HOME | DD
Pencilartguy — He really wasn't...
Published: 2012-08-09 21:01:26 +0000 UTC; Views: 3634; Favourites: 96; Downloads: 8
Redirect to original
Description
Ok, a while ago I stumbled upon this video. [link]I already commented at this but after just seeing it again a moment I saw I got a reply from someone saying that Jesus was a vegetarian and that I "like being decieved because of your LUST for (FLESH) FOOD MATH 5:22"
When I first watched it I couldn't believe what I was seeing. The video claims that not only was Jesus supposedly a vegetarian but he also died for the animals.
Jesus was not a vegetarian. Anyone who has read the Bible can clearly see that. Now yes, there was a time when all humans were vegetarians. That was before the Flood. After the Flood if you read Gen. 9:3 God says to Noah "Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat..."
God did forbid eating some meat such as pigs but He never forbade eating meat in general. In fact eating pigs became allowed when Jesus said "It's not what goes into the mouth but what comes out that defiles a man." Matt. 15:11.
Scripture also records Jesus multiplying loaves of bread and fish to feed thousands. Matthew 14:13-21, Mark 6:34-44, Luke 9:12-17 and John 6:1-14 affirm this. If Jesus was really an advocate for vegetarianism he would have only multiplied the bread.
Scripture also says God instituted animal sacrifice. Much of this is prevelant in the Old Testament. In fact, if you read Genisis 22, God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. Just as Abraham was about to do this God sends an angel to stop him and gives him a ram to sacrifice in place of his son.
As for the claim of Jesus dying for animals... Come on! What Bible were these guys reading? Jesus died for man's salvation. Not to stop the eating of animals. Seriously, read the Bible.
Now to address the comment directed to me;
First, Matt. 5:22 says nothing about lusting for flesh. This is what Matt 5:22 says;
"But I say to you, who ever is angry with his brother will be liable for judgement, and whoever says to his brother, 'Raqa' (meaning "idiot" or "Fool"), will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, "You fool", will be liable to fiery Gehenna." As for "lusting for flesh", that has nothing to do with eating meat. That phrase is actually condemning sexual immorality.
I'm going to share a Bible verse with you all."Welcome anyone who is weak in faith, but not for disputes over opinions. One person believes that one may eat anything while the weak (in faith) person eats only vegetables. The one who eats must not despise the one who abstains, and the one who abstains kust not pass judgement on the one who eats; for God has welcomed him." Rom 14:1-3
There is nothing wrong with being a vegetarian. In fact, Catholics during Lent abstain from meat on Fridays. However, if your going to claim that Jesus was a vegetarian and died for animals, then you seriously need to reread your Bible and stop spreading mistruths about it.
Related content
Comments: 139
The way I see it, Jesus was neither a vegetarian nor a carnivore.
And was he neither a capitalist nor a socialist.
And he was neither a Democrat nor a Republican.
His goal was to invite people to be united under God's love. Why, then, would he want these or other divisions?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
God has never told anyone to be a vegetarian. If that were true then the Law of Moses would've forbade the consumption of all animals and never lifted the ban either. Most folks then were semi-vegetarian because they ate what they could afford/what was available for their income. They ate meat sparingly and seasonally. Upper classes had higher living standards an could afford to eat meat more often. Jesus like others ate what was offered and available. I know for sure he ate fish and lamb and likely other meats. So no he wasn't.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Most people back then were too poor to have the luxury of choosing to abstain from certain foods. They ate whatever they could afford.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
It's still like that in some parts of the world today
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Spread the truth, and the truth shall set us free.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The Bible also says that Jesus was born as a Jew and therefore followed the Jewish laws, which, importantly to this argument, included eating lamb at the Passover. And there is also the verses Luke 24:41-43 where Jesus eats fish.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Exactly. I hate it when animalaboos use this argument when its obviously debunked in black and white.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
And some Christians think Paul is a blowhard and treat him with a grain of salt! Oh and by the way are you meaning lusting for flesh... It was taken in the Story of Sodom by the original was to be about rape by the original Jews... By the way I don't promote Biblical Veganism but this is poorly thought out... As there seem to be differences between the ways of Jesus and the OT... The only good verse you have is the Fish and Loaves Verse!
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Well there are all sorts of Bible verses condemning the lust for but yeah Sodom and Gomorrah was the earliest as far as I know and it was for "strange flesh" which was condemning homosexuality.
Well what about when Jesus said "It's not what goes into the mouth but what comes out that defiles a man"? (Matt. 15:11) I included that verse. There was also the verse where Jesus ate baked fish and the Passover Lamb. Maybe I should have included those two.
Anyway I do n't see how this was poorly thought out since the video used both the Old AND the New Testament to condemn the eating of meat. I had to use both because they used both, specifically Isiah 66:3.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually the Sodom and Gomorrah verses are about rape. And yes you should have included those verses... But let me tell you you still might want to think because Jesus was not out to teach any life style but rather was out to teach man that the love within his heart could over come the darkness if only he let go of our materialistic lifestyle. That meant dinning with the poor on what they ate! So the Matt 15:11 is just him saying that Gentiles should be respected despite what they eat!
Also the NT and the OT contradict... In the OT when cities lie Sodom reject God he destroys them... When Jesus is rejected by a city he simply walks and wipes the dust from his feet! I think that may be because the OT was written by primitive-er minds then the NT!
And
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
No, it was pretty clear God was punishing them for homosexuality. Yes, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah had intended to rape the angels and Lot but God was on his way to judge the cities before the attempted rape. Lot was also willing to give up his own daughters but the men wanted homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (and keep in mind this was something that Lot did, not that the Bible was justifying it). In Ezekiel 16: 46-50 God says to Jerusalem they were committing even worse abominations than Sodom. God made it clear in Leviticus 18:22 that a man lying with a man as a woman is abominable.
Homosexuality is also condemned in the New Testament as well. Romans 1:26-32 Paul equates homosexuality as a form of refusal to worship God. Paul also warns in 1 Cor. 6:9 that people who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God and again in 1 Tim. 1:8-11 regarding them as "lawless." Jude 1:7 warns that Sodom, Gomorrah and the surrounding towns practiced unnatural vice and that because of this they serve as an example of punishment by everlasting fire. So it wasn't just for rape why Sodom and Gomorrah were punished.
I should also state that Satan isn't a god. Men may call him a "god" and even worship him as such but he is not. The Bible clearly states he was created. When the Bible said "Satan is the god of this world" it was speaking purely out of symbolism. Besides, why isn't the "g" capitalized if Satan is God? He's not.
Jesus did wipe the dust from his feet. This was to show who God really was and how forgiving He is. But that does not mean God is ok with it. You can't expect to receive forgiveness if you have no intention of repentance. Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery "Go and sin no more."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay I a going to copy this from another part of DeviantArt!
Common Misconceptions about the Bible and LGBT
- by dadona777, May 27, 2012, 7:11:51 AM
- Literature / Prose / Non-Fiction / Philosophical
1) The Bible says homosexuals will go to Hell
Romans 3:23 says For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. This means that all human beings are guilty of sin, so no special group (e.g., homosexuals) are doomed to go to Hell. Anyone can make it to Heaven if they accept Christ as their personal Savior.
2) Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for being gay
The act mentioned in Genesis 19 before Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed was attempted gang rape. The two angels mentioned in the passage were strangers to the city and the people of Sodom did not receive them with welcome.Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. (Ezekiel 16:48-50)It's not homosexuality that's the issue here, but inhospitality.
3) Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 say that homosexuality is an abominationThou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Lev 18:22) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Lev 20:13)The word "abomination" used in these verses was translated from the Hebrew word to'ebah, which means "a disgusting thing." However, given the context that it was used, the word always referred to an act of idolatry. Leviticus 18:21, the verse right before "thou shalt not lie with mankind," states:And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord.The subsequent verse 22 is actually grouped together with this one. Here are a few other places in the Bible that use the wordto'ebah in the context of idolatry:There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God. (Deuteronomy 23:17-18) And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all theabominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel. (1 Kings 14:24)Here are some other verses, to put the word sodomite in context:And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. (1 Kings 15:12) And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land. (1 Kings 22:46) And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for the grove. (2 Kings 23:7)The use of the word "sodomite" here was translated from the Hebrew word quadesh, which, in this context, refers to a temple prostitute.
Note: the Talmund equated the acts of these "sodomites" with the prohibition in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
4) Deuteronomy 22:5 says that cross dressing is an abomination, and therefore transgenderism and transvestitism is a sinThe woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.Again, the word for "abomination" here was to'ebah, which is relevant to idolatry. The act being mentioned here is a reference to what the pagan cultures did in their cultic rituals. They often anally injected themselves with drugs, which induced such a high sense of ecstasy that they felt as though they could do anything. Many times, this resulted in cross-dressing and self-mutilation among them.
5) Romans 1:26 [specifically] condemns lesbian behaviorFor this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:The phrase "against nature" referred to non-procreative sex or or a reversal of roles in sex, not necessarily lesbian sex. What these women were doing was having sex with men in in such a manner that would not produce children, which included anal sex, oral sex, and occasionally using a dildo to engage in anal sex with men. In this case, the prohibition here appears to be against all forms of "unnatural" sex, especially the ones preformed in a cult.
However,
The interesting fact is that the Bible has never condemned non-procreative sex within the confines of a marriage. Therefore, the prohibition in this passage must not be referring to the "unnatural" sex acts per se, but the fact that these people were abusing their sexual relations in the first place.
6) Romans 1:27 condemns all male homosexualityAnd likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.This act is obviously a homosexual one. However, given that this in the context of idolatry, it does not condemn a committed relationship between two men, but instead, ritual temple sex.
7) 1 Corinthians 6:9 says homosexuals do not enter the kingdom of GodKnow ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,Some people incorrectly interpret the word "effeminate" as "a male who acts like a woman." However, the Greek word malakoiactually referred to someone who is morally soft.
The biggest controversy is over the word arsenokoitai, which translates to "abusers of themselves with mankind" here. Most modern Greek Lexicons will translate this word as "one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual," but this is a faulty translation. The word originated in Koine Greek, which is far different from modern Greek, and its meaning has also changed over time. According to a couple of ancient texts which use the word arsenokoitai, it does not refer to homosexuality in general:
the Apology of Aristides, part VIII:"The Greeks, then, because they are more subtle than the Barbarians, have gone further astray than the Barbarians; inasmuch as they have introduced many fictitious gods... some were kidnapped by men, and some, indeed, were lamented and deplored by men. And some, they say, went down to Sheol, and some were grievously wounded, and some transformed themselves into the likeness of animals to seduce the race of mortal women, and some polluted themselves by lying with males"The context of arsenokoitai in this excerpt referred to the Greek gods forcing themselves on mortal men, not "homosexuality."
the Refutation of All Heresies, by Hippolytus:Naas, however, has committed sin, for he went in unto Eve, deceiving her, and debauched her; and (such an act as) this is a violation of law. He, however, likewise went in unto Adam, and had unnatural intercourse with him; and this is itself also a piece of turpitude, whence have arisen adultery and sodomy.In this context, the act here was referring to male rape, as Naas did not seek to consent with Adam in his sleep.*
8) "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"
This sounds like a thought-terminating cliche to me. It's a common cop-out of any argument on homosexuality, which basically states "God made the first two people heterosexual; therefore all people were meant to be heterosexual." This is not true. One might argue Jesus' statement in Matthew 19:4-6And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.The context here was divorce. He was saying that once two people are united, then no law of man should de-unite them.
Jesus also mentions an exception to the one-man-one-woman rule in verse 11-12But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.The most common understanding of a eunuch today is a man who has been castrated so he could not take pleasure in a woman. However, in the ancient times, people were aware of some men who simply were not attracted to women, and classified them also as "eunuchs." These are the people Jesus mentions in verse 12 who are "born so from their mother's womb."
An interesting quote from Clement of Alexandria states "A true eunuch is not one who is unable, but one who is unwilling, to indulge in pleasure" [with a woman]
9) If we discount the verses following Leviticus 18:21 about Molech because they were idolatrous, then bestiality must be okay too
what about the prohibition following that one, about having sex with animals? Can we say that no such prohibition existed if you wanted to have sexual relations with an animal, as long as it wasn't having to do with a religious rite? Yet perversions of all kinds are more and more accepted today. In the 1990s on a college campus, a group mocked the campus sponsored GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Awareness Days) week by promoting their own cause: BAD (Bestiality Awareness Days). Though in bad taste, they made a valid point: On what basis do we say that one is wrong and unnatural and another is not? If there is no God, then everything is permissible; it is all a matter of opinion and preference and nothing else.this may seem like a valid claim, but there's one slight issue here:Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.tow'ebah: properly something disgusting (morally), that is, an abhorrence; especially idolatry or concretely an idol("abomination")
te'bel: mixture, that is, unnatural bestiality ("confusion")
The Bible actually states the difference between the act of two men engaged in anal sex and bestiality. The former is in the context of idolatry, meaning it was forbidden as a cultic practice. The word "abomination" specifies that the forbidden aspect of the "homosexuality" was idolatry. The word "confusion" on the other hand specifies that the nature of the bestiality act was an unnatural mixture. It was forbidden because it was unclean in itself, not because it was connected to idolatry. If the two were equally vile for the same reasons, then the same word te'bel would have been used for both.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
you make awesome stamps!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Wooah, wooah... Who the heck came up with such an absurd claim like that? There is absolutely neither Scriptural nor historical support for that utter garbage.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
there are really people who believe Jesus was a vegetarian and died for animals 0_0
👍: 1 ⏩: 2
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
its kind of funny in a way
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Yeah I agree Jesus wasn't vegetarian and originally Adam and Eve were vegetarian but then they ate the fruit and everything changed. Sin entered the world. But in no way am I saying eating meat is a sin.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Wait a Minute ... Turning Loves into Fish - Man Jesus was AWESOME! I can't tell you how many times I wished I could turn my extra carbs in Protein!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Turning Loves into Fish" Ok, if you're gonna make fun of the stamp, can you at least know what you are talking about and use proper English please?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It was in a "Musclehedz" comic www.musclehedz.com/index.html It's one of the cheesy comics you find in the margins of them "Muscle Mags" ...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have no idea what that is. And Jesus didn't turn loaves of bread into fish, He multiplied them along with fish.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
There's also a scene in Acts of the Apostles, in which God shows Peter the vision of many animals and He orders him to kill and eat them~ - He rather wouldn't do it, if He was a vegetarian.
In the case of Him dying for animals - well, He wouldn't do it, because animals don't have Original Sin~
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for pointing that out. While that event with Peter and the unclean animals was of something totally different, that still in a way shows Jesus was not against eating animals.
And you're right. Animals do not have Original Sin, nor are they capable of personal sin. But I don't think that was what they were arguing. They were arguing that Jesus died because He loved animals so much that He protested against it and they romans and Pharisees killed Him for that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"that still in a way shows Jesus was not against eating animals."
That's the reason, why I decided to point it out
"They were arguing that Jesus died because He loved animals so much that He protested against it and they romans and Pharisees killed Him for that."
o_O
OK, I don't have other questions...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Jesus was not a vegetarian, You are correct. In fact, Didn't Jesus eat the passover lamb and ate fish with the disciples? If he ate meat, so can I. However if I was to eat with vegetarians, I would abstain in their presence.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Using the Bible to promote unbiblical things is just as dishonest as those idiots claiming that Nazis were atheist Darwinists.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
I try to erase the vision of God the Father /facepalm but it is hard. Salvation on the line and this is what Christians get in a twit about?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well I think it is an important issue to address. Would you consider twisting and distorting the Word of God an important matter? It's not that they're vegetarians is why I did this but rather how they twisted scripture. And I think twisting scripture and leading others to believe lies would put someone's salvation on the line.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, I agree with you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Ok.
I may not be a religius person, but even I know he wasn't a vegetarian.
We are people (even though most people don't act like it) we are OMNIVORES.
Deal with it.
(I love this stamp very much! Thank you!)
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Seriously though, it's sad. Due to her books, a few people have been naive enough to follow it, and have died.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Not all humans are. There are some groups of people in india and Tibet that have been vegetarian or vegan for centuries. They have adapted to a veggie-based diet. If they ate meat their digestive system would most likely have trouble processing it. I think they would be considered herbivores.
But yes, the majority is omnivore.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
For the most part, anyway.
I was referring to those idiots who can survive perfectly fine eating meat, but choose to force everyone elce to join them.
(Thank you, by the way! ^^ )
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Actually not for the most part. In India there are MANY vegetarians and India has the world's second largest population! (I'm vegetarian)
I hope I didn't sound rude... <33
I just hate it when people say it's natural to eat meat. Well if they want to be so natural then they should leave all their technology, homes, good food, etc. and go live in the wild trying to survive. .-.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yeah. That's it's not right to force your beliefs onto others. As long as the 'meat-eater' isn't some crazy animal torturer. But that's a different story, for a different time XD...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's a whole other HORROR story . . . .
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"As for the claim of Jesus dying for animals... Come on! What Bible were these guys reading? Jesus died for man's salvation. Not to stop the eating of animals. Seriously, read the Bible."
This sums up my response to every time someone says something way out of left field. Just. What?
Some people try to defend every little thing with the scripture. Just relax, just because the bible doesn't specifically say that there is life outside of earth, doesn't mean there isn't.
...that sounds like a weird example, though
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>