God tried to give the vegetarian diet to His newly formed church in the wilderness and as they rejected the Manna from heaven, God punished them by raining quails on them from which they died:
"As they sinned yet more against Him by provoking the Most High in the wilderness. And they tempted God in their heart by asking meat for their lust. And had rained down manna upon them to eat, and had given them corn of heaven. Men did eat [fallen] angels food [meat]: He sent them meat to the full and gave them over to their desire. They were not estranged from their lust. But while their meat was yet in their mouth, The wrath of God came upon them, and slew the fattest of them, and smote down the chosen men of Israel."---Psalms 78:17-31.
So here, even AFTER the fall of man, God the father not only calls out the act of eating of meat as a SIN, but issues a much stiffer penalty than what Cain received for murder! Could it be that in Gods eyes, animals are more innocent/noble creatures than are human beings?
- Isaiah 66:3 KJV “He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man”
Christians should remember God's commandment "Thou shall not kill" which includes the unnecessary killing of animals. The exact Hebrew wording for "kill" in Exodus 20:13/Deuteronomy 5:17, is "tirtzack". One of the greatest scholars of Hebrew/English linguistics (in the Twentieth Century) -Dr. Reuben Alcalay - has written in his mammoth book the Complete Hebrew/English Dictionary that "tirtzach" refers to "any kind of killing whatsoever."
It should seem clear from all of the above that the Golden Rule, the mother of all ethics, and as commanded by Jesus Christ, applies to ALL sentient beings, and not just to human beings - "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets". So clearly here, we can see that the true essence of Christianity is the ethic of VEGANISM, which is nothing more and nothing less than living in accordance with the Golden Rule.
Acts 15:29 NIV “You are to abstain … from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.” This verse clearly does not permit the eating of meat as shown in the following analysis regarding Noah in Genesis 9:3-4 which contains nearly identical wording, not to mention that there are no procedures in place (for people who insist on twisting around verses like this into something it simply does not say), not even kosher, which can assure the removal of all blood from meat. In fact many Jews such as Dr Richard Schwartz of Staten Island believe that it is impossible to drain all the blood out of tiny capillaries. And since this is a New Testament command, it cannot be argued that it was nailed to the cross as were the ceremonial [non-ten commandments] laws of the Old Testament ...
But didn't God grant Noah permission to eat meat in Genesis 9:3-4 for logistical reasons pertaining to the Great Flood? It turns out that this passage has been grossly misunderstood, as can be shown through proper contextual analysis and proper translation of a key Hebrew word, "remes" as "reptiles", but as we will see in the final analysis, not even the flesh of reptiles was to be eaten, but rather only their eggs. Here is how this passage reads in the King James Bible:
"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. 4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."
There is an EXCELLENT presentation/analysis which explains how to properly understand this passage at the link provided below - in short:
"What God actually said to Noah is this: you may eat fruit of the reptiles which contain seed just as you ate grain, herbs and fruits which contained seed, but beings or creatures or souls which are alive or animate whose life is in the blood you shall not eat. The text clearly prohibits the slaughter of animals for food whose life is in the blood. This is precisely how the original and earliest Jewish Christians actually understood the passage. Jewish Encyclopaedia points out that the earliest Jewish Christian sects argued their vegetarianism on the very statement of Genesis 9:4. They argued that in this passage God expressly forbade Noah to kill animals in order to eat their flesh. Before Noah entered the Ark, God told him to take with him all manner of food which is edible so that there would be food for him and the animals. This irrefutably proves that there was no carnivorous animal in the Ark since the Hebrew text plainly shows that food taken was for the herbivorous animals. The text of Genesis 9:2-4 therefore does not teach what the Church has claimed all these centuries but it rather irrefutably proves that Noah was vegetarian and that all animals at that time reverted back to vegetarianism as it was in the beginning and as it shall be in the end."
- http://bewaredeception.com/index.php...icles&Itemid=3
Mark 7:18-19 (More accurately translated): “Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him [to the extent that an evil thought can], because it does not enter his heart [like evil thoughts do] but [rather] his stomach, and [much of the bad part] is eliminated, thus [significantly] purifying all foods? NKJV
Nowhere is there mention of clean and unclean food in this whole context. Why do we read the in verse 19: “For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") “? Does this, in the context of abolishing hygienic ordinances, make sense? Of course not.
The whole argument started with an objection to some of His disciples eating bread without washing their hands. If you take this passage to mean that it is all right to eat unclean foods, you have missed the point.
As for the sentence: (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")? It simply doesn’t appear in the original Greek. Jesus is not changing dietary directions here.
Recently there were two world leaders. The first one experimented with drugs while he was in college, he had a mistress, he loved a good cigar and fine brandy, and he was famous for getting drunk at parties, even while he was in office. The second one was a vegetarian and a nonsmoker; he only drank beer in moderation, and he was faithful to his girlfriend. The United States Congress bestowed the first one with the greatest honor it had at its disposal, while we all revile the second one to this day. The first one was Winston Churchill, and the second one was Adolf Hitler.
To conclude that Jesus In Mark 7 is endorsing a new diet is as ridiculous as saying that Jesus is now OK with Christians getting drunk at parties.
Paul says that meat is no good (Romans 14:21) and Daniel 1:8 says that meat defiles! Paul also states "if I hurt one of the Lord’s followers by what I eat, I will never eat meat as long as I live” [1 Corinthians 8:9,13 The Bible for Today].
In my published yet still unfinished white paper/article "Is Eating Meat A Sin?" ( http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=...30885369365252 ) I have for all intents and purposes proven that Jesus Christ and perhaps even the majority of early Christians were vegetarian. I do not understand why our own in house history scholar "Ter" has not yet acknolwledged this. I have cited many of the same history writers as Ter cites in his post "The Early Church Fathers and Free Will", yet Ter only shares his disdain that in one small part of this, the book of Thomas was referenced, stating specifically that "Your link does not prove anything other than quote from a Gnostic book" which is a gross misrepresentation of the treasure trove of historic information that is actually covered here:
- http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/asource-11.html
- http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/a...h-fathers.html
I have also proven that even the King James Bible was modified in multiple places with regard to this nonsense with Jesus and the fish:
1) Evidence indicates that the story of the loaves and the fishes did not originally include fish. For example, the earliest (pre-Gospel) accounts of this miracle do not include fish, and Jesus, when he refers to it, refers only to the bread (e.g., Mt 16:9-10, Mk 8:19-20, Jn 6:26). Fish were added to the stories by Greek scribes, probably because the Greek word for fish, ixous, is an acronym for the phrase “Jesus Christ Son of God Savior.” Indeed, the fish is still a symbol of Christianity today. In this very likely interpretation, the multiplication represents a prediction of the burgeoning Church and has nothing to do with eating animals.” – http://www.jesusveg.com/qow199.html
2) Jesus is depicted as quite possibly eating fish in Luke 24:41-43, However, this passage has been demonstrated to be a forgery due to a clear logistics anomaly as you can see here [basically there is only one writer who mentions the fish, and two other writers who agree that Jesus was at an entirely different location at the same time]: http://www.all-creatures.org/discuss...atfish-jv.html
3) “Most scholars agree that the post-resurrection stories of Jesus eating fish were added to the Gospels long after they were written, in order to settle various schisms in the early Church. (e.g., the Marcionites and other early Christians believed that Jesus did not actually return in the flesh. What better way to prove that he did than to depict him eating?) The scribes who added the stories were not, apparently, averse to eating fish. But since this is the only depiction anywhere in the Gospels of Jesus eating any animals at all, it seems clear that he was.
– http://www.jesusveg.com/qow199.html
Many Christians believe that the King James Bible was never modified from the earliest manuscripts available, but as shown above [excerpts from my article], that notion does not appear to be based in reality.
Further analysis reveals a very likely possibility that perhaps multiple books which were once considered scripture were removed from the mainstream canon in popular use today, perhaps because they foretold of Jesus Chist's coming, and/or because they had too strong of an emphasis on vegetarianism (as in the case of 1 Enoch for example - See also the article: "THE BOOK OF ENOCH, THE ORIGIN AND THE FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIANITY"). There are many indicaters that Luciferians/Illuminatti/Freemasons have been involved in secretly modifying the King James Bible (as well as others).
The mainstream canon has exactly 66 books in it which of course is not a number we would expect from a perfect God of inspiration, but rather is a strong indicator that the freemasons/Luciferians have had their secret influence on the contents of the mainstream Bible. Perhaps the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible (81 books including 1 Enoch) provides a reference for how many books were removed wholesale.
http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/eng...cal/books.html
The Illuminati/Kabbalah abiding fake Jews have claimed that they are descendants of the fallen angels. Their God not surprisingly is Lucifer. At some point in time they infiltrated the Freemasons to help disguise their bidding to bring about one day what today is referred to as a New World Order which would end all religions other than Luciferianism. There are countless accounts of this ancient history on the Internet, including a pretty good one which can be found at - http://www.conspiracyschool.com/lost-tribes-israel
"There is a visible, obvious, verifiable occult connection between nearly all major religions today, especially with Freemasonry" [including Freemasonry sybolology found at the grave sites of nearly all organized religion founders]
- http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False...onnection2.htm
How Freemasons modified verse numbers in the 1611 King James Bible as a secret declaration of their Luciferian influence over the Christian Bible.
- http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/k1005.cfm
SHOCKING And HORRIBLE: Human Meat Found in McDonald’s (which has a money trail connection to Luciferianism) Meat-Some Of it The Flesh Of Children-Spirit Cooking The Nation
Deut 28:53 “You’ll eat your own children—the flesh of your sons and daughters, whom the Lord your God gave you—on account of the siege and the distress with which your enemy will oppress you.
- http://beforeitsnews.com/eu/2016/12/...n-2616915.html
Even in the past 100 years there have been widely administered Bible modifications (apparently with evil intent). Perhaps the best example of this is the ever popular Scofield Bible, which became the cornerstone for the Christian Zionist war monger movement (representing a large portion of neocon voters). To this end, the following short documentary needs to be shared with every church pastor possible, since it is used very much in seminary even today:
"The Roots of Christian Zionism: How Scofield Sowed Seeds of Apostasy"
- http://vimeo.com/29901084
Freemasonry behind the Jehovah Witness church:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False...tnesses/jw.htm
See also: TRUTH About Pearl Harbor: JESUS' PEARL In Mary's HARBOR On 12/7 & Born 9/11, 40 Weeks Later!
- http://enterthestars.com/2016/12/07/...r-born-man-911
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IegDsgMLmrE
It is therefore undeniable that Luciferians have been involved in a HUGE conspiracy not only over the content of nearly all Cristian Bibles, but over organized religion in general. It all ties in with their New World Order plan to replace all religions in favor of Luciferianism, and to continue along the path they initiated LONG LONG AGO, the practice of defiling our body/mind/spirit through the consumption of animal flesh.