It is permissive for Christians to eat meat today

[tall73]

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.

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 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.

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​

​

​

​

 

[FredVB]

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​

​

​

​

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.

 

[trophy33]

early believers were not eating meat (this is historical)

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.

 

[tall73]

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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

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?

 

[FredVB]

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?

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

Clement of Alexandria: The Instructor, Book 2

Clement of Alexandria: The Instructor, Book 2 (translation Roberts-Donaldson). On Early Christian Writings.

earlychristianwritings.com

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.

 

[tall73]

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.

a. You are confounding questions of OT commands and discussion of what the OT says about food.

b. You have, in fact, rested your case from Scripture on one text alone--from the Old Testament. So calling into question the Old Testament certainly won't help your case there.

c. My question was rather, not why you think we should or should not obey OT law, but why you think there are so many texts where God is OK with eating meat, gives people meat, says eat as much meat as you want, etc. if eating meat is bad in the eyes of the Lord.

d. The reason for pointing out the OT text is you passed over all that evidence against your view with no comment, indicated all the NT text was corrupt, and went to Clement of Alexandria for support from early Christians. Clement is not exactly the best to use in regards to literal interpretation, as the Alexandrian school tended more to spiritual lessons.

But if we are going to take the section you posted, it doesn't help you at all. It is a fairly straight-forward discussion of not living for the flesh, including gluttony. And he notes the type of food they should eat:

And "whether ye eat or drink, do all to the glory of God," aiming after true frugality, which the Lord also seems to me to have hinted at when He blessed the loaves and the cooked fishes with which He feasted the disciples, introducing a beautiful example of simple food. That fish then which, at the command of the Lord, Peter caught, points to digestible and God-given and moderate food.​

​

Clement did NOT have an issue with the NT, or with fish.

Early Christians had stopped eating meat, apostles had done so. It is not about what Jews who were not believers were doing.

No, per the NT text, which Clement agrees with, they had not stopped eating meat.

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.

Meat eating was specifically said to be fine outside of the scope of sacrifice. They were to sacrifice at only the place specified, but they could eat meat in the usual fashion in all their gates, according to the blessing of the Lord.

Deuteronomy 12:13-15​

13 Take heed to yourself that you do not offer your burnt offerings in every place that you see; 14 but in the place which the LORD chooses, in one of your tribes, there you shall offer your burnt offerings, and there you shall do all that I command you.​

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. (NKJV)​

​

This doesn't sound like God was upset by their eating meat:

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.​

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.

But it is honeycomb that is not in the earlier texts, by the way which are mostly from the area of Alexandria, where Clement was from (the climate was better for preserving them). The fish were in all the texts.

And Clement agreed the fish were legitimate, and said they were good food.

Again there is not definite proof what Christ ate

You are alleging they didn't eat meat. The OT text, the NT text, and the additional witness you presented, Clement, all say they did eat meat. There is no lack of evidence that they ate meat. There is lack of evidence of your claimed conspiracy.

, 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.

I just posted where it referred to the remains of the fish in the last post. You went right on to present the same inaccurate argument again.

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

Clement of Alexandria book 2 chapter 1

Clement of Alexandria: The Instructor, Book 2

Clement of Alexandria: The Instructor, Book 2 (translation Roberts-Donaldson). On Early Christian Writings.

earlychristianwritings.com

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

Did you read it? As I noted above, it does not agree with your conspiracy that the fish were added to the text:

And "whether ye eat or drink, do all to the glory of God," aiming after true frugality, which the Lord also seems to me to have hinted at when He blessed the loaves and the cooked fishes with which He feasted the disciples, introducing a beautiful example of simple food. That fish then which, at the command of the Lord, Peter caught, points to digestible and God-given and moderate food.​

​

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

You just got done dismissing the Old Testament. But this is apparently the only text you believe to be un-doctored--and it is in the Old Testament.

 

[FredVB]

a. You are confounding questions of OT commands and discussion of what the OT says about food.

b. You have, in fact, rested your case from Scripture on one text alone--from the Old Testament. So calling into question the Old Testament certainly won't help your case there.

c. My question was rather, not why you think we should or should not obey OT law, but why you think there are so many texts where God is OK with eating meat, gives people meat, says eat as much meat as you want, etc. if eating meat is bad in the eyes of the Lord.

d. The reason for pointing out the OT text is you passed over all that evidence against your view with no comment, indicated all the NT text was corrupt, and went to Clement of Alexandria for support from early Christians. Clement is not exactly the best to use in regards to literal interpretation, as the Alexandrian school tended more to spiritual lessons.

But if we are going to take the section you posted, it doesn't help you at all. It is a fairly straight-forward discussion of not living for the flesh, including gluttony. And he notes the type of food they should eat:

And "whether ye eat or drink, do all to the glory of God," aiming after true frugality, which the Lord also seems to me to have hinted at when He blessed the loaves and the cooked fishes with which He feasted the disciples, introducing a beautiful example of simple food. That fish then which, at the command of the Lord, Peter caught, points to digestible and God-given and moderate food.​

​

Clement did NOT have an issue with the NT, or with fish.




No, per the NT text, which Clement agrees with, they had not stopped eating meat.



Meat eating was specifically said to be fine outside of the scope of sacrifice. They were to sacrifice at only the place specified, but they could eat meat in the usual fashion in all their gates, according to the blessing of the Lord.

Deuteronomy 12:13-15​

13 Take heed to yourself that you do not offer your burnt offerings in every place that you see; 14 but in the place which the LORD chooses, in one of your tribes, there you shall offer your burnt offerings, and there you shall do all that I command you.​

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. (NKJV)​

​

This doesn't sound like God was upset by their eating meat:

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.​

But it is honeycomb that is not in the earlier texts, by the way which are mostly from the area of Alexandria, where Clement was from (the climate was better for preserving them). The fish were in all the texts.

And Clement agreed the fish were legitimate, and said they were good food.




You are alleging they didn't eat meat. The OT text, the NT text, and the additional witness you presented, Clement, all say they did eat meat. There is no lack of evidence that they ate meat. There is lack of evidence of your claimed conspiracy.



I just posted where it referred to the remains of the fish in the last post. You went right on to present the same inaccurate argument again.

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

Did you read it? As I noted above, it does not agree with your conspiracy that the fish were added to the text:

And "whether ye eat or drink, do all to the glory of God," aiming after true frugality, which the Lord also seems to me to have hinted at when He blessed the loaves and the cooked fishes with which He feasted the disciples, introducing a beautiful example of simple food. That fish then which, at the command of the Lord, Peter caught, points to digestible and God-given and moderate food.​

​

You just got done dismissing the Old Testament. But this is apparently the only text you believe to be un-doctored--and it is in the Old Testament.

This whole discussion is full of diversions. I made my points early on and the whole discussion moved away from those.

I am not talking about what God is okay with. God is okay with a lot of stuff from us. Otherwise we would have been wiped off from this world. As such, God is okay with many of you divorcing.

It is shown still what God's will is. That God is okay with some things otherwise does not change what God's will is. What is shown from God to be very good is of God's will.

It is not about whether such that is written in the old testament part of the Bible or not. The beginning is not part of the old covenant. The old covenant was to blatant sinners. It had demands for change, but it was not for restoring all to God's perfect will. That could not be done. So whatever was contrary to God's will that God could use to restore any of them to God, with needed faith, God would use, but it would not be for it continuing. The fullness came with Christ's coming into this world.

It is like you assume you know everything from what you find in the Bible. But the reality of what happened in the accounts of the Bible was not in a vacuum. Knowing history can help understanding significantly more, and there is more and more support for Bible accounts with that. There are cultures in those times but those are not shown with any description in the Bible. There is not everything to know just from looking at the Bible, we have support for faith outside of it, what we have just from the Bible is what is for the spiritual growth and restoration to God that is effective and which we need.

You fully missed the point of the reference to the writing from Clement of Alexandria. It was about those still serving their belly. Fish did not need to be mentioned for that point.

https://medium.com/sant-mat-meditation-and-spirituality/evidence-that-jesus-and-the-original-aramaic-christians-were-vegetarians-b8784ac42506

 

[tall73]

This whole discussion is full of diversions. I made my points early on and the whole discussion moved away from those.

I am not talking about what God is okay with. God is okay with a lot of stuff from us. Otherwise we would have been wiped off from this world. As such, God is okay with many of you divorcing.

It is shown still what God's will is. That God is okay with some things otherwise does not change what God's will is. What is shown from God to be very good is of God's will.

No, when Jesus, Who IS God, declared something a good gift to give your children, and gave fish to His disciples and others, we may say that it is good. Because He said it is good.

And Clement noted that it was good as well because of the Lord's example.

It is like you assume you know everything from what you find in the Bible. But the reality of what happened in the accounts of the Bible was not in a vacuum. Knowing history can help understanding significantly more, and there is more and more support for Bible accounts with that. There are cultures in those times but those are not shown with any description in the Bible. There is not everything to know just from looking at the Bible, we have support for faith outside of it, what we have just from the Bible is what is for the spiritual growth and restoration to God that is effective and which we need.

We may know many things we learn from sources other than the Bible.

But you won't find support for faith by disregarding God's word which He already gave.

You fully missed the point of the reference to the writing from Clement of Alexandria. It was about those still serving their belly. Fish did not need to be mentioned for that point.

I did not miss it. I noted that the main point was not serving the flesh. However, he did not share your understanding of that, regarding not eating meat.

You say fish did not need to be mentioned. He did feel he should mention it--precisely because it was the example of God in the flesh. But you have questioned the whole account and said we cannot know. That is not what Clement did.

 

[tall73]

Your source indicated that the early church fathers provide evidence of the fish being added, because Irenaeus, Eusebius and Arnobius don't mention the fish. And it indicates this was because they were not yet inserted into the Greek manuscripts.

Here are the dates for those authors:

Irenaeus 125-202
Eusebius of Caesarea 260-339
Arnobius died 330

Once again, it would be helpful if sources were given for these statements.

In the case of Irenaeus I was able to find one reference, and it is quite clear why he mentions the loaves, but not the fish.

It is from Against Heresies, book II, Chapter XXIV.—Folly of the arguments derived by the heretics from numbers, letters, and syllables.
The reason it doesn't mention to the 2 fishes is because he is making a point about their false understandings based on numbers, in this case the 5 loaves.

Philip Schaff: ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

ccel.org

4. But that this point is true, that that number which is called five, which agrees in no respect with their argument, and does not harmonize with their system, nor is suitable for a typical manifestation of the things in the Pleroma, [yet has a wide prevalence,] will be proved as follows from the Scriptures. Soter is a name of
five letters; Pater, too, contains five letters; Agape (love), too, consists of five letters; and our Lord, after3173 blessing the five loaves, fed with them five thousand men. Five virgins were called wise by the Lord; and, in like manner, five were styled foolish. Again, five men are said to have been with the Lord when He obtained testimony from the Father,—namely, Peter, and James, and John, and Moses, and Elias.


I found what I think is the reference in Arnobius where he makes brief mention, and
I agree Arnobius doesn't reference the fish. But to say that by his time fish was not in Greek manuscripts does not follow, as we have church fathers from earlier times quoting such.

Arnobius
Against the Heathen

CHURCH FATHERS: Against the Heathen, Book I (Arnobius)

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

www.newadvent.org

46. Was He one of us, I say, who by one act of intervention at once healed a hundred or more afflicted with various infirmities and diseases; at whose word only the raging and maddened seas were still, the whirlwinds and tempests were lulled; who walked over the deepest pools with unwet foot; who trod the ridges of the deep, the very waves being astonished, and nature coining under bondage; who with live loaves satisfied five thousand of His followers: and who, lest it might appear to the unbelieving and bard of heart to be an illusion, filled twelve capacious baskets with the fragments that remained?



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.




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.

Philip Schaff: NPNF1-06. St. Augustine: Sermon on the Mount; Harmony of the Gospels; Homilies on the Gospels - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

ccel.org

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.”

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

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.

Philip Schaff: NPNF1-10. St. Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

ccel.org

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.”

 

[FredVB]

Your source indicated that the early church fathers provide evidence of the fish being added, because Irenaeus, Eusebius and Arnobius don't mention the fish. And it indicates this was because they were not yet inserted into the Greek manuscripts.

Here are the dates for those authors:

Irenaeus 125-202
Eusebius of Caesarea 260-339
Arnobius died 330

Once again, it would be helpful if sources were given for these statements.

In the case of Irenaeus I was able to find one reference, and it is quite clear why he mentions the loaves, but not the fish.

It is from Against Heresies, book II, Chapter XXIV.—Folly of the arguments derived by the heretics from numbers, letters, and syllables.
The reason it doesn't mention to the 2 fishes is because he is making a point about their false understandings based on numbers, in this case the 5 loaves.

Philip Schaff: ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

ccel.org

4. But that this point is true, that that number which is called five, which agrees in no respect with their argument, and does not harmonize with their system, nor is suitable for a typical manifestation of the things in the Pleroma, [yet has a wide prevalence,] will be proved as follows from the Scriptures. Soter is a name of
five letters; Pater, too, contains five letters; Agape (love), too, consists of five letters; and our Lord, after3173 blessing the five loaves, fed with them five thousand men. Five virgins were called wise by the Lord; and, in like manner, five were styled foolish. Again, five men are said to have been with the Lord when He obtained testimony from the Father,—namely, Peter, and James, and John, and Moses, and Elias.


I found what I think is the reference in Arnobius where he makes brief mention, and
I agree Arnobius doesn't reference the fish. But to say that by his time fish was not in Greek manuscripts does not follow, as we have church fathers from earlier times quoting such.

Arnobius
Against the Heathen

CHURCH FATHERS: Against the Heathen, Book I (Arnobius)

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

www.newadvent.org

46. Was He one of us, I say, who by one act of intervention at once healed a hundred or more afflicted with various infirmities and diseases; at whose word only the raging and maddened seas were still, the whirlwinds and tempests were lulled; who walked over the deepest pools with unwet foot; who trod the ridges of the deep, the very waves being astonished, and nature coining under bondage; who with live loaves satisfied five thousand of His followers: and who, lest it might appear to the unbelieving and bard of heart to be an illusion, filled twelve capacious baskets with the fragments that remained?



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.




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.

Philip Schaff: NPNF1-06. St. Augustine: Sermon on the Mount; Harmony of the Gospels; Homilies on the Gospels - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

ccel.org

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.”

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

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.

Philip Schaff: NPNF1-10. St. Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

ccel.org

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.”

My whole point is the will of God. Your position is that God changes. My position is that God never changed. God permits things while they are not God's will.

I could only trust you to have a really good look at the site I gave for information.

My whole point is the will of God. Your position is that God changes. My position is that God never changed. God permits things while they are not God's will.

I could only trust you to have a really good look at the site I gave for information.

The Gospels of the Hebrews and Ebionites describe a vegetarian ethos: a vegetarian Jesus and vegetarian Apostles, a John the Baptist who ate carob (locust beans), and a rejection of ritual animal sacrifice.

Keith Akers points out the existence of different versions of the biblical story — the Feeding of the 5,000 or the Multitude:

“If you look at other accounts of the same incident… If you look, for example, at the Early Church Fathers, who also talk about these stories, Irenaeus mentions the feeding of the 5,000. Eusebius also mentions that, and Arnobius, another early church writer also discusses Jesus’ feeding of the multitude, the miraculous feeding of the multitude.

“And in every case they discuss the bread but they don’t mention anything about fish. So I think that fish is a later addition. In fact, if you even look at the New Testament, it says, at another point, when Jesus is talking about the feeding of the five thousand, he says, ‘Don’t you remember when I fed the multitudes and all the bread that we took up?’ And he doesn’t mention the fish.” (Keith Akers, see, Fish Stories in the New Testament.

Also see: The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity, pages 126–129), on fish as a later addition.

The Gospels of the Hebrews and Ebionites describe a vegetarian ethos: a vegetarian Jesus and vegetarian Apostles, a John the Baptist who ate carob (locust beans) — beans not bugs! and a rejection of ritual animal sacrifice, be it in pagan temples or the Jewish temple of Jerusalem.

The original version of the “Feeding of the Multitude” story only refers to bread, not bread with fish. “Fish” apparently got added to some gospel verses later on. Keith Akers points out the existence of different versions of the biblical story — the Feeding of the 5,000 or the Multitude:

“If you look at other accounts of the same incident… If you look, for example, at the Early Church Fathers, who also talk about these stories, Irenaeus mentions the feeding of the 5,000. Eusebius also mentions that, and Arnobius, another early church writer also discusses Jesus’ feeding of the multitude, the miraculous feeding of the multitude.

“And in every case they discuss the bread but they don’t mention anything about fish. So I think that fish is a later addition. In fact, if you even look at the New Testament, it says, at another point, when Jesus is talking about the feeding of the five thousand, he says, ‘Don’t you remember when I fed the multitudes and all the bread that we took up?’ And he doesn’t mention the fish.” (Keith Akers, see, Fish Stories in the New Testament)

Also see: The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity, pages 126–129), on fish as a later addition.

And see: Keith Akers, Was Jesus a Vegetarian?

Matthew 16:9’s Loaves Without Any Mention of Fish: “Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered?” No fish included with the loaves there.

Mark 8:16–21 — Again… another example of bread but no fish being mentioned in connection with the Feeding of the Five Thousand.

Irenaeus (125–202) lived during the Second Century and described in detail the Miracle of the Multitude being fed with bread. No mention whatsoever of fish. Eusebius and Arnobius also never mention ‘fishes with the loaves’, only the loaves. And now I’ve found two more references in early Christian apocryphal writings, again mentioning the bread but not the fish, as if in the New Testament they were reading at the time, the feeding of the five thousand story didn’t include fish… because the ‘fish’ hadn’t been inserted into Greek gospel manuscripts yet.

As it now stands, in the New Testament Gospels: “The bread is everywhere present, but the fish only sometimes. This strongly suggests that the original tradition was about distribution of bread, not bread and fish. In the case of Matthew 16:9–10, the insertion of fish becomes obvious, because the editors of Matthew changed the original story to include fish but forgot to change Jesus’ backward reference.” (Keith Akers, The Fish Stories in the New Testament.

There are actually many examples of “textual variations” in the diversity of New Testament manuscripts, with words or phrases either being added or omitted. In New Testament manuscripts, while there are some textual variations throughout, by far, the majority of variations occur with the Four Gospels and the Book of Acts.

The most spectacular example of this is at the end of the Gospel of Mark, which has several different alternate endings depending on what manuscript one happens to be using:

“Manuscripts omitting Mark 16:9–20

Manuscripts adding a shorter ending after verse 8

Manuscripts adding a shorter ending and verses 9–20

Manuscripts adding verses 9–20

Manuscripts adding verses 9–20 with a notation

Manuscripts adding verses 9–20 without divisions”

So it’s interesting to notice that fishes are not always included with the loaves in the various accounts of the “Feeding of the Five Thousand” mentioned in the New Testament gospels and other sources.

And far more than just this one example of fishes being added to the loaves in Second Century manuscripts, textual variants with New Testament manuscripts extend to scores and scores of passages deep into the Second Century and beyond according to honest scholarship.

“John 21 is the twenty-first and final chapter of the Gospel of John in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. It contains an account of a post-crucifixion appearance in Galilee, which the text describes as the third time Jesus had appeared to his disciples. In the course of this chapter, there is a miraculous catch of 153 fish, the confirmation of Peter’s love for Jesus, a foretelling of Peter’s death, and a comment about the beloved disciple’s future… According to Helmut Koester (2000), similar to the Pericope Adulterae, John 21:1–25, though present in all extant manuscripts, is also widely recognized as a later addition. A redactor is thought by some to have later added some text to the original author’s work.” (Wikipedia entry for John 21)

James, the brother of the Lord, “did not partake of animal flesh.” The Apostle Thomas: “He continually fasts and prays, and abstaining from the eating of flesh…” “…The Apostle Matthew partook of seeds, and nuts, hard-shelled fruits, and vegetables, without flesh.”

Peter: “Then Peter answered: ‘To do anything for pleasure, not for the sake of necessity, is to sin and therefore I earnestly entreat you to abstain from all animal food, in the hope that by this you may be able to retain your self-restraint, and not to be overpowered by the allurements of pleasure. For in the beginning, the eating of flesh was unknown until after the flood, when, against their will, men were compelled to use the flesh of animals, because all things that were planted had been destroyed by the waters… But let no one think that by abstinence from things offered to idols he will fulfill the law. For what commands us to keep ourselves from idolatry also teaches us that we should eat only of the fruits of trees and seeds and plants, and abstain from all animal food, and from all injury of animals; and with regard to our food, that it should be purely vegetable.’” (Why God Has Forbidden Certain Foods, Book of the Clementine Homilies)

Peter said, “I live on olives and bread, to which I rarely only add vegetables…” “The unnatural eating of flesh meats is as polluting as the heathen worship of devils…” (Peter, Clementine Homilies)

We even get to directly hear from several of those Apostles in various early Christian writings: gospels, acts, revelations, spiritual discourses, homilies, and letters of Peter, James, John, Thomas, Bartholomew, Barnabas, The Teaching of the Twelve, etc.

In the Ebionite scriptures of the early church, the followers of Jesus, “the faith once delivered to the saints”, as it is said in the Book of Jude, there are no fish stories of young disciples of Jesus being involved in eating fish. In the Ebionite scriptures of the Jesus movement there are no accounts of Jesus eating fish or miracles of multitudes being fed fish. There are no descriptions of Jesus consuming the flesh of any animal. Rather, those contain sayings of Jesus condemning the eating of meat.

 

[prodromos]

Keith Akers

Keith Akers

Keith Akers

Keith Akers

I think I'm seeing a pattern here.

 

[tall73]

My whole point is the will of God. Your position is that God changes. My position is that God never changed. God permits things while they are not God's will.

My position is that Jesus is God, and Jesus ate meat, and gave meat to people, per Scripture. If eating meat was not God's will, God would not have eaten meat.

It is an extremely straight-forward argument. Your only answer to that has been to doubt many passages in Scripture.

But the evidence for your case is sorely lacking. You cannot point to any manuscript for these various accounts that don't reference meat. You simply assert they didn't originally.

I could only trust you to have a really good look at the site I gave for information.

Yes, I did. But I trust if you took a really good look at the site you gave for information, and the rules of this forum, you realize I can't get into most of it, as it seems to take a dim view of Paul's writings, a positive view of gnostic writings, a positive view of Ebionite writings, could be promoting of early Hindu and Buddhist teachings, etc.

Also, if you took a good look at my response, the part I did get into directly addresses the argument regarding the early church fathers writing before the time references to meat existed.

You once again addressed none of that. In fact, you seem to just quote the article, the very part I addressed, without noting that I even did respond to it.

Keith Akers points out the existence of different versions of the biblical story — the Feeding of the 5,000 or the Multitude:

“If you look at other accounts of the same incident… If you look, for example, at the Early Church Fathers, who also talk about these stories, Irenaeus mentions the feeding of the 5,000. Eusebius also mentions that, and Arnobius, another early church writer also discusses Jesus’ feeding of the multitude, the miraculous feeding of the multitude.
“And in every case they discuss the bread but they don’t mention anything about fish. So I think that fish is a later addition. In fact, if you even look at the New Testament, it says, at another point, when Jesus is talking about the feeding of the five thousand, he says, ‘Don’t you remember when I fed the multitudes and all the bread that we took up?’ And he doesn’t mention the fish.” (Keith Akers, see, Fish Stories in the New Testament.

A. an argument from silence. All the manuscripts have meat.

B. Addressed in my response. Their argument that meat hadn't been added to the text yet at the time of those church fathers fails when you look at other early church quotations, some earlier than the ones you reference.

There are actually many examples of “textual variations” in the diversity of New Testament manuscripts, with words or phrases either being added or omitted. In New Testament manuscripts, while there are some textual variations throughout, by far, the majority of variations occur with the Four Gospels and the Book of Acts.

Yes, And in all of those cases the variants are between actual manuscript readings. In other words, the variations are what different manuscripts actually say.

But what you are alleging is something different. You are alleging that NONE of the extant manuscripts actually say what the original text said, and they were all doctored. That is not the same.

“John 21 is the twenty-first and final chapter of the Gospel of John in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. It contains an account of a post-crucifixion appearance in Galilee, which the text describes as the third time Jesus had appeared to his disciples. In the course of this chapter, there is a miraculous catch of 153 fish, the confirmation of Peter’s love for Jesus, a foretelling of Peter’s death, and a comment about the beloved disciple’s future… According to Helmut Koester (2000), similar to the Pericope Adulterae, John 21:1–25, though present in all extant manuscripts, is also widely recognized as a later addition. A redactor is thought by some to have later added some text to the original author’s work.” (Wikipedia entry for John 21)

Note, the passage is in all the extant manuscripts.

Also note that this passage also exists, describing an earlier large catch of fish.

Luke 5:4-8 4 When He had stopped speaking, He said to Simon, “Launch out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch.”​

5 But Simon answered and said to Him, “Master, we have toiled all night and caught nothing; nevertheless at Your word I will let down the net.” 6 And when they had done this, they caught a great number of fish, and their net was breaking. 7 So they signaled to their partners in the other boat to come and help them. And they came and filled both the boats, so that they began to sink. 8 When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!” (NKJV)​

Are you sure you are really trying to engage in actual textual criticism here? Your arguments don't seem to be taking seriously the manuscript evidence. Rather they are just claiming none of the manuscripts now extant are legitimate. But the evidence is not there.

So we are back to the basic problem. According to Scripture, Jesus ate meat. Jesus is God. So your contention that God didn't want meat eating is not convincing.

 

[tall73]

I think I'm seeing a pattern here.

Yes, though if you make the unfortunate choice, as I did, to read the material posted, you will also see quotes from a variety of other sects, religions, etc. which are all accepted as completely accurate, as long as they promote vegetarianism.

But of course, the Scriptures that don't are all doctored.

 

[FredVB]

I think I'm seeing a pattern here.

So the site was using the quotations from a source, and I quoted that. What about the apostles? How about that?

My position is that Jesus is God, and Jesus ate meat, and gave meat to people, per Scripture. If eating meat was not God's will, God would not have eaten meat.

It is an extremely straight-forward argument. Your only answer to that has been to doubt many passages in Scripture.

But the evidence for your case is sorely lacking. You cannot point to any manuscript for these various accounts that don't reference meat. You simply assert they didn't originally.



Yes, I did. But I trust if you took a really good look at the site you gave for information, and the rules of this forum, you realize I can't get into most of it, as it seems to take a dim view of Paul's writings, a positive view of gnostic writings, a positive view of Ebionite writings, could be promoting of early Hindu and Buddhist teachings, etc.

Also, if you took a good look at my response, the part I did get into directly addresses the argument regarding the early church fathers writing before the time references to meat existed.

You once again addressed none of that. In fact, you seem to just quote the article, the very part I addressed, without noting that I even did respond to it.



A. an argument from silence. All the manuscripts have meat.

B. Addressed in my response. Their argument that meat hadn't been added to the text yet at the time of those church fathers fails when you look at other early church quotations, some earlier than the ones you reference.




Yes, And in all of those cases the variants are between actual manuscript readings. In other words, the variations are what different manuscripts actually say.

But what you are alleging is something different. You are alleging that NONE of the extant manuscripts actually say what the original text said, and they were all doctored. That is not the same.



Note, the passage is in all the extant manuscripts.

Also note that this passage also exists, describing an earlier large catch of fish.

Luke 5:4-8 4 When He had stopped speaking, He said to Simon, “Launch out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch.”​

5 But Simon answered and said to Him, “Master, we have toiled all night and caught nothing; nevertheless at Your word I will let down the net.” 6 And when they had done this, they caught a great number of fish, and their net was breaking. 7 So they signaled to their partners in the other boat to come and help them. And they came and filled both the boats, so that they began to sink. 8 When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!” (NKJV)​

Are you sure you are really trying to engage in actual textual criticism here? Your arguments don't seem to be taking seriously the manuscript evidence. Rather they are just claiming none of the manuscripts now extant are legitimate. But the evidence is not there.

So we are back to the basic problem. According to Scripture, Jesus ate meat. Jesus is God. So your contention that God didn't want meat eating is not convincing.

Jesus is God in the incarnation, I already believe that, I have been Christian longer than some here in the forums have been alive.

I have been showing you and others do not have basis to make a dogma about what Jesus ate. It is not established. It does not matter what you are convinced about, it is not what would convince everyone else.

What about the earliest Christians? What ever happened to them? You know, the Jewish people that were believers first? It was not Roman Christianity first. What happened to those people first Christian? Tell me.

I was actually addressing side issues apart from my original position, which is not at all addressed. I say God does not change, there is evident disagreement with that. What God provided originally was from God's own will for us. Without sin there was no modification needed to that, which is the only thing God called very good (Genesis 1:29-31). What is shown for what others say is their permission without full context and not with all the good shown at the end of Genesis chapter 1 is serving what? Not God. Show what else God said was very good.

 

[tall73]

Jesus is God in the incarnation, I already believe that, I have been Christian longer than some here in the forums have been alive.

Great.

I have been showing you and others do not have basis to make a dogma about what Jesus ate.

Of course we do. Scripture states it.

It is not established.

Sure it is. Scripture states it.

It does not matter what you are convinced about, it is not what would convince everyone else.

I haven't seen too many people doubting the Scripture passages here. And your only evidence is to say that you think all of the manuscripts have been doctored to add meat to all the various texts.

I think pointing to Scripture is a lot more likely to convince Christians about what Jesus ate.

What about the earliest Christians? What ever happened to them? You know, the Jewish people that were believers first? It was not Roman Christianity first. What happened to those people first Christian? Tell me.

The earliest Jewish Christians are described in Scripture as being the same ones who were receiving meat from Jesus, eating meat, being there when Jesus ate meat, etc.

Also, the Jewish Christians in Acts 21 sent Paul to offer sacrifices.

I was actually addressing side issues apart from my original position, which is not at all addressed. I say God does not change, there is evident disagreement with that.

No, it was 100 percent addressed. Jesus is God. If eating meat was a problem, God would not eat meat. The Scriptures show Jesus eating meat, and saying that fish is a good gift.

What God provided originally was from God's own will for us. Without sin there was no modification needed to that, which is the only thing God called very good (Genesis 1:29-31). What is shown for what others say is their permission without full context and not with all the good shown at the end of Genesis chapter 1 is serving what? Not God. Show what else God said was very good.

Why do you think Genesis chapter 1 is correct, and every other passage about meat doctored?

 

[FredVB]

Of course we do. Scripture states it.

Sure it is. Scripture states it.

I haven't seen too many people doubting the Scripture passages here. And your only evidence is to say that you think all of the manuscripts have been doctored to add meat to all the various texts.

There is only one verse, not even several verses, which is being used for claiming it shows what Jesus are, a questionable one, one certainly subject to changes, which I see and mention. That is it. I disagree that this is sufficient for dogma to tell others. It has nothing to do with the gospel, which should be said to others. No one will be saved by making dogma of this one questionable passage. You actually might keep some certain people from coming to Christianity with it. Why? I have seen that being done. Even right here in the forums site.

The other passages besides this about followers being shown Jesus is alive after he died, and nothing else, not at all for something else to be dogma from it, are about miraculous events. These say nothing at all about what Jesus ate, there are no other verses speaking of what Jesus ate. Mark 8 verses 19 and 20 mention bread. Where is fish mentioned there? If fish were there it is really very strange if fish is not mentioned at all here.

The earliest Jewish Christians are described in Scripture as being the same ones who were receiving meat from Jesus, eating meat, being there when Jesus ate meat, etc.

Also, the Jewish Christians in Acts 21 sent Paul to offer sacrifices.

No, it was 100 percent addressed. Jesus is God. If eating meat was a problem, God would not eat meat. The Scriptures show Jesus eating meat, and saying that fish is a good gift.

Why do you think Genesis chapter 1 is correct, and every other passage about meat doctored?

There is testimony that there were apostles avoiding meat from animals. There were other Jewish believers who came to Christ, the first people who were Christian. What happened to the Jewish Christian people? Where were they after Bible times?

There were many people using meat from animals, while it did start with the sacrifices being made, and it preceded the people of Israel, and was on a much greater scale, using any animals, and some captive prisoners too, and even human babies.

I have very good basis that eating food just from plants is very good. I say God does not change, so your argument that any one of those points are not true was all this argument that there is the dogma that Jesus ate meat. So then nothing matters anymore, that you can eat meat. Not that it is even with blood. Not that animals suffer much more than the minimum necessary. Not that environments are being ruined, species are going extinct among wildlife, with animal agriculture taking much more water, land, and resources just to feed the animals that will be slaughtered for the food and the products from them (they all get slaughtered in the industry), and it doesn't matter what is much healthier for you. So nothing matters. How is this serving God? I would say I think it does not.

 

[tall73]

There is only one verse, not even several verses, which is being used for claiming it shows what Jesus are, a questionable one, one certainly subject to changes, which I see and mention.

There are two that indicate Jesus ate.

Luke 24:40-43​

40 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. 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.​

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​

​

But there are several where Jesus gave meat to others, or endorsed fish as good, and even spoke of celebration involving eating the fattened calf.

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.​

​

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?​

​

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.​

And there were two miraculous catches of fish:

Luke 5:4-6 4 When He had stopped speaking, He said to Simon, “Launch out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch.”​

5 But Simon answered and said to Him, “Master, we have toiled all night and caught nothing; nevertheless at Your word I will let down the net.” 6 And when they had done this, they caught a great number of fish, and their net was breaking. (NKJV)​

John 21:6 6 And He said to them, “Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some.” So they cast, and now they were not able to draw it in because of the multitude of fish. (NKJV)​

And I have noted that your theory doesn't match the manuscript data, or the early church father quotations which show these texts were around early.

I disagree that this is sufficient for dogma to tell others. It has nothing to do with the gospel, which should be said to others. No one will be saved by making dogma of this one questionable passage.

There has been no claim that it is a salvation issue. What I have said is it is in fact convincing because Scripture says it. I stand by that. You have presented no evidence that undercuts Scripture. And the church fathers I quoted undergird those Scriptures.

Of course you are the one making an issue of it. The texts say what they say. The burden of proof, not just speculation, is on you if you contend they did not say it previously. The manuscripts all have fish. The church father quotes I noted have fish.

Even the quote you provided as evidence for your view disagreed, and upheld that fish was and bread was good food because Jesus fed it to the multitudes.

You actually might keep some certain people from coming to Christianity with it. Why? I have seen that being done. Even right here in the forums site.

I am not able to change Scripture in order to make it more acceptable to people.

Even Paul, who you seem to object to, or at least your article did, says we should refrain from eating if a brother will stumble. That is in the context of interacting with brothers who are weak in faith. And I have had times I didn't eat meat when around those who it would cause to stumble.

But Paul doesn't say you can change Scripture if it contains something objectionable to you.

The other passages besides this about followers being shown Jesus is alive after he died, and nothing else, not at all for something else to be dogma from it, are about miraculous events.

• Actually one is a command from God to eat the Passover. But you already refused to address the OT Scriptures. Jesus and the disciples gathered to eat it.
• Jesus saying that a father who gives a fish or egg to his son is giving a good gift is not a miracle.
• Jesus feeding His disciples fish on the shore is not a miracle.
• Jesus referencing celebration with the fattened calf is not a miracle.
• And the miracles themselves presume there is no issue, or Jesus would not be using them to feed people meat.

And the reason they had it to eat when he was raised from the dead is because the early Christians were eating meat.

These say nothing at all about what Jesus ate, there are no other verses speaking of what Jesus ate. Mark 8 verses 19 and 20 mention bread. Where is fish mentioned there? If fish were there it is really very strange if fish is not mentioned at all here.

You might 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?”​

​

But fish were already mentioned, and we gave early church father references that attest to it as well.

Mark 8:7​

7 They also had a few small fish; and having blessed them, He said to set them also before them. (NKJV)​

There is testimony that there were apostles avoiding meat from animals. There were other Jewish believers who came to Christ, the first people who were Christian. What happened to the Jewish Christian people? Where were they after Bible times?

By definition the ones after Bible times would not be the earliest Christians. And I already noted from the Scriptures the earliest Christians being fed meat.

Now as to later sources, I am done looking up your references for you. Post your evidence, and post the link to original source material that I can verify if you want me to consider it. You have not even interacted with the various posts where I did look up material for you.

But I will save you a bit of time on a couple of points your earlier article referenced.

James was indeed known for prayer and fasting. It doesn't change Scripture or indicate Jesus didn't eat meat, etc. And James, in Acts 21 suggests Paul 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, because God had commanded that. And James still encouraged Paul to do it.

Jerome was also known for fasting. But even he acknowledged that Jesus ate fish:

Philip Schaff: NPNF2-06. Jerome: The Principal Works of St. Jerome - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

ccel.org

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.​

There were many people using meat from animals, while it did start with the sacrifices being made, and it preceded the people of Israel, and was on a much greater scale, using any animals, and some captive prisoners too, and even human babies.

Yes, we can acknowledge that God doesn't endorse sacrificing human babies.

But He did command eating the Passover. That wasn't just a cultural holdover.

I have very good basis that eating food just from plants is very good. I say God does not change, so your argument that any one of those points are not true was all this argument that there is the dogma that Jesus ate meat. So then nothing matters anymore, that you can eat meat.

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.

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.

 

[tall73]

Not that it is even with blood. Not that animals suffer much more than the minimum necessary. Not that environments are being ruined, species are going extinct among wildlife, with animal agriculture taking much more water, land, and resources just to feed the animals that will be slaughtered for the food and the products from them (they all get slaughtered in the industry), and it doesn't matter what is much healthier for you. So nothing matters. How is this serving God? I would say I think it does not.

You apparently didn't read my earlier posts either.

I was a vegetarian for many years, and a vegan for part of that. I didn't mind it at all. I didn't miss meat. In fact, I still don't like preparing meat.

However, while many people do well on that diet, I did not. I had various deficiencies, developed various problems requiring surgery, etc. and I am doing much better on a meat diet.

I get meat from regenerative organic farms, not from feedlots.

You said earlier God "permits" eating meat, when of course Jesus actually endorsed fish and eggs as good, and God said the Israelites could eat as much meat as the Lord blessed them with.

But then you say God doesn't want meat and He doesn't change.

You are simply at odds with all kinds of Scripture, and even your own earlier talking points.

 

[FredVB]

There are two that indicate Jesus ate.

Luke 24:40-43​

40 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. 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.​

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​

​

But there are several where Jesus gave meat to others, or endorsed fish as good, and even spoke of celebration involving eating the fattened calf.

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.​

​

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?​

​

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.​

And there were two miraculous catches of fish:

Luke 5:4-6 4 When He had stopped speaking, He said to Simon, “Launch out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch.”​

5 But Simon answered and said to Him, “Master, we have toiled all night and caught nothing; nevertheless at Your word I will let down the net.” 6 And when they had done this, they caught a great number of fish, and their net was breaking. (NKJV)​

John 21:6 6 And He said to them, “Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some.” So they cast, and now they were not able to draw it in because of the multitude of fish. (NKJV)​

And I have noted that your theory doesn't match the manuscript data, or the early church father quotations which show these texts were around early.




There has been no claim that it is a salvation issue. What I have said is it is in fact convincing because Scripture says it. I stand by that. You have presented no evidence that undercuts Scripture. And the church fathers I quoted undergird those Scriptures.

Of course you are the one making an issue of it. The texts say what they say. The burden of proof, not just speculation, is on you if you contend they did not say it previously. The manuscripts all have fish. The church father quotes I noted have fish.

Even the quote you provided as evidence for your view disagreed, and upheld that fish was and bread was good food because Jesus fed it to the multitudes.



I am not able to change Scripture in order to make it more acceptable to people.

Even Paul, who you seem to object to, or at least your article did, says we should refrain from eating if a brother will stumble. That is in the context of interacting with brothers who are weak in faith. And I have had times I didn't eat meat when around those who it would cause to stumble.

But Paul doesn't say you can change Scripture if it contains something objectionable to you.

• Actually one is a command from God to eat the Passover. But you already refused to address the OT Scriptures. Jesus and the disciples gathered to eat it.
• Jesus saying that a father who gives a fish or egg to his son is giving a good gift is not a miracle.
• Jesus feeding His disciples fish on the shore is not a miracle.
• Jesus referencing celebration with the fattened calf is not a miracle.
• And the miracles themselves presume there is no issue, or Jesus would not be using them to feed people meat.

And the reason they had it to eat when he was raised from the dead is because the early Christians were eating meat.




You might 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?”​

​

But fish were already mentioned, and we gave early church father references that attest to it as well.

Mark 8:7​

7 They also had a few small fish; and having blessed them, He said to set them also before them. (NKJV)​

By definition the ones after Bible times would not be the earliest Christians. And I already noted from the Scriptures the earliest Christians being fed meat.

Now as to later sources, I am done looking up your references for you. Post your evidence, and post the link to original source material that I can verify if you want me to consider it. You have not even interacted with the various posts where I did look up material for you.

But I will save you a bit of time on a couple of points your earlier article referenced.

James was indeed known for prayer and fasting. It doesn't change Scripture or indicate Jesus didn't eat meat, etc. And James, in Acts 21 suggests Paul 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, because God had commanded that. And James still encouraged Paul to do it.

Jerome was also known for fasting. But even he acknowledged that Jesus ate fish:

Philip Schaff: NPNF2-06. Jerome: The Principal Works of St. Jerome - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

ccel.org

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.​

Yes, we can acknowledge that God doesn't endorse sacrificing human babies.

But He did command eating the Passover. That wasn't just a cultural holdover.



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.

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.

Everything God made was very good, as God said, and never said again of anything. You say right here what I was going to pin on you "God did change." You say Jesus gives endorsement which I see is not said. Scripture does have this,
"I, Yahweh, do not change." Malachi 3:6, which disagrees with that position.

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

 

[BibleBeliever1611]

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