in younger women and prostate cancer in younger men. Pesco-vegetarians had significantly lower colorectal cancer risk, while lacto-ovo vegetarians showed lower lymphoma rates. Medium-frequency cancers as a group, such as melanoma, thyroid, ovarian and pancreatic, were also less common in vegetarians.

Body mass index partially explained some differences, but dietary patterns themselves appeared influential, possibly due to higher intake of fruits, vegetables, legumes and nuts, and avoidance of processed or red meats, which are linked to carcinogenic compounds. No cancer type showed increased risk in vegetarians. Researchers highlight the role of plant-based nutrients and phytochemicals in reducing inflammation, supporting immune function and improving gut health. They caution that vegan diets should be balanced to prevent nutrient gaps, particularly vitamin B12, iron and omega-3 fatty acids, which may require fortified foods or supplements.

Strengths of the study include the large vegetarian sample, long-term stable diets, validated dietary measures and minimal confounding from smoking or alcohol. Limitations include reliance on baseline diet data, relatively small numbers for rare cancers and the observational design, which cannot confirm causation.

Source: Fraser, Gary E., et al. "Longitudinal Associations Between Vegetarian Dietary Habits and Site-Specific Cancers in the Adventist Health Study-2 North American cohort." The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2025).

Of course, I am always talking about the healthy way, not just anyway of avoiding animal products.

tall73 said:

This was already addressed. Those instances had various readings extant, so we know there is a variant reading. You are alleging changes where no reading that you advocate for exists. Those are not the same at all.



This is admitting the lack of evidence.

And there is no reason to think that this was added. The early church father witnesses to the fish reading show these readings were early.



The only folks with an interest in doing so would be those ideologically opposed to eating fish. And "I heard" is not evidence.

But perhaps you should spell out how that works. I am interested to know how the fishermen-turned-disciple John, for instance, didn't know how to describe what a fish was without confusing people.



This has been addressed previously as well.

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

Regarding Jesus' later statement, try reading contextually. The discussion was that they didn't bring bread, and He pointed out bread was not an issue. He also made a play on the bread with the yeast of the pharisees.

Mark 8:13-21 13 And He left them, and getting into the boat again, departed to the other side. 14 Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, and they did not have more than one loaf with them in the boat. 15 Then He charged them, saying, “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.”​

16 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “It is because we have no bread.”​

17 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “Why do you reason because you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive nor understand? Is your heart still hardened? 18 Having eyes, do you not see? And having ears, do you not hear? And do you not remember? 19 When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments did you take up?”​

They said to Him, “Twelve.”​

20 “Also, when I broke the seven for the four thousand, how many large baskets full of fragments did you take up?”​

And they said, “Seven.”​

21 So He said to them, “How is it you do not understand?”​

Didn't you just say what you could show us? Why have you not shown us? The only time you tried to your own source referenced eating fish as great, citing the example of Jesus providing it.

If you want to post evidence, put your primary source material, with links to it so we can all view it.

I have posted various church father quotes, with links, and various Bible texts, and you have not responded, other than to claim that all of the texts were doctored--but we have no record of it in the form of manuscripts without meat in those sections.

Here are some of the texts you are claiming were doctored:

Genesis 9:1-7 1 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.​

​

Deuteronomy 12:15 “However, you may slaughter and eat meat within all your gates, whatever your heart desires, according to the blessing of the Lord your God which He has given you; the unclean and the clean may eat of it, of the gazelle and the deer alike.​

​

Deuteronomy 11:15 And I will send grass in your fields for your livestock, that you may eat and be filled.’​

​

Exodus 12:8 8 Then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. (NKJV)​

​

Leviticus 7:31 And the priest shall burn the fat on the altar, but the breast shall be Aaron’s and his sons’. 32 Also the right thigh you shall give to the priest as a heave offering from the sacrifices of your peace offerings. 33 He among the sons of Aaron, who offers the blood of the peace offering and the fat, shall have the right thigh for his part. 34 For the breast of the wave offering and the thigh of the heave offering I have taken from the children of Israel, from the sacrifices of their peace offerings, and I have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons from the children of Israel by a statute forever.’ ”​

​

Leviticus 19:5 ‘And if you offer a sacrifice of a peace offering to the Lord, you shall offer it of your own free will. 6 It shall be eaten the same day you offer it, and on the next day. And if any remains until the third day, it shall be burned in the fire.​

​

1Ki 17:6 And the ravens brought him bread and meat in the morning, and bread and meat in the evening, and he drank from the brook.​

​

Joh 21:12 Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. 13 Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise.​

​

Luke 22:14 When the hour had come, He sat down, and the twelve apostles with Him. 15 Then He said to them, “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer​

​

Matthew 15:35 So He commanded the multitude to sit down on the ground. 36 And He took the seven loaves and the fish and gave thanks, broke them and gave them to His disciples; and the disciples gave to the multitude. 37 So they all ate and were filled, and they took up seven large baskets full of the fragments that were left.​

​

Luk 11:11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? 12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? 13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?​

​

Deuteronomy 14:22 “You shall truly tithe all the increase of your grain that the field produces year by year. 23 And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your new wine and your oil, of the firstborn of your herds and your flocks, that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always. 24 But if the journey is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, or if the place where the Lord your God chooses to put His name is too far from you, when the Lord your God has blessed you, 25 then you shall exchange it for money, take the money in your hand, and go to the place which the Lord your God chooses. 26 And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household. 27 You shall not forsake the Levite who is within your gates, for he has no part nor inheritance with you.​

​

Deuteronomy 15:19 “All the firstborn males that come from your herd and your flock you shall sanctify to the Lord your God; you shall do no work with the firstborn of your herd, nor shear the firstborn of your flock. 20 You and your household shall eat it before the Lord your God year by year in the place which the Lord chooses​

​

Deuteronomy 12:20 “When the Lord your God enlarges your border as He has promised you, and you say, ‘Let me eat meat,’ because you long to eat meat, you may eat as much meat as your heart desires.​

​

Luke 15:20-24 20 “And he arose and came to his father. But when he was still a great way off, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him. 21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ 22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet. 23 And bring the fatted calf here and kill it, and let us eat and be merry; 24 for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ And they began to be merry. (NKJV)​

Abraham was not rebuked for eating meat, or serving it to the LORD:​

​

Genesis 18:1-8 1 Then the LORD appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day. 2 So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the ground, 3 and said, “My Lord, if I have now found favor in Your sight, do not pass on by Your servant. 4 Please let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree. 5 And I will bring a morsel of bread, that you may refresh your hearts. After that you may pass by, inasmuch as you have come to your servant.” They said, “Do as you have said.”​

6 So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah and said, “Quickly, make ready three measures of fine meal; knead it and make cakes.” 7 And Abraham ran to the herd, took a tender and good calf, gave it to a young man, and he hastened to prepare it. 8 So he took butter and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree as they ate. (NKJV)​

​

Luke 24:41-43​

41 But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?” 42 So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. 43 And He took it and ate in their presence. (NKJV)​

​

A baseless claim that all of those Scriptures are doctored is not convincing.

Here are various church fathers who do reference fish in feeding the multitudes, or eaten with honeycomb, or as a good gift, etc. some at quite early dates.

Ignatius of Antioch: Epistles of Ignatius - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

ccel.org

Ignatius Died around 108
To the Philippians

And how can He be but God, who raises up the dead, sends away the lame sound of limb, cleanses the lepers, restores sight to the blind, and either increases or transmutes existing substances, as the five loaves and the two fishes, and the water which became wine, and who puts to flight thy whole host by a mere word?

CHURCH FATHERS: On the Resurrection (Justin Martyr)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

Justin Martyr 100-165
On the Resurrection

And when they were by every kind of proof persuaded that it was Himself, and in the body, they asked Him to eat with them, that they might thus still more accurately ascertain that He had in verity risen bodily; and He ate honey-comb and fish.

Philip Schaff: ANF09. The Gospel of Peter, The Diatessaron of Tatian, The Apocalypse of Peter, the Vision of Paul, The Apocalypse of the Virgin and Sedrach, The Testament of Abraham, The Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena, The Narrative of Zosimus, Th

ccel.org

Origen 185-253
Commentary on Matthew

It must be observed, however, that while in Matthew, Mark, and Luke,5349 the disciples say that they have the five loaves and the two fishes, without indicating whether they were wheaten or of barley, John alone says, that the loaves were barley loaves.

Philip Schaff: ANF05. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

ccel.org

Cyprian 210-258
To Antonianus About Cornelius and Novatian.

23. The Lord also in His Gospel, setting forth the love of God the Father, says, “What man is there of you, whom, if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give good things to them that ask Him?”2494 The Lord is here comparing the father after the flesh, and the eternal and liberal love of God the Father.

Philip Schaff: ANF07. Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries: Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Homily, and Liturgies - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

ccel.org

Lactantius 250-325
The Divine Institutes

And when He had tarried there three days, and the people were suffering from hunger, He called His disciples, and asked what quantity of food672 they had with them. But they said that they had five loaves and two fishes in a wallet. Then He commanded that these should be brought forward, and that the multitude, distributed by fifties, should recline on the ground. When the disciples did this, He Himself broke the bread in pieces, and divided the flesh of the fishes, and in His hands both of them were increased.

Click to expand...

I do not have to back off from asserting that if there are a number of verified changes to scripture passages found, as there are, it is possible and even likely there are more, that are not, maybe what is found is the tip of the iceberg. The scriptures warned of the scribes with lying pens.

What of this verse (not other ones, this! here is where something is missing that should be mentioned if it existed and there were not changes to other related texts, but here it was neglected), Mark 8:18-20?

There were the apostles and James who was the brother of Jesus.

It is all diversion from what I was saying all along that can't be shown otherwise, about God's will, it was what was shown in the beginning and God did not change, God never will change.

FredVB said:

Of course you are. I did not expect one who says they were unhealthy from being vegan was honestly eating, and will admit they were not, in the way I know to be healthy, from huge studies showing it, benefits to many individuals known from their change to this way, and benefits I have that I can believe would be from this way I had for well over nine years, and while Christians are especially resistant to hearing this I was Christian as I am now and have been for well over four decades, and I thank God so often that I was not so resistant, I knew verses better even well before giving up meat and several years later the other animal products.

Click to expand...

Your point makes zero sense. If I were "resistant" to considering not eating meat or animal products--I wouldn't have been a vegetarian and vegan for years! I did not start out that way. I chose to do so after being raised eating meat. I also promoted it, and my church held public seminars teaching people to eat this way, etc. I was an Adventist for years where vegetarianism is widely practiced, and encouraged.

And as I already said earlier in the thread, I do think that many people I know did very well on that same vegetarian/vegan diet, though it does often require supplementation. And as you said, I think in general using whole foods, simply prepared, is the best course. But some people do better on whole foods with meat than without.

Now I could go on and talk about the diet I ate as a vegetarian, how I developed health issues, and you would go on disbelieving it. But not everyone responds the same to the same diet. So you seeing benefits to you and others does not, in fact, rule out the possibility that some do NOT do well on it. And that was my experience. I think if someone can do well on it, great. If not, there is no problem with eating meat, as God's Son ate meat.

And if you want to promote veganism, I make no objection to that at all. But I do make objection to trying to change numerous Bible texts to fit an ideology. Jesus ate meat. God commanded the Israelites to eat meat. Christians do not all have to become vegetarian.

FredVB said:

An analysis of 79,468 North American Seventh-day Adventists in the Adventist Health Study-2 found that, after adjusting for lifestyle and demographic factors, vegetarians had a 12% lower risk of all cancers combined and vegans had a 24% lower risk compared to nonvegetarians.

Click to expand...

I helped administer that test in my local congregation. Which is why it was all the more ironic I eventually did so poorly on that diet. But I don't downplay that diet, or regret promoting it. For many people it works well, and is certainly better than the standard American diet.

FredVB said:

Body mass index partially explained some differences, but dietary patterns themselves appeared influential, possibly due to higher intake of fruits, vegetables, legumes and nuts, and avoidance of processed or red meats, which are linked to carcinogenic compounds. No cancer type showed increased risk in vegetarians. Researchers highlight the role of plant-based nutrients and phytochemicals in reducing inflammation, supporting immune function and improving gut health.

Click to expand...

And yet, I had to have multiple surgeries, deal with constant inflammation, etc. despite eating plants, legumes, etc. because of gut problems on a vegetarian diet, regardless of your perception of that. If folks are reading along who experience the same, they can hear it. Now do I think everyone would have the problems I did? No, there was a family history, I was more sensitive to some plant defense mechanisms than others, etc. As I said, many people thrived on the diet I was eating as a vegetarian, and if they can, good for them.

FredVB said:

I do not have to back off from acerting that if there are a number of verified changes to scripture passages found, as there are, it is possible and even likely there are more, that are not, maybe what is found is the tip of the iceberg. The scriptures warned of the scribes with lying pens.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but your article you posted accepted all kinds of "evidence", but wouldn't give actual citations, and neither have you. You are very willing to accept third-hand reference to Ebionite practice, etc. despite not even posting the actual texts or evidence you base it on.

Yet you are willing to undermine many New Testament readings, despite the NT being by far the most attested to work in all of antiquity.

The fact that we have many, many manuscripts, spread across various geographical regions, means that we have much more data on these texts than the other literature you vaguely refer to, and appear to accept without actually analyzing them the same way.

We do see various variants in the extant manuscripts, mostly minor, but some not, as in the case of the Johannine comma you referenced. But we have enough manuscripts to see the variation throughout different areas, and over time.

To say that because there are variant readings in some places--where we actually see differences--that there are likely to be wholesale changes where they managed to corrupt every single manuscript on an entire topic, in every region, and some how make sure the original reading doesn't get dug up somewhere, accidentally, is absurd.

And it also means that your Christian faith doesn't include God actually preserving His word to any degree, apparently on a topic you feel rather strongly about.

Now personally I tend to favor the Byzantine readings, as the Greek church maintained it over time, but I still acknowledge that the Critical Eclectic text, or the TR preserve much the same text, with some passages to be examined.

But this kind of conspiracy that somehow sees people, systematically hunting down every ancient manuscript, and adding meat is unsupported. It is basically speculation, wishful thinking.

If you approach Scripture in a way that says any text that you object to could just be added, and therefore you ignore it, you wind up with no Scripture at all.

The text was preserved. Jesus ate meat. His disciples ate meat. The evidence is all there.

FredVB said:

What of this verse (not other ones, this! here is where something is missing that should be mentioned if it existed and there were not changes to other related texts, but here it was neglected), Mark 8:18-20?

Click to expand...

"Not other ones, this!" speaks to your overall problem. You have numerous texts that reference meat, and you don't have evidence against them.

But as to this text, it is parallel to the one I posted on numerous times already. If you actually interacted with all the various responses given to you, with details, with sources, with information that speaks to what you have put, it would move the conversation along a lot faster. Making claims without ever responding to counter-claims or evidence undercuts your argument.

When reading the whole passage in context it makes sense why it refers to bread, but not fish.

• Earlier in the chapter it records the multiplying of loaves and fishes.
• Then it relates an interaction between Jesus and the pharisees, where the pharisees demanded a sign.
• Right after that we find this passage. I will quote more than just three verses, because it spells out the purpose of the passage.

• Jesus' point was not about the bread in the boat. It was about something spreading from the pharisees that they should be careful to avoid. They missed the point entirely and were focused on the bread--or lack thereof in this case.
• The disciples misunderstood Jesus reference to leaven. Jesus was talking about something that works its way through the bread. In this case the leaven of the pharisees could spread. But they connected talk of leaven to thoughts of bread, and thought that somehow Jesus was critiquing their forgetting to bring bread.

Jesus pointed out that the number of loaves of bread is not an issue, and was not what He was talking about. They were confused.

And the fact that they were worried about bread after He already showed His power over it, power to provide whatever was needed, indicates that they were missing some things. One loaf in the hands of the Son of God would be more than they could ever need if it came to that. So He told them to stop thinking about bread, and get your mind back on the actual topic.

We see this even more clearly in the parallel passage in Matthew:


The focus was on bread in the passage because they confused His statement about leaven, and applied it to their own focus on having forgotten the bread.

He then redirected them to His actual teaching which they were missing.

FredVB said:

There were the apostles and James who was the brother of Jesus.

Click to expand...

• The apostles were the ones eating fish with Jesus in these various passages you deny.
• James I already addressed in post 497 that you never interacted with.

James was indeed known for prayer and fasting. But he was not a vegan activist.

James, in Acts 21 speaks of the myriads, tens of thousands, of Jewish Christians who were zealous for the law. The law commanded meat eating in the Passover. The law spelled out fellowship offerings involving eating of meat. The law provided meat for the priests as they ministered the sacrifices. The law indicated they could eat as much meat as they wanted when they entered the land, etc.

And particularly, in that passage James indicates Paul should go offer sacrifices for those who had taken a vow, and needed cleansing. You can read about how that worked in Numbers 6. But parts of those offerings went to the priest as their portion to eat, because God had commanded that. And James still encouraged Paul to offer, promoting both sacrifice, and eating of meat.

FredVB said:

It is all diversion from what I was saying all along that can't be shown otherwise, about God's will, it was what was shown in the beginning and God did not change, God never will change.

Click to expand...

Your willingness to delete various passages of Scripture, and only accept one verse from Genesis on this topic is not a problem of God changing, but you reading into the text what wasn't there.

Jesus is God. Jesus ate meat. Your assertions about God not wanting meat to be eaten are in error.