Can someone explain this to me please?

Why would they think that, based on what someone eats? Would there have been any reason that they would have wanted to discourage vegetarianism in those days, by making people think it would give them a faithless appearance? Is it some kind of biblical commercial, like The Other White Meat?

And is there any evidence to support the assertions that Jesus was a vegetarian?

Thank you!

[This message has been edited by oriecat (edited March 06, 2001).]

Jesus ate fish. (John 21) Or at least He prepared fish for His disciples.

The "vegetarians" you speak of had weak faith because they would consider eating meat to be a sin, I take it. Paul taught that with the death of Jesus, the Law was no longer in effect for the believer. (which condemned the eating of non-kosher food for Jews) Also meat-eating was commonly done in sacrifice in honor of various gods then. The man of weak faith would assume that to have a real value against meat: the person who understood such rituals had nothing to do with the goodness of meat itself could eat meat with a clear conscience. People that ate only vegetables felt meat-eating to be a sin, in connection with idol-worship. Therefore, not eating meat was to be the right thing for them to do, in obedience to their conscience. Paul actually instructs the Romans to respect the person with "weak faith" and not cause them offence by leading them into what they would consider sin. For if one considers something sin, it is a sin for that person, and therefore is an actual sin simply for going against ones own conscience. Such a person has a weak faith, like the person condemns dancing or the like. But if a person considers such an activity a sin, he is morally obligated to avoid doing it even if it can be properly seen for a person with "strong" faith that such actions are not sin.

I hope this is not OT...

a_theist... you said I have heard this before, but I have some perosnal problems with the concept.

In the OT it says repeatedly that the law is eternal, and that any prophet who preaches against any part of the law is a flase prophet.

Jesus' teachings, for the most part, seem to be in line with the OT. But there are several which are not. And then, there are the 'non-red' passages.

My question is would you (personally or official word of the Church, prefferably both) justify this?

I would like to avoid the 'Jesus was God and God can change his mind!' arguement, because God/Yahweh is the one who said the Law would last longer than the Earth.

Thanks.

This is something you have to look at from the Alien coming to earth test: Alien lands. Reads ONLY the OT. Does the Alien know about Jesus, Christianity, etc. from reading only the OT.

YES ?? or NO????

Have you ever read the novel, "My Father was a Jewish Alien?" by R. Ben Yoda?

I have read that the word "eternal" is actually misleading in translation, but the Hebrew word actually means "an uncounted or undefined period of time"- presumably a long time. I am not a Hebrew scholar and am not sure of the truth of this, but if true it certainly cures much of the problem. I don't know where the Bible says anyone that preaches against any part of the Law is a false prophet. The warnings of false prophets passage in the Torah is in Deuteronomy 18:20:"But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the names of other gods, must be put to death."

God told Ezekiel to eat food roasted over human dung, which was an act of eating defiled food(against the Law), to prove a prophetic point about Israel eating defiled food in exile.

*I will get to the rest of your post later. Just first: what verse do you refer to in the "Law lasting longer than earth" part?

a_theist:

First, I would like to apologize to you. I have been sick since before New Year's, which is one of the reasons I have been able to log on so often.

However, I am now 'healthy'/ier (only 3 meds right now... ), and as such must earn my keep again.

I really want to know what you think, but it will take me a little time to respond with decent arguements.

Question on what you wrote, though--- "Deuteronomy 18:20:"But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the names of other gods, must be put to death."
Wouldn't this have applied to Jesus?

Let me get back to you on the verses... unless you might be able to find them for me?

jess

Some verses... all deut. (unless said otherwise)
Some quotes that support the 'false prophet' thingie, and that Jesus broke the law... (or at least early Chrsitians did, and all modern Christians do).

I am really interested in the point of the Ezekiel quote you mentioned:


This really does seem to be Yahweh changing his mind... and not realizing that E. was always pure... and ...

A mistranslation of 'eternal' would explain that one verse... but it would not explain why we needed 2 sets of laws or the verse which says the Law would last as long as Heavan. Unless Heaven was a place which no longer exists?

I am wondering, as I do not have time to read the whole OT right now if part of that is Jewish tradition. I know they believe that Moses was the greatest Phophet, and that he saw all there was to come, only did not reveal it all. Thus, any later prophet who contradicts him is obviously false.

I won't delved into your first part at this juncture. It could be seen as a kind of test on Ezekiel, as he was a priest. I don't think it means that YHWH didn't recognise Ezekiel was "always pure"; rather a demonstration of the reasonableness of God, or the possibilities of prayer, or how God can accomplish HIs purpose through different means, etc. Not a definitive answer, but some possibilities.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> A mistranslation of 'eternal' would explain that one verse... but it would not explain why we needed 2 sets of laws or the verse which says the Law would last as long as Heavan. Unless Heaven was a place which no longer exists? I am wondering, as I do not have time to read the whole OT right now if part of that is Jewish tradition. I know they believe that Moses was the greatest Phophet, and that he saw all there was to come, only did not reveal it all. Thus, any later prophet who contradicts him is obviously false.

Well I have some reading that may help you. I quoted the last part of it, but it is probably more worthwhile to read the whole argue, on the relationship of the Torah to Jews and how it has been seen by rabbis and Christians throughout the centuries. Paul writes of Jesus being the end(fulfillment) of the Law, as Jesus Himself said: "I have not come to abolish, but rather fulfill the Law and the Prophets." That is the teaching remains, if the Law is not followed to the letter.

The fact is, the Law cannot be obeyed today, and nobody does obey it. It contains demands of many sacrifices to be made in Jerusalem or Shiloh(the one place of worship) and this cannot be done anymore. The Bible makes the claim that any who has broken any part of the Law, is disobedient of all of it. (James)

There is a Jewish and Christian tradition of a new heavens and a new Earth, (Isaiah and Revelation) but that has not yet come, as far as I know.

The person at this website stresses that the Torah better means teaching then refers to a moral/political system that must be obeyed. For the final summary, read what I've quoted. IT could be more interesting to read the entire page, though.

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/topics/i...torahofgod.htm

It must be referring to me. I'm a vegetarian and an Atheist!



[This message has been edited by MrSarcastic (edited March 07, 2001).]