Is vegetarianism or veganism against Christianity?

[Carry_Your_Name]

These were your exact words as I copied and pasted





Mark 7:19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and goes to the sewer?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

God abolished O.T. dietary restrictions.
Act 10:15 Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider defiled.

No law was abolished, the conclusion was written in Acts. 11:17-18- gentiles whom Jews despised were accepted. That's what God meant by saying to Peter, "what God has cleansed you must not call common." That was referring to the Gentiles, which has nothing to do with "dietary restrictions".

If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God? When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, "then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life."

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Gentlemen, keep it peaceable please.


Carry, if I may, the Lord said to Peter, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." 8 I replied, "Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth."

If it was just about what the Gentiles could eat, why was God telling Peter to?

Because that's an analogy, a test for Peter. Peter didn't understand it at the moment, but he understood it later, so did his audience who all glorified God for this. God also commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, was God for child sacrifice? When king Solomon order the soldier to split the baby, was he for infancide? In such a barbaric way?

 

[Hidden In Him]

Because that's an analogy, a test for Peter. Peter didn't understand it at the moment, but he understood it later, so did his audience who all glorified God for this.

Ok, that doesn't sell. If He were doing this, it could be argued that every command He ever gave was merely a test, and that He actually meant we should do the opposite.

Instead of "Flee from sexual immorality" He meant "Run to sexual immorality." Instead of "Thou shalt not murder," He meant, "Murder," and instead of "Do not take the mark of the Beast," He meant "Take the mark of the Beast."

I understand what you are attempting to do with the passage, but there would have to be some sort of support that that's the way the early church interpreted that passage to mean, and you don't find that. You find the opposite.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Ok, that doesn't sell. If He were doing this, it could be argued that every command He ever gave was merely a test, and that He actually meant we should do the opposite.

God was communicating with Peter in a dream, those animals all symbolizing gentile nations, that has been God's code language from the beginning till the end. In the Garden of Eden, Adam was given dominion over all animals; in Noah's flood, all animals were preserved in the Ark; in Isaiah's prophecy, the lion is lying peacably with the lamb in Christ's kingdom; in Daniel's vision, four horrible beasts rise from the sea, and the Son of Man defeats them all. None of these animals meant to be just literal animals, they represent different kinds of nations; only the messiah, Jesus Christ is a real man compared to these beasts, and he, as the king of kings is given authority over all of them. When the dragon beast rises from the sea, that's the greatest rebellion Satan could pull off, but that's still a beast, a hodgepodge of the previous beasts, not a man. This is a consistent narrative in the bible.

 

[Indentured Servant]

Why the defensive posture? Asking for Scripture reference does not imply a desire for heated debate. It's just good to know where one is coming from besides just an opinion. This is Theology, the study of God and our religious beliefs and so we desire to study and sometimes that may includes sharing differences of opinion and understanding. The goal is to grow in our faith and understanding. Maybe you're confusing Theology with Apologetics,

I explained my initial comment the first time I was asked. I am sincerely sorry that only one person accepted it, or even read it.

And when I tried to humbly leave this thread, everyone seems to want to critique me and expect me to respond. When I do respond, then I'm being "defensive."

This thread is now more about me than the topic.

I answered the question. But it seems I'm continually attempting to redeem myself trying to explain why I didn't respond to a sarcastic post that demanded an explanation.

That's not why I joined.

Thank you for allowing me this time on the CF site.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I understand what you are attempting to do with the passage, but there would have to be some sort of support that that's the way the early church interpreted that passage to mean, and you don't find that. You find the opposite.

Sir, I ain't attempting to do anything, Peter had drawn his own conclusion later, as I posted, why don't you read Acts. 11:17-18 carefully? If you wanan eat pork and shellfish, that's your prerogative, but keep in mind that all the unkosher animals on the list in Lev. 11 are primarily scavengers and bottom feeders that feed on all kinds of trash, kosher animals are scientifically proven to be cleaner with less toxins.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Instead of "Flee from sexual immorality" He meant "Run to sexual immorality." Instead of "Thou shalt not murder," He meant, "Murder," and instead of "Do not take the mark of the Beast," He meant "Take the mark of the Beast."

See, a textbook example of Strawman fallacy.

 

[jasonc]

Kosher law, Lev. 11. As for organic, anything that reads “created by God,” that does NOT include any GMO food or ultra-processed food like Twinkies.

Well don't eat modern ,corn or pasteurized milk ,orange juice and gasp bananas as those are quite modified and used to have seeds .

Or meat that isn't so fresh that the animal was alive hours before . Storing of meat at most groceries uses dyes etc.

Nor grapefruit,tangerines and other citrus that didn't exist in the Bible era


Grapefruits were invented in my county when it was known as Brevard in the late 1800s.

I'm not a vegan or vegetarian but I also can't call God saying that those who don't eat meat sinners.

Adam and Enoch were vegetarian
And up to Noah

God added to what you could eat .he didn't say you had to eat meat .

 

[Hidden In Him]

This is a consistent narrative in the bible.

Then how do you explain that it is entirely inconsistent with early church teaching?

 

[Hidden In Him]

See, a textbook example of Strawman fallacy.

No it isn't. If you take the position that a DIRECT ORDER given by the Lord Jesus Christ was actually meant to tell Peter to do the exact opposite, extending that would mean that any other DIRECT ORDER given by the Lord Jesus Christ could mean the same.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

he didn't say you had to eat meat .

Neither did he say you mustn't eat meat. Those foods you listed are minimally processed food, they are not ULTRA processed food - which is an academic term for junk food with excessive calories but very little nutrients.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Then how do you explain that it is entirely inconsistent with early church teaching?

What early church teaching are you referring to? My most important point is that don't be divided by these labels, and don't play identity politics. In India, muslims abide by the kosher diet, while Hindus worship ox as sacred, this has caused everlasting civil conflict, you can't have that within the body of Christ.

No it isn't. If you take the position that a DIRECT ORDER given by the Lord Jesus Christ was actually meant to tell Peter to do the exact opposite, extending that would mean that any other DIRECT ORDER given by the Lord Jesus Christ could mean the same.

Except that's from a vision in a dream, not a "direct order" as you think. It's like His parables to teach a lesson. Can Peter "kill and eat" unconsciously in his dream? Don't take it out of context.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Except that's from a vision in a dream, not a "direct order" as you think. It's like His parables to teach a lesson. Can Peter "kill and eat" unconsciously in his dream? Don't take it out of context.

Nah. I gotta disagree with you here. The meaning had to be discerned with parables and dreams, but the parables were profound teachings that implied many directives, and our Lord scolded them when they did not have the spiritual perception to get the meaning. And many of the dreams given by God were outright directives, such as God telling Joseph to take Mary to Egypt, or the Lord telling the apostle Paul not to go to Asia but to go to Thessalonica instead. I don't think Peter's dream was any different.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Nah. I gotta disagree with you here. The meaning had to be discerned with parables and dreams, but the parables were profound teachings that implied many directives, and our Lord scolded them when they did not have the spiritual perception to get the meaning. And many of the dreams given by God were outright directives, such as God telling Joseph to take Mary to Egypt, or the Lord telling the apostle Paul not to go to Asia but to go to Thessalonica instead. I don't think Peter's dream was any different.

But it WAS different, there was no such a "great sheet" with all kinds of animals in it in reality, that was just a vision. The only directive from our Lord was to stop discriminating and marginalizing against uncircumcised Gentiles, they were welcomed to God's kingdom, as prophecised in Is. 56.

 

[Hidden In Him]

But it WAS different, there was no such a "great sheet" with all kinds of animals in it in reality, that was just a vision. The only directive from our Lord was to stop discriminating and marginalizing against uncircumcised Gentiles, they were welcomed to God's kingdom, as prophesied in Is. 56.

He wouldn't tell him to eat! The Lord is a master at parables, dreams and visions, and He's very acute and precise in how He uses them. I don't want to sound critical, but He's simply not that sloppy. He would not have told Peter to eat if that was not His actual intention.

Let me ask you something, though: How much genuine fellowship do you think the Jews would have had with Gentiles if they continued to be forbidden from eating their food? That's a strange concept to me.
- H

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

He wouldn't tell him to eat! The Lord is a master at parables, dreams and visions, and He's very acute and precise in how He uses them. I don't want to sound critical, but He's simply not that sloppy. He would not have told Peter to eat if that was not His actual intention.

But indeed it wasn't, the real intention was explained later in that chapter which I've shown you, you just choose to ignore it and stick to your antinomianism and wishful thinking.

Let me ask you something, though: How much genuine fellowship do you think the Jews would have had with Gentiles if they continued to be forbidden from eating their food? That's a strange concept to me.
- H

Eat according to your own conscience, man. Kosher law is primarily about public health regulation, not "ritualistic and ceremonial purity" as most people erroneously assumed. Kosher diet was not a "religious diet" for Jews and muslims, but a healthy diet, well advanced at the time.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Wow----we better remove these verses from the Bible then because young vegetarian believers might get offended reading it:
"And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
And he took it, and did eat before them". (Luke 24: 41-43)

Two words: Itching ears.
2 Timothy 4:2-4

 

[KV-44-v1]

Kosher law is primarily about public health regulation, not "ritualistic and ceremonial purity" as most people erroneously assumed. Kosher diet was not a "religious diet" for Jews and muslims, but a healthy diet, well advanced at the time.

I see no reason it couldn't easily have been both.

 

[KV-44-v1]

See, a textbook example of Strawman fallacy.

No, he's showing some problems in analogical interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I see no reason it couldn't easily have been both.

I see no reason why it must be the first only as perceived by most people, and turned into a divisive issue.

No, he's showing some problems in analogical interpretation of Scripture.

And I'm showing some problems in literal interpretation of Scripture, especially dreams and visions.