Man’s fall included the fall of creation. Without mankind as a mediator between God and nature, nature lost its communion with God. Plants grew toxic, grew thorns, and animals turned against each other (carnivory) and man. The Garden of Eden is a perfect example of man's original diet. Why not go back to it and imitate our Creators plan for us? It gives vitality, health, and longevity. The Flood shows mans decline on health and notice that after that is when Meat became part of the diet.
I notice that Christians keep condoning the eating of flesh using failed attempts at linking various passages. The Bible tells us many things when it comes to diet. Here is a fast rundown. God created Man to live forever, our original diet was that of fruits, nuts, and seed. Sin brought death into the world, animal began to eat animal, thorns grew on plants and man turned to corruption. After the flood, man included meat in the diet, the environment changed and lifespan dropped dramatically. The new testament tells us that diet isn't dependent on salvation, but it does tell us to never eat blood or fat from an animal and to stop all animal sacrifice after he sent his son to us.
“What are all your sacrifices to Me?” asks the LORD. “I have had enough of burnt offerings and rams and the fat of well-fed cattle; I have no desire for the blood of bulls, lambs, or male goats…. Your hands are covered in blood -Isaiah 1:11
Scripture even tells us that one who slaughters an Ox is the same that kills a man. Isaiah 66:3
Now let's get into what confuses Christians and why they believe meat is OK. The Bible is trying to tell us in 1st Tim 4 that anyone who teaches that you MUST give up meat to be saved is a doctrine of devils Not that if you DESIRE to give up meat you are following a doctrine of devils, that wouldn't make sense. Since the Apostles were vegetarian and even the Messiah himself. Isaiah 7:15 - “He shall eat milk and honey” (a prophecy about the coming Messiah, they will know him by this). In the next life, the bible tells us that there shall be no more death, thus its logical and fine that we can start this program now.
So many excuses are made like “it's not what goes into a man’s mouth that makes them unclean, it's what comes out.” Wrong! That's talking about unwashed hands and the Pharisees were trying to catch the Messiah slipping. Another excuse is the concept that “well Jesus ate fish.” Actually, the word was translated wrong in the area concerning the miracle and in Acts, that never happened. More below …
Luke 24:41-43(The ONLY place in the Bible where it says Jesus Ate meat). It says he ate boiled fish is very simple to explain. It is a FORGERY. Many Scriptures point to Him after resurrection going to Galilee (Matt 26:32, Mark 14:28, Matt 28:10, Mark 16:7 & Matt 28:7) not on his way to Emmaus where this fish eating supposedly took place.
Luke says that Jesus appeared to two disciples who were on their way to Emmaus. One of them was named Cleopas. He was invited to their place late on Sunday afternoon. When he broke bread before the meal, the two disciples realized that it was Jesus. As soon as they realized this they immediately returned to Jerusalem which was about 10 kilometers from Emmaus. Luke 24:33-43 Luke therefore clearly places Jesus’ first appearance to his disciples on Sunday evening AT JERUSALEM. He says that ALL ELEVEN WERE PRESENT - even though John, who also says that Jesus appeared to his disciples at evening on the “first day of the week” actually says that Thomas was missing.
Matthew and Mark however clearly show that Jesus was not in Jerusalem on Sunday evening but was rather in Galilee and therefore he could not have appeared to his disciples in Jerusalem that Sunday evening and he could not have been eating fish that evening. On the night of his arrest, Jesus is quoted by Mark as saying:
“But after I’m raised to life, I’ll go ahead of you to GALILEE” [Mark 14:28].
The angel said to the women at the tomb on Sunday morning:
“Now go and tell his disciples, and especially Peter, that he will go ahead of you to GALILEE. YOU WILL SEE HIM THERE, JUST AS HE TOLD YOU” [Mark 16:7].
According to the testimony of Mark, Jesus clearly told his disciples that after he has risen from the dead he would go to GALILEE and that is where the disciples were going to see him. Matthew 26:32 also quotes Jesus as telling his disciples that after he has risen from the dead he would go ahead of them to GALILEE:
“But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.”
Matthew quotes the angel as saying to the women:
“...Now hurry! Tell his disciples that he has been raised to life and is on his way to GALILEE. Go there, and you will see him” [Matthew 28:7].
Jesus himself appeared to the women and said:
“Don’t be afraid! Tell my followers to go to GALILEE. They’ll see me there” [Matthew 28:10].
Then in Matthew 28:16 we read the following:
“Jesus’ ELEVEN DISCIPLES went to a mountain in Galilee, where Jesus had told them to meet him.”
According to Matthew, the ELEVEN APOSTLES went to GALILEE to a mountain Jesus specified. There, IN GALILEE, the disciples saw Jesus for the first time after his resurrection. The account of Luke, therefore, cannot be reconciled with the text of Mark and especially that of Matthew.
Now you know that this text is simply not true if you believe Mark and Matthew. Jesus was not in Jerusalem that Sunday evening but was on his way to Galilee. Jesus’ first appearance did not take place in Jerusalem but rather in GALILEE - as Mark and Matthew clearly point out. Therefore the text of Luke so often cited as proof that Jesus was a meat eater and therefore not a vegetarian - as many sources prove - is a forgery. And, since neither Luke or Paul were present when Jesus was offered something to eat after His resurrection, this passage about the fish is obviously untrue.
The next thing I want to point out is the fact that when the Church Father Irenaeus made a reference to the feeding of the 5000 he always only referred to the five loaves of bread and never made any remarks concerning the fishes. This strongly implies that in his day the gospels did not contain any reference to the fishes but that it was added later by an unknown interpolator. If you carefully read the text of Matthew 14 you will see that Jesus only broke the LOAVES and gave ONLY THE LOAVES to the people. Twelve baskets were filled with broken pieces of BREAD. When Jesus made a remark concerning the feeding of 5000 and 4000 he always only referred to the LOAVES of BREAD AND THE BASKETS which contained the broken pieces of bread. Jesus never made any remarks concerning the fishes. In John’s version even though reference is indirectly made to Jesus’s breaking of the fishes, nevertheless the twelve baskets contained only the broken pieces of FIVE LOAVES. It is therefore evident to me that Jesus used only five loaves to feed the people and the reference to the fishes is a later interpolation.
The Messiah did not condone fish nor gave it to the masses because even IF the manuscript is correct, the translation is wrong. It has now been found that the word was ψάριαφύκια. Which is the Greek word for "fishweed" (a dried seaweed) has been mistranslated in this story as "fish". It is certainly true that dried fishweed would be more likely in a basket with bread, as fishweed remains a popular food among Jewish and Arab peasants like the people to whom Jesus was speaking.
We know the disciples totally abstained from all animal foods because in Peter's Vision on the roof in Acts he saw a 4 cornered sheet being let down out of Heaven and in it contained every living creature, from beast of the Earth, foul of the air, fish of the sea and even insect. A loud voice from God came and said arise, Peter, kill and eat. He replied: "Surely not Lord, for nothing has ever entered my mouth impure or unclean." This happened 3 times before the sheet was lifted up. Notice he never gave in, when it was God telling him to do so? He knew from the Messiah what he had learned to be true.
But does Paul say in Romans that the weak in faith eat vegetables and only the strong eat meat?
In Romans 14 Paul says we should not endeavor to change one another to suit our preferences, but instead we should change our conduct so as not to offend the weaker brother. Verses 1-12 deal with our responsibility to respect the convictions of one another rather than to revise them. Verses 13-23 instruct us to refrain from exercising our own liberties when they will harm another Christian.
Personal Convictions Should Not Inhibit Harmony Among Christians (Romans 14:1-12)
The difference between Paul’s response to the weakness of Romans 14 and the heresy of Galatians can be best illustrated by his actions with regard to the circumcision of Timothy and Titus. In Acts 16:3, Paul had Timothy circumcised so as not to offend the scruples and custom (and perhaps prejudices) of those who knew his father was a Greek. But in Galatians 2:3-5, Paul refused to circumcise Titus because there the heretics were insisting that circumcision was essential to salvation.
The Issue at Hand. It is vitally important to our understanding of chapter 14 to be absolutely clear as to the issue at hand. The issue to which Paul speaks is the matter of personal convictions. Individual Christians will often differ over matters of conscience and of liberties. The differences of which Paul speaks are not over absolutes or fundamental doctrines of the faith. Specifically, Paul mentions the matter of eating meat or only vegetables (v. 2), of observing certain holy days (v. 5), and of drinking wine (v. 21).
While two Christians may disagree over whether or not a Christian should drink wine or eat only vegetables, no Christian should dispute the fact that lying, stealing, murder, adultery, and immorality are sins. These are biblical and moral absolutes.
When we understand that Paul is speaking with regard to individual liberties, Christian rights, and personal convictions then it's more clear that we see he is telling those around him that it's not prudent to focus on what causes your brother to stumble in faith than to worry about what you want to eat.
There were those who taught that it was impossible to be saved apart from the keeping of the Law. “And some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved’” (Acts 15:1).
With these Judaizers, Paul was very severe, for their doctrine was false. Those in Rome of whom Paul spoke were not of this sort. They were not saying that they had to avoid meat in order to be saved; they simply felt it was wrong for the Christian to eat meat, just as it is wrong to lie or steal.
God commanded all creatures to follow a strictly vegetarian diet. This is clearly written in Genesis 1 and is hardly disputed. God again commands vegetarianism on New Earth and no creature will be allowed to kill any living creature but the wolf and the lamb will live together.
When we want to look at the teeth of the first humans (Neanderthals) we see that they had larger molars and smaller canine teeth than we do. They had thicker enamel (they would need this if they lived longer than we do), and had well worn third molars, aka wisdom teeth.
We know for a fact that within our generation, human mouth size has shrunk, and that teeth no longer fit well together when closed and wisdom teeth are a huge problem. This is from diet change and genetic degradation through time, our teeth hardly fit in our own mouth anymore. Neanderthals were merely humans, better humans. Do you know how I know this for a fact? We can interbreed with them, that's one of the definitions of a species, one that can interbreed with its own Kind. Now called a Clade via phylogeny.
Sorry Christians but we should be vegans and preferable raw foodists. Though your salvation is not dependent on such a thing, Remember you cannot glorify God if you yourself are sick, weak and disease-ridden. Leviticus 3:17 states “You must never eat any fat or blood. This is a permanent law for you, and it must be observed from generation to generation, wherever you live." And it is impossible to remove all blood from flesh foods. Thus all meats should be removed based on science and logic. Acts 15:20 tells Christians to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from the blood. Proverbs 12:10 “Whoever is good has regard for the life of a beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.”
Again, though your salvation is not dependent on such a thing, Remember you cannot glorify God if you yourself are sick, weak and disease-ridden. God thinks the pig is an abomination and wishes that we should not eat it. Deut.14;3 “You shall not eat any abomination." Why would an unchanging God, now want you to eat it? HE DOESN'T!! He just permits it.
So much for rationalizing this comment which I hear so often “but we have dominion over the animals, that must mean we can eat them” as an excuse. Wrong, again we find Animals were used purely as servitude till after the flood of Noah’s day. Work and labor were their service to man, our dominion over them was to submit to our service.