 |
QuakerInfo.com Forum
A place to discuss Quakers and Quakerism
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kiahanie
Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 464
Location: Oregon
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Anthony wrote: |
| orthodox_quaker wrote: |
| Anthony wrote: |
Is there a record of Jesus eating meat? ] |
Jesus in all likelihood ate meat at the Last Supper. It was a Passover dinner which included lamb. |
There is some debate whether it was the Passover feast that is recorded in the Gospels |
I think the point is not whether it was a Passover, but whether there is some indication that Jesus might have looked disfavorably at sacrificing a lamb.
| Luke 22:7-8, 14-16, NIV:2010 wrote: |
Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover....When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”” |
The King James Version reads
| Quote: |
| Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.... And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. |
Matt 26:17ff and Mark 14:1,12ff are similar. Nothing is said about Jesus speaking on behalf of the lamb.
_________________
"There is a field out beyond right and wrong. I'll meet you there." --Jellaludin Rumi |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wheatpenny
Joined: 17 Apr 2010
Posts: 41
Location: York, PA, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Luke records an incident where Jesus commanded a leper that he had cured to participate in an animal sacrifice:
Luke 5:14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
"as Moses commanded" refers to a passage in Leviticus that reads in part:
Leviticus 14:4-5 Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:
And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water:
_________________
"Hurrah for Quakerism!" (Caroline Fox) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Friend Kiahanie
You seem quite knowledgeable about this - I am impressed, I must be careful. 
| Kiahanie wrote: |
| Jesus is recorded as having eaten fish, and fed fish to a few thousand people. He also told his followers to prepare lamb for a Passover meal. |
Three ancient, biblically independent authors from four different locations mention that bread only was eaten at the feeding of the five thousand: Irenaeus, Arnobious and Eusebious.
Jesus referred to the feeding of the five thousand without mention of fish: 'Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?' (Matthew 16:9-10) Additionally: 'Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don’t you remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?” “Twelve,” they replied. “And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?” They answered, “Seven.” (Mark 8:18-20) Several church fathers mention the feeding of the five thousand without including fish - even by Jesus himself. This suggests that fish was later introduced into the gospels but was not a part of the original tradition. It seems that some scribes may have inserted fish into some the passages and forgot to insert them in others.
There is no mention of Jesus actually eating fish after the resurrection, on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, instead we have: 'Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish.' (John 21:13) The passage where Jesus is recording has actually eating fish is most likely an insertion to counter claim that Jesus was a vegetarian.
One should not take it is given that Jesus ate meat or fish as there are many contradictions and reasons for doubt the Bible as to whether Jesus was vegetarian. If Jesus was half the person we know him to be he would most certainly not be involved in animal abuse or usage and least of all the horrendous temple slaughter and blood letting. Who would find such a person lovable and all compassionate?
There are many reasons why we should be cautious about citing biblical sources in support of animal abuse and to justify carnivorous diets because there is are many inconsistencies, omissions, insertions and manipulation of text in favour of animal dominaion and usage. I don't really know why?
Until the time of Constantine the followers of Jesus where vegetation and pacifist, including James the Just, the brother of Jesus and leader of the Christian communitny until it was destoyed in destruction of Jerusalem in which James was also killed. Their is evidence to suggest that the remnant of the Jewish Christians were the Ebionites.
To provide one example of why we should be cautious I am submitting the following article mainly because it is about the consumption of fish my Jesus. http://www.all-creatures.org/discuss/didjesuseatfish-jv.html
| Kiahanie wrote: |
| Jesus is not recorded as acting out of concern for the animals, but rather out of a concern that Temple practices were violating the relationship between worshipers and the divine. |
This may also be true but I am still convinced that Jesus was against the Temple blood letting as were the latter prophets and Essenes. The early Christians, prior to Constantine were vegetarian pacifists; could anyone who loves Jesus for his qualities and teachings according to the gospels doubt that he would have condoned the terror, distress and horrific slaughter of millions of innocent creatures in the name of God? Was he less wise than Isaiah and the latter prophets and Essenes? If not, then he is not my Jesus. Nevertheless, he is on record as condemning temple worship - is it possible that his condemnation had nothing to do with the Temple blood cult? One must not rely on the letter of the text as prove than Jesus was guilty of speciaism but carry out honest research to discover where in the Bible text has been changed and distorted for political reasons. A God of love, compassion, gentleness and a loving tenderness for all creatures would not condone the abuse of animals and any one who say He does is misguided and in denial for whatever reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wheatpenny
Joined: 17 Apr 2010
Posts: 41
Location: York, PA, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In Luke's account of the resurrection, Jesus ate fish to prove he wasn't a ghost:
Luke 24:41-43 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.
_________________
"Hurrah for Quakerism!" (Caroline Fox) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| orthodox_quaker wrote: |
In Luke's account of the resurrection, Jesus ate fish to prove he wasn't a ghost:
Luke 24:41-43 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. |
It is said that this is the same reason why we have Thomas sticking his fingers into Jesus' wounds to show that Jesus was resurrected in the flesh and not as a spirit that was the Marcian claim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shay
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 885
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anthony wrote: |
| orthodox_quaker wrote: |
In Luke's account of the resurrection, Jesus ate fish to prove he wasn't a ghost:
Luke 24:41-43 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. |
It is said that this is the same reason why we have Thomas sticking his fingers into Jesus' wounds to show that Jesus was resurrected in the flesh and not as a spirit that was the Marcian claim. |
By who? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shay wrote: |
| Anthony wrote: |
| orthodox_quaker wrote: |
In Luke's account of the resurrection, Jesus ate fish to prove he wasn't a ghost:
Luke 24:41-43 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. |
It is said that this is the same reason why we have Thomas sticking his fingers into Jesus' wounds to show that Jesus was resurrected in the flesh and not as a spirit that was the Marcian claim. |
By who? |
By some - check it out.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shay
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 885
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anthony wrote: |
| Shay wrote: |
| Anthony wrote: |
| orthodox_quaker wrote: |
In Luke's account of the resurrection, Jesus ate fish to prove he wasn't a ghost:
Luke 24:41-43 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. |
It is said that this is the same reason why we have Thomas sticking his fingers into Jesus' wounds to show that Jesus was resurrected in the flesh and not as a spirit that was the Marcian claim. |
By who? |
By some - check it out. |
Some people also say that there are reptilian lizard people walking among us.
You brought up that point, the onus is on you to cite your sources. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shay wrote: |
Some people also say that there are reptilian lizard people walking among us.
You brought up that point, the onus is on you to cite your sources. |
Shay, you are so fombidalbe, I was hoping you would let me off the hook - but I think I am one of your favourite fish - now, what sort would that be?
I can't remember my original source, although I know it is in one of my books. I well be more careful in future. Do you ask others for their source? Mind you, I would in your shoes.
The Docetism heresy was the first heresy and it is claimed (amongst others I guess) that John 20: 26-28 was inserted to counter this heresy.
I can offer a source for reptilian lizards...it wont do...okay, will this do:
This is not my original source (perhaps I will find it later or someone else will be able to evidence) but this at least it shows that others doubt the Doubting Thomas story. Personally, I am a believer in the resurrection and the authenticity of the Turin Shroud.
[list]We can also note how the entire context of 1 Corinthians 15, especially vv. 33ff., supports this interpretation. Paul is clearly trying to explain what the resurrected body is like, of which Christ's resurrection is the first fruit, to Christians in Corinth who want to know. Yet he works entirely from first principles, building a theological, scripturally-based argument. He never once does the obvious: simply quote the witness of the Disciples who saw Jesus' resurrected body. Yet wouldn't that make more sense? The only rationale Paul could have for not simply saying "The resurrected body is like this, because Peter saw it, and Thomas handled it," etc. is that these things did not happen. Rather, just like Paul's revelation, the original disciples must have seen Christ only in visions, so that appealing to them would add nothing to Paul's case. Otherwise, why would he ignore this most important proof in defending his position against apparent heretics in Corinth? http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/3.html#ix |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kevin roberts
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 768
Location: more or less anywhere in america
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| what other kind of lizards are there except for reptilian ones? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kevin roberts wrote: |
| what other kind of lizards are there except for reptilian ones? |
According to David Icke there are reptilian humanoids amongst us - kings, queens and presidents, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shay
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 885
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kevin roberts wrote: |
| what other kind of lizards are there except for reptilian ones? |
Lounge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gracie
Joined: 27 Nov 2006
Posts: 170
Location: Iowa
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shay wrote: |
| kevin roberts wrote: |
| what other kind of lizards are there except for reptilian ones? |
Lounge. |
Shay, I heart you.
_________________
http://sowingmildoats.wordpress.com
When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it?
Eleanore Roosevelt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kevin roberts
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 768
Location: more or less anywhere in america
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
truck stops have lot lizards, but they tend to be more mature than this selection
....
is this off topic?
Last edited by kevin roberts on Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:04 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bradleyp
Joined: 06 Apr 2004
Posts: 145
Location: Southern Ontario Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don’t think it’s off topic.
Not really. The behavior they are indulging in, the drinking may be worse for them, or not, than if they used firearms. But we don’t know. These examples may convert to Friends, and swear off the immature behaviors exhibited here, or those implied. It is a choice everyone makes. Same with the use of firearms and violence.
_________________
Bradley P.
Somewhere along the pathway back, the pathway forward, wherever it leads, I wish for an interesting walk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
