------------------------------------------------------------------------

None of what I have written here is a commentary on the importance and
positive thing that a vegetarian diet is for all life on this planet. It
is merely the addressing of the self worshipping crap that ego maniacs
like you spew in your attempts to exploit any and all social means for
the sole purpose of inflating your misguided ego!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A saint in Hindu mythology. According to the legend, when the celestial
Ganga flowed to the earth from heaven, the hermitages of Jahnu and other
saints were flooded and washed away by the flood of the river. Enraged
at this, Jahnu drank the entire river waters by using his yogic power.
At the request of gods and saints, he later released the river through
his ear and told that Ganga would hereafter be known as his daughter.
Thus, the river Ganga (the Ganges) came to be known as 'Jahnavi'
(daughter of Jahnu).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

From below, the King of ego - Jahnu wrote:

"So when we talk about changing one's life, giving one's time, life,
energy, mind, resources to God and worship him with all one's heart
mind soul, etc., well we all agree to that."

(Grab your ankles Jahnu)
Agree to what, oh Yogi guru master? As I read all that you have wrote
below it is clear that you are not submitting your thoughts but seeking
validation of your beliefs. Please explain to all the would be followers
of your great ego how 6 billion humans surviving on an all plant diet
avoid "not killing others (human and animal alike,...)"

As a member of the privileged class of humans you have all the free time
in the world to troll for followers of your great ego while billions are
without enough food. They are forced to burn rain forests to grow corn
and beans. Animals of all kinds are being, and have been, driven to
extinction to grow the plants that 6 billion (and growing) humans need
to survive.

Your attempts to call early christians vegetarians amounts to what
significance in the real world (of which you are not)? It means squat
and ignores the real problem on this planet. A problem of ignorance
being spread by the humungo ego's of religous/newage idiots that
pooh-pooh science and the clear picture it reveals of our earth on it's
death bed. Your adherence to creationism and denial of evolution is an
escape from the true significance of species extinction!

These discussion groups are stuffed with self worshipping self anointed
"spiritualists" that are nothing more than privileged ego maniacal
idiots that would not know the meaning of life it was pressed on their
brian with a red hot poker.

The real hero's of this world are people like Jane Goodal who devoted
decades of their life living in solitude (makes 40 days and 40 nights a
cake walk) out in a field of study. Jane Goodal has given to man more
than any socalled prophet/profit before her. She has not sought to be a
messenger or to control a following of idiots like you. Her life work
has demonstrated that man need only look to his primate brothers to see
and understand a simple model of himself.

Acknowledge the animal within,
or fail to control the animal within!

My attacks on you and yours on myself are understood by me for what they
are, men competing for an alpha position. For you though, you live in a
dream world like millions of others that deny their true biology. You
seek mastery of the imagined out of failure to understand the real. I
embrace the real and therefore have clear advantage over you.

Each time you seek/utilize modern medicine/science you live a lie. Each
time I use science to embrace the real world I live in truth. You will
never know life or the true meaning of spirituality simply because you
deny your true biology.

You can now let go of your ankles!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jahnu wrote:

Jesus & vegetarianism

So when we talk about changing one's life, giving one's time, life,
energy, mind, resources to God and worship him with all one's heart
mind soul, etc., well we all agree to that.

To be non violent, not to kill others (humans and animals alike, not
even for food (it is quite clear that the Early Christians were
vegetarians, see below), we all agree on that. We are citizens of the
spiritual world and we should not unnecessarily use our valuable time
in mundane pursuits. Unless we give up material life and turn with
great determination towards spiritual life our life will be a loss and

end up in disappointment.

On the other side when we start taking about the resurrection of the
flesh and that Jesus died for our sins, well these are theological
concepts that were superimposed on the teachings of Jesus from Paul on

and really miss the point of his actual teachings to mankind.

Quote from the book "Food for peace":

Major stumbling blocks for many Christians are the belief that Christ
ate meat and the many references to meat in the New Testament. But
close study of the original Greek manuscripts shows that the vast
majority of the words translated as "meat" are trophe, brome, and
other words that simply mean "food" or "eating" in the broadest sense.

For example, in the Gospel (Luke 8:55) we read that Jesus raised a
woman from the dead and "commanded to give her meat." The original
Greek word translated as "meat" is phago, which means only "to eat".
So, what Christ actually said was, "Let her eat."

The original Greek word for meat is kreas ("flesh"), and it is never
used in connection with Christ. In Luke 24:41-43 the disciples offered

him fish and a honeycomb and he took it (singular, we can guess which
one). Nowhere in the New Testament is there any direct reference to
Jesus eating meat.

This is in line with Isaiah's famous prophecy: "Behold, a virgin shall

conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall
eat butter and honey, so that he may know the evil from the good."
(Isaiah 7:14-15) (this itself says that meat eating destroys all good
discretion in man. It is quite typical, that the second part of the
sentence is omitted in Matthew 1:23).

Jesus rebuked strongly the pharisees with the words: "...and if you
had known what it means: "I desire mercy and not sacrifice, ...you
would not condemn the innocent," (Matthew 12:6) which clearly
disapproves of the killing of animals, as this is a verse taken from
Hosea 6:6: "I desire mercy instead of sacrifice, the knowledge of God
more than burnt offerings..." (note: again the the 2nd part of the
sentence is omitted in Matthew 12:6).

He strongly opposed the custom of temple animal sacrifices, violently
driving those who were selling oxen, sheep and pigeons and the
money-changers out of the temple (John 2:13-15).

His words: "...you shall not make my father's house a house of trade
(which in earlier translations always was translated as "murders'
den").

We all know that according to Matthew 3:4 John the Baptist was
refusing to eat meat. ("...and his food was wild locust (bean) and
wild honey." (orig. Greek: enkris, oil cake and akris: locust/honey)

But we never hear of the sheer overwhelming evidence which points to
Jesus being a vegetarian: No less than seven of Jesus' twelve
disciples refused meat food (the rest we do not know). This naturally
reflects the teachings of Jesus, as: "...a servant is not greater than

his master..." (John 14:16).

The seven a

1. Peter, "...whose food was bread, olives and herbs..." (Clem. Hom.
XII,6)

2. James: Church Father Eusebius, quoting the Churchfather Hegesippus
(about 160 AD) is stating:

"...But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives
the most accurate account in the fifth book of his memoirs. He writes
as follow: '...James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the
government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been

called the Just by all from the time of our savior to the present day;

for there were many that bore the name James.

'He was holy from his mother's womb; he drank no wine, nor strong
drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head, he did not
anoint himself with oil and he did not use the bath. He alone was
permitted to enter the holy place; for he wore no woolen but linen
garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple,
and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the
people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel in
consequence of constantly bending them on his worship of
God...'" (Eusebius, Church History II, Ch. XXIII,5-7, Nicene and Post
Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Oxford, N.Y., 1890, Vol I,
p.125)

It is interesting that Hegesippus is saying that James, the brother of

Jesus, was holy from his mother's womb on which would apply that Mary
was not eating meat either and that she never fed him meat as a child.

That being the case one would think it to be clear that the whole
family of Jesus and naturally he himself was vegetarian. In that sense

the statement of Churchfather Eusebius "he was holy from his mother's
womb" is most indicative pointing towards the vegetarianism of Jesus.

3. Thomas: The apocryphal Acts of Thomas (Ch. 20), which actually were

widely in use among early Christian sects, depict this disciple of
Jesus as ascetic: "He continually fasts and prays, and abstaining from

eating of flesh and drinking wine, he eats only bread, with salt and
drink and water, and wears the same garment in fine weather and
winter, and accepts nothing from anyone, and gives whatever he has to
others."

4. Matthew: "It is far better to be happy than to have a demon
dwelling with us. And happiness is found in the practice of virtue.
Accordingly, the apostle Matthew partook of seeds and nuts, fruits and

vegetables without of flesh. And John, who carried temperance to the
extreme, ate locusts and wild honey..."

(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, II.I,16: On Eating)
(Note here the strong hint of Clement towards the vegetarianism of
John the Baptist.)

5. Matthias (who filled the place of Judas - Acts 1:21-26). His food
as told by Church Father Clement of Alexandria was the same as
Matthews. (Clement/Stromata III,4,26)

6. Andrew and 7. Jude: Andrew (Peter's brother in both flesh and
faith) and Jude of Bethsaida, originally two of John the Baptists'
followers, must have followed the Baptist's austere diet. (See above
under Matthew)

Paul also says: "...It is good neither to drink wine or eat flesh..."
(Roman 14:20-21) though his commitment altogether seems altogether
somewhat less categorical.

Beyond that there are strong arguments of a similar nature by many of
the Fathers of the early Church:

"...How unworthy do you press the example of Christ as having come
eating and drinking into the service of your lusts: I think that He
who pronounced not the full, but the hungry and thirsty 'Blessed,' who

professed His work to be the completion of His Father's Will, I think
that he was wont to abstain, instructing them to labor for that 'Meat'

which lasts to eternal life, and enjoying in their common prayers
petition, not for flesh food but for bread only..." - Quintus
Septimius Tertullianus (AD 155).

This knowledge of Tertullianus was supported by fragments of the
writings by the Apostolic Father Papias (AD 60 - 125).
"...The unnatural eating of flesh is as polluting as the heathens
worship of devils with its sacrifices and impure feasts, through
participation in which a man becomes a fellow eater with devils..."
(2nd century scripture Clemente Homilies - Hom. XII)

Clemens Prudentius, the first Christian hymn writer exhorts in one of
his hymns his fellow Christians "...not to pollute their hands and
hearts by the slaughter of innocent cows and sheep..."
Accordingly the Apostle Matthew, "partook of seeds, and nuts, and
vegetables, without the use of flesh... is there not within a
temperate simplicity, a wholesome variety of eatables, vegetables,
roots, olives, herbs, milk, cheese, fruits?" - Churchfather Clement of

Alexandria (Titus Flavius Clemens, AD 150 - 220)

"...We, the Christian leaders, practice abstinence from the flesh of
animals to subdue our bodies. The unnatural eating of flesh is of
demonic origin." And about the early Christians: "...No streams of
blood are among them. No dainty cookery, no heaviness of head. Nor are

horrible smells of flesh meats among them or disagreeable fumes from
the kitchen.." - St. Chrysostomos (AD 347-404)

A most important purport to a controversy, much cherished and much
cited by meat-eating Christians we find in the writings of the
Churchfather Jerome (AD 340 - 420), who gave us the Vulgate, the
authorized Latin version of the Bible still in use today.

The controversy is based on the fact that in Genesis 1:29 meat-eating
is clearly forbidden, "...I give you every seed-bearing plant on the
face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it.

They will be yours for food..."

However after the flood it appears that meat-eating is all of a sudden

permitted: "...The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts

of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that
moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are
given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food
for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you
everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in
it..." (Genesis 9:2-4)

Writing in confutation of Jovinian, a monk of Milan, who abandoned
asceticism, St. Jerome (died A.D. 440) holds up vegetarianism as the
Christian ideal and the restoration of the primeval rule of life.

St. Jerome says:
"...He (Jovinian) raises the objection that when God gave His second
blessing, permission was granted to eat flesh, which had not in the
first benediction been allowed. He should know that just as divorce
according to the Saviour's word was not permitted from the beginning,
but on account of the hardness of our heart was a concession of Moses
to the human race, (Matthew 9:8: "Moses permitted you to divorce your
wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the
beginning.") ...so too the eating of flesh was unknown until the
deluge. But after the deluge, like the quails given in the desert to
the murmuring people, the poison of flesh-meat was offered to our
teeth. The Apostle writing to the Ephesians (Eph. 1:10) teaches that
God had purposed in the fullness of time to sum up and renew in Christ

Jesus all things which are in heaven and in earth. Whence also the
Saviour himself in the Revelation of John says (Rev. 1:8; 22:13), "I
am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending."

At the beginning of the human race we neither ate flesh, nor gave
bills of divorce, nor suffered circumcision for a sign. Thus we
reached the deluge. But after the deluge, together with the giving of
the law which no one could fulfill, flesh was given for food, and
divorce was allowed to hard-hearted men, and the knife of circumcision

was applied, as though the hand of God had fashioned us with something

superfluous. But once Christ has come in the end of time, and Omega
passed into Alpha and turned the end into the beginning, we are no
longer allowed divorce (see Matthew 19:3-9), nor are we circumcised,
nor so we eat flesh, for the Apostle says (Rom. 14:21), "It is good
not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine." For wine as well as flesh was
consecrated after the deluge." (Against Jovinianus, Book I,18)
"The steam of meat darkens the light of the spirit... One hardly can
have virtue when one enjoys meat meals and feasts..." - St. Basil (AD
320 - 79)

Besides that contemporary heathen observers describe the early
Christians as abstaining from meat:

Pliny, Governor of Bithynia (where Peter preached) referred to the
early Christians in a letter to Trajan, the Roman Emperor, as a
..."contagious superstition abstaining from flesh food..."

Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD), stoic philosopher and tutor of Nero, describes
the Christians as "...a foreign cultus or superstition (under imperial

suspicion) who abstain from flesh food..."

And Josephus Flavius says about the early Christians: "...They
assemble before sunrising and speak not a word of profane matters but
put up certain prayers... and sit down together each one to a single
plate of one sort of innocent food..."

The scholar E.M. Szekely claims to have recovered and translated from
an old Aramaic scripture, "...Therefore, he who kills, kills his
brother... And the flesh of slain beasts in his body will become his
own tomb. For I tell you truly, he who kills, kills himself, and who
so eats the flesh of slain beasts, eats of the body of death... Kill
neither men, nor beasts, nor the food which goes into your mouth...
For life comes from life, and from death comes always death. For
everything which kills your foods, kills your bodies also. And your
bodies become what your foods are, even as your spirits become what
your thoughts are..." - E.M. Szekely, Gospel of Peace

And Albert Schweitzer says: "...Ethics has not only to do with mankind

but with the animal creation as well. This is witnessed in the purpose

of St. Francis of Assisi. Thus we shall arrive that ethics is
reverence for all life. This is the ethic of love widened universally.

It is the ethic of Jesus now recognized as a necessity of thought...
Only a universal ethic which embraces every living creature can put us

in touch with the universe and the will which is there manifest..."

Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801 - 90) says: "...Cruelty to animals is

as if man did not love God... They have done us no harm, they have no
power of resistance... there is something dreadful, so satanic in
tormenting those who have never harmed us and who cannot defend
themselves, who are utterly in our power..."

Tolstoy and Dukhobor (Orthodox Russian Christian) were of the opinion
that meat-eating is against the tenets of Christianity.

His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Founder-Acarya
of ISKCON (Hare Krishna Movement) concludes: "...There are many
rascals who violate their own religious principles. While it clearly
says according to Judeo-Christian scriptures, "Thou shalt not kill,"
they are giving all kinds of excuses. Even the heads of religions
indulge in killing animals while trying to pass as saintly persons.
This mockery and hypocrisy in human society has brought about
unlimited calamities..."

------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------

Paul's teachings and interpretations

And it's absolutely amazing that Paul actually tells it himself:

"...One man's faith (in the idea of salvation from the cross) allows
him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith (in the cross) is
weak, eats only vegetables..." (Roman 14:2)

The smoking gun is right the It is Paul's concept of faith in the
salvific nature of the cross, declaring the Torah obsolete which leads

him to view the vegetarianism of the apostles as dietetic fanaticism
of Nazarene Jewish origin and hence dispensable.

Further proof are at hand. In fact the following statements make no
sense whatsoever, unless we agree that Paul needed to convince a large

section of early Christians, that there was no problem with eating
meat.

"Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.
All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that
causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink
wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. So
whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and
God..." (Rom 14:20-22)

In other words it is O.K. to eat meat as long as nobody is offended
and the community of Christians is not disturbed.

He goes on:
"If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat
whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.
But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then
do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for
conscience' sake-- the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For
why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? If I take
part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of
something I thank God for? So whether you eat or drink or whatever you

do, do it all for the glory of God." (1 Cor 10:27-31)

In other words as far as eating meat, even when offered in sacrifice,
Paul had no scruples unless it is declared, that meat is offered in
sacrifice. In this case do not eat it, to avoid to offend others.

It is very clear: It needed to be saying that meat eating is allowed.
There were Christians who are vegetarians. Beware of meat offered in
sacrifice. Because besides the vegetarian Christians there were others

who were less strict but who would not approve of the idea of eating
meat offered in sacrifice. Meat eating in general is allowed,
according to Paul:

"Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of
conscience, for, 'The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it.'"
(1 Cor 10:25-26)

Again, this makes no sense unless there must have been Christians who
found it difficult to reconcile with their conscience to buy meat in
the market.

And again mo

"As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is

unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then
for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what
you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating
destroy your brother for whom Christ died." (Roman 14:14-15)

Later this point of view is reflected in Timothy, possibly addressing
early Christian sects like the later banned Enkratites:

"...They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain

foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who

believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good,
and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving..."
(1 Timothy 4:3-4)

So we can see that there was obviously a large group of people who did

not agree with meat eating in general (hence he says don't let it be a

matter of conscience to you when buying meat in the market).
Definitely the issue was not about eating food offered in sacrifice,
as made out by Christian theologians.

The tensions between Paul are further reflected in the way how he
addresses the disciples of Jesus. He makes it perfectly clear that
their opinions are not what Paul is overly concerned with.

He sarcastically describes the Apostles in Jerusalem (James, Peter) as

"those Super Apostles", "those reputed to be the Pillars":
"...But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those
"super-apostles." I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have
knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way."
(2 Cor 11:5-6)

He clearly is preaching a different Jesus then the Apostles in
Jerusalem. Hence he warns his followers:

"...For if someone comes to you and preaches A JESUS OTHER THAN THE
JESUS WE PREACHED, or if you receive a different spirit from the one
you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put

up with it easily enough."
(2 Cor 11:4)

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other
than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we

have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you
a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally
condemned!" (Gal 1:8-9)

"And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground
from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with
us in the things they boast about. For such men are false apostles,
deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder,
for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light." (2 Cor 11:12-14)

www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk
alt.philosophy, talk.philosophy.misc,
talk.politics.animals,
alt.food.vegan, alt.messianic, alt.bible.prophecy

"Protien Man" wrote in message
...


Very philosophical "Protein Man" unfortunately your return path is more to
the point.
Safe journey.

You spelled "protein" wrong.



"Protien Man" wrote in message ...


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

None of what I have written here is a commentary on the importance and positive thing that a vegetarian diet is for all life on this planet. It is merely the addressing of the self worshipping crap that ego maniacs like you spew in your attempts to exploit any and all social means for the sole purpose of inflating your misguided ego!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A saint in Hindu mythology. According to the legend, when the celestial Ganga flowed to the earth from heaven, the hermitages of Jahnu and other saints were flooded and washed away by the flood of the river. Enraged at this, Jahnu drank the entire river waters by using his yogic power. At the request of gods and saints, he later released the river through his ear and told that Ganga would hereafter be known as his daughter. Thus, the river Ganga (the Ganges) came to be known as 'Jahnavi' (daughter of Jahnu).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From below, the King of ego - Jahnu wrote:
"So when we talk about changing one's life, giving one's time, life,
energy, mind, resources to God and worship him with all one's heart
mind soul, etc., well we all agree to that."

(Grab your ankles Jahnu)
Agree to what, oh Yogi guru master? As I read all that you have wrote below it is clear that you are not submitting your thoughts but seeking validation of your beliefs. Please explain to all the would be followers of your great ego how 6 billion humans surviving on an all plant diet avoid "not killing others (human and animal alike,...)"

As a member of the privileged class of humans you have all the free time in the world to troll for followers of your great ego while billions are without enough food. They are forced to burn rain forests to grow corn and beans. Animals of all kinds are being, and have been, driven to extinction to grow the plants that 6 billion (and growing) humans need to survive.

Your attempts to call early christians vegetarians amounts to what significance in the real world (of which you are not)? It means squat and ignores the real problem on this planet. A problem of ignorance being spread by the humungo ego's of religous/newage idiots that pooh-pooh science and the clear picture it reveals of our earth on it's death bed. Your adherence to creationism and denial of evolution is an escape from the true significance of species extinction!

These discussion groups are stuffed with self worshipping self anointed "spiritualists" that are nothing more than privileged ego maniacal idiots that would not know the meaning of life it was pressed on their brian with a red hot poker.

The real hero's of this world are people like Jane Goodal who devoted decades of their life living in solitude (makes 40 days and 40 nights a cake walk) out in a field of study. Jane Goodal has given to man more than any socalled prophet/profit before her. She has not sought to be a messenger or to control a following of idiots like you. Her life work has demonstrated that man need only look to his primate brothers to see and understand a simple model of himself.

Acknowledge the animal within,
or fail to control the animal within!

My attacks on you and yours on myself are understood by me for what they are, men competing for an alpha position. For you though, you live in a dream world like millions of others that deny their true biology. You seek mastery of the imagined out of failure to understand the real. I embrace the real and therefore have clear advantage over you.

Each time you seek/utilize modern medicine/science you live a lie. Each time I use science to embrace the real world I live in truth. You will never know life or the true meaning of spirituality simply because you deny your true biology.

You can now let go of your ankles!



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jahnu wrote:
Jesus & vegetarianism
So when we talk about changing one's life, giving one's time, life,
energy, mind, resources to God and worship him with all one's heart
mind soul, etc., well we all agree to that.

To be non violent, not to kill others (humans and animals alike, not
even for food (it is quite clear that the Early Christians were
vegetarians, see below), we all agree on that. We are citizens of the
spiritual world and we should not unnecessarily use our valuable time
in mundane pursuits. Unless we give up material life and turn with
great determination towards spiritual life our life will be a loss and
end up in disappointment.

On the other side when we start taking about the resurrection of the
flesh and that Jesus died for our sins, well these are theological
concepts that were superimposed on the teachings of Jesus from Paul on
and really miss the point of his actual teachings to mankind.

Quote from the book "Food for peace":

Major stumbling blocks for many Christians are the belief that Christ
ate meat and the many references to meat in the New Testament. But
close study of the original Greek manuscripts shows that the vast
majority of the words translated as "meat" are trophe, brome, and
other words that simply mean "food" or "eating" in the broadest sense.
For example, in the Gospel (Luke 8:55) we read that Jesus raised a
woman from the dead and "commanded to give her meat." The original
Greek word translated as "meat" is phago, which means only "to eat".
So, what Christ actually said was, "Let her eat."

The original Greek word for meat is kreas ("flesh"), and it is never
used in connection with Christ. In Luke 24:41-43 the disciples offered
him fish and a honeycomb and he took it (singular, we can guess which
one). Nowhere in the New Testament is there any direct reference to
Jesus eating meat.

This is in line with Isaiah's famous prophecy: "Behold, a virgin shall
conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall
eat butter and honey, so that he may know the evil from the good."
(Isaiah 7:14-15) (this itself says that meat eating destroys all good
discretion in man. It is quite typical, that the second part of the
sentence is omitted in Matthew 1:23).

Jesus rebuked strongly the pharisees with the words: "...and if you
had known what it means: "I desire mercy and not sacrifice, ...you
would not condemn the innocent," (Matthew 12:6) which clearly
disapproves of the killing of animals, as this is a verse taken from
Hosea 6:6: "I desire mercy instead of sacrifice, the knowledge of God
more than burnt offerings..." (note: again the the 2nd part of the
sentence is omitted in Matthew 12:6).

He strongly opposed the custom of temple animal sacrifices, violently
driving those who were selling oxen, sheep and pigeons and the
money-changers out of the temple (John 2:13-15).

His words: "...you shall not make my father's house a house of trade
(which in earlier translations always was translated as "murders'
den").

We all know that according to Matthew 3:4 John the Baptist was
refusing to eat meat. ("...and his food was wild locust (bean) and
wild honey." (orig. Greek: enkris, oil cake and akris: locust/honey)

But we never hear of the sheer overwhelming evidence which points to
Jesus being a vegetarian: No less than seven of Jesus' twelve
disciples refused meat food (the rest we do not know). This naturally
reflects the teachings of Jesus, as: "...a servant is not greater than
his master..." (John 14:16).

The seven a

1. Peter, "...whose food was bread, olives and herbs..." (Clem. Hom.
XII,6)

2. James: Church Father Eusebius, quoting the Churchfather Hegesippus
(about 160 AD) is stating:

"...But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives
the most accurate account in the fifth book of his memoirs. He writes
as follow: '...James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the
government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been
called the Just by all from the time of our savior to the present day;
for there were many that bore the name James.

'He was holy from his mother's womb; he drank no wine, nor strong
drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head, he did not
anoint himself with oil and he did not use the bath. He alone was
permitted to enter the holy place; for he wore no woolen but linen
garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple,
and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the
people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel in
consequence of constantly bending them on his worship of
God...'" (Eusebius, Church History II, Ch. XXIII,5-7, Nicene and Post
Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Oxford, N.Y., 1890, Vol I,
p.125)

It is interesting that Hegesippus is saying that James, the brother of
Jesus, was holy from his mother's womb on which would apply that Mary
was not eating meat either and that she never fed him meat as a child.
That being the case one would think it to be clear that the whole
family of Jesus and naturally he himself was vegetarian. In that sense
the statement of Churchfather Eusebius "he was holy from his mother's
womb" is most indicative pointing towards the vegetarianism of Jesus.

3. Thomas: The apocryphal Acts of Thomas (Ch. 20), which actually were
widely in use among early Christian sects, depict this disciple of
Jesus as ascetic: "He continually fasts and prays, and abstaining from
eating of flesh and drinking wine, he eats only bread, with salt and
drink and water, and wears the same garment in fine weather and
winter, and accepts nothing from anyone, and gives whatever he has to
others."

4. Matthew: "It is far better to be happy than to have a demon
dwelling with us. And happiness is found in the practice of virtue.
Accordingly, the apostle Matthew partook of seeds and nuts, fruits and
vegetables without of flesh. And John, who carried temperance to the
extreme, ate locusts and wild honey..."

(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, II.I,16: On Eating)
(Note here the strong hint of Clement towards the vegetarianism of
John the Baptist.)

5. Matthias (who filled the place of Judas - Acts 1:21-26). His food
as told by Church Father Clement of Alexandria was the same as
Matthews. (Clement/Stromata III,4,26)

6. Andrew and 7. Jude: Andrew (Peter's brother in both flesh and
faith) and Jude of Bethsaida, originally two of John the Baptists'
followers, must have followed the Baptist's austere diet. (See above
under Matthew)

Paul also says: "...It is good neither to drink wine or eat flesh..."
(Roman 14:20-21) though his commitment altogether seems altogether
somewhat less categorical.

Beyond that there are strong arguments of a similar nature by many of
the Fathers of the early Church:

"...How unworthy do you press the example of Christ as having come
eating and drinking into the service of your lusts: I think that He
who pronounced not the full, but the hungry and thirsty 'Blessed,' who
professed His work to be the completion of His Father's Will, I think
that he was wont to abstain, instructing them to labor for that 'Meat'
which lasts to eternal life, and enjoying in their common prayers
petition, not for flesh food but for bread only..." - Quintus
Septimius Tertullianus (AD 155).

This knowledge of Tertullianus was supported by fragments of the
writings by the Apostolic Father Papias (AD 60 - 125).
"...The unnatural eating of flesh is as polluting as the heathens
worship of devils with its sacrifices and impure feasts, through
participation in which a man becomes a fellow eater with devils..."
(2nd century scripture Clemente Homilies - Hom. XII)

Clemens Prudentius, the first Christian hymn writer exhorts in one of
his hymns his fellow Christians "...not to pollute their hands and
hearts by the slaughter of innocent cows and sheep..."
Accordingly the Apostle Matthew, "partook of seeds, and nuts, and
vegetables, without the use of flesh... is there not within a
temperate simplicity, a wholesome variety of eatables, vegetables,
roots, olives, herbs, milk, cheese, fruits?" - Churchfather Clement of
Alexandria (Titus Flavius Clemens, AD 150 - 220)

"...We, the Christian leaders, practice abstinence from the flesh of
animals to subdue our bodies. The unnatural eating of flesh is of
demonic origin." And about the early Christians: "...No streams of
blood are among them. No dainty cookery, no heaviness of head. Nor are
horrible smells of flesh meats among them or disagreeable fumes from
the kitchen.." - St. Chrysostomos (AD 347-404)

A most important purport to a controversy, much cherished and much
cited by meat-eating Christians we find in the writings of the
Churchfather Jerome (AD 340 - 420), who gave us the Vulgate, the
authorized Latin version of the Bible still in use today.

The controversy is based on the fact that in Genesis 1:29 meat-eating
is clearly forbidden, "...I give you every seed-bearing plant on the
face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it.
They will be yours for food..."

However after the flood it appears that meat-eating is all of a sudden
permitted: "...The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts
of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that
moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are
given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food
for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you
everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in
it..." (Genesis 9:2-4)

Writing in confutation of Jovinian, a monk of Milan, who abandoned
asceticism, St. Jerome (died A.D. 440) holds up vegetarianism as the
Christian ideal and the restoration of the primeval rule of life.

St. Jerome says:
"...He (Jovinian) raises the objection that when God gave His second
blessing, permission was granted to eat flesh, which had not in the
first benediction been allowed. He should know that just as divorce
according to the Saviour's word was not permitted from the beginning,
but on account of the hardness of our heart was a concession of Moses
to the human race, (Matthew 9:8: "Moses permitted you to divorce your
wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the
beginning.") ...so too the eating of flesh was unknown until the
deluge. But after the deluge, like the quails given in the desert to
the murmuring people, the poison of flesh-meat was offered to our
teeth. The Apostle writing to the Ephesians (Eph. 1:10) teaches that
God had purposed in the fullness of time to sum up and renew in Christ
Jesus all things which are in heaven and in earth. Whence also the
Saviour himself in the Revelation of John says (Rev. 1:8; 22:13), "I
am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending."

At the beginning of the human race we neither ate flesh, nor gave
bills of divorce, nor suffered circumcision for a sign. Thus we
reached the deluge. But after the deluge, together with the giving of
the law which no one could fulfill, flesh was given for food, and
divorce was allowed to hard-hearted men, and the knife of circumcision
was applied, as though the hand of God had fashioned us with something
superfluous. But once Christ has come in the end of time, and Omega
passed into Alpha and turned the end into the beginning, we are no
longer allowed divorce (see Matthew 19:3-9), nor are we circumcised,
nor so we eat flesh, for the Apostle says (Rom. 14:21), "It is good
not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine." For wine as well as flesh was
consecrated after the deluge." (Against Jovinianus, Book I,18)
"The steam of meat darkens the light of the spirit... One hardly can
have virtue when one enjoys meat meals and feasts..." - St. Basil (AD
320 - 79)

Besides that contemporary heathen observers describe the early
Christians as abstaining from meat:

Pliny, Governor of Bithynia (where Peter preached) referred to the
early Christians in a letter to Trajan, the Roman Emperor, as a
..."contagious superstition abstaining from flesh food..."

Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD), stoic philosopher and tutor of Nero, describes
the Christians as "...a foreign cultus or superstition (under imperial
suspicion) who abstain from flesh food..."

And Josephus Flavius says about the early Christians: "...They
assemble before sunrising and speak not a word of profane matters but
put up certain prayers... and sit down together each one to a single
plate of one sort of innocent food..."

The scholar E.M. Szekely claims to have recovered and translated from
an old Aramaic scripture, "...Therefore, he who kills, kills his
brother... And the flesh of slain beasts in his body will become his
own tomb. For I tell you truly, he who kills, kills himself, and who
so eats the flesh of slain beasts, eats of the body of death... Kill
neither men, nor beasts, nor the food which goes into your mouth...
For life comes from life, and from death comes always death. For
everything which kills your foods, kills your bodies also. And your
bodies become what your foods are, even as your spirits become what
your thoughts are..." - E.M. Szekely, Gospel of Peace

And Albert Schweitzer says: "...Ethics has not only to do with mankind
but with the animal creation as well. This is witnessed in the purpose
of St. Francis of Assisi. Thus we shall arrive that ethics is
reverence for all life. This is the ethic of love widened universally.
It is the ethic of Jesus now recognized as a necessity of thought...
Only a universal ethic which embraces every living creature can put us
in touch with the universe and the will which is there manifest..."

Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801 - 90) says: "...Cruelty to animals is
as if man did not love God... They have done us no harm, they have no
power of resistance... there is something dreadful, so satanic in
tormenting those who have never harmed us and who cannot defend
themselves, who are utterly in our power..."

Tolstoy and Dukhobor (Orthodox Russian Christian) were of the opinion
that meat-eating is against the tenets of Christianity.

His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Founder-Acarya
of ISKCON (Hare Krishna Movement) concludes: "...There are many
rascals who violate their own religious principles. While it clearly
says according to Judeo-Christian scriptures, "Thou shalt not kill,"
they are giving all kinds of excuses. Even the heads of religions
indulge in killing animals while trying to pass as saintly persons.
This mockery and hypocrisy in human society has brought about
unlimited calamities..."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul's teachings and interpretations

And it's absolutely amazing that Paul actually tells it himself:

"...One man's faith (in the idea of salvation from the cross) allows
him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith (in the cross) is
weak, eats only vegetables..." (Roman 14:2)

The smoking gun is right the It is Paul's concept of faith in the
salvific nature of the cross, declaring the Torah obsolete which leads
him to view the vegetarianism of the apostles as dietetic fanaticism
of Nazarene Jewish origin and hence dispensable.

Further proof are at hand. In fact the following statements make no
sense whatsoever, unless we agree that Paul needed to convince a large
section of early Christians, that there was no problem with eating
meat.

"Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.
All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that
causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink
wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. So
whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and
God..." (Rom 14:20-22)

In other words it is O.K. to eat meat as long as nobody is offended
and the community of Christians is not disturbed.

He goes on:
"If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat
whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.
But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then
do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for
conscience' sake-- the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For
why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? If I take
part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of
something I thank God for? So whether you eat or drink or whatever you
do, do it all for the glory of God." (1 Cor 10:27-31)

In other words as far as eating meat, even when offered in sacrifice,
Paul had no scruples unless it is declared, that meat is offered in
sacrifice. In this case do not eat it, to avoid to offend others.

It is very clear: It needed to be saying that meat eating is allowed.
There were Christians who are vegetarians. Beware of meat offered in
sacrifice. Because besides the vegetarian Christians there were others
who were less strict but who would not approve of the idea of eating
meat offered in sacrifice. Meat eating in general is allowed,
according to Paul:

"Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of
conscience, for, 'The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it.'"
(1 Cor 10:25-26)

Again, this makes no sense unless there must have been Christians who
found it difficult to reconcile with their conscience to buy meat in
the market.

And again mo

"As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is
unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then
for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what
you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating
destroy your brother for whom Christ died." (Roman 14:14-15)

Later this point of view is reflected in Timothy, possibly addressing
early Christian sects like the later banned Enkratites:

"...They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain
foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who
believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good,
and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving..."
(1 Timothy 4:3-4)

So we can see that there was obviously a large group of people who did
not agree with meat eating in general (hence he says don't let it be a
matter of conscience to you when buying meat in the market).
Definitely the issue was not about eating food offered in sacrifice,
as made out by Christian theologians.

The tensions between Paul are further reflected in the way how he
addresses the disciples of Jesus. He makes it perfectly clear that
their opinions are not what Paul is overly concerned with.

He sarcastically describes the Apostles in Jerusalem (James, Peter) as
"those Super Apostles", "those reputed to be the Pillars":
"...But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those
"super-apostles." I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have
knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way."
(2 Cor 11:5-6)

He clearly is preaching a different Jesus then the Apostles in
Jerusalem. Hence he warns his followers:

"...For if someone comes to you and preaches A JESUS OTHER THAN THE
JESUS WE PREACHED, or if you receive a different spirit from the one
you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put
up with it easily enough."
(2 Cor 11:4)

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other
than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we
have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you
a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally
condemned!" (Gal 1:8-9)

"And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground
from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with
us in the things they boast about. For such men are false apostles,
deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder,
for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light." (2 Cor 11:12-14)

www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk
alt.philosophy, talk.philosophy.misc, talk.politics.animals,
alt.food.vegan, alt.messianic, alt.bible.prophecy

"Atzilah" wrote in message
...

You spelled "protein" wrong.

"Protien Man" wrote in message
...

Sorry Prooteen Man,

If you were a regular poster you would know that I spell most things wrong,
but
59kb is rather an long spelling correction.
My fault for feeding the trolls.

Fcuk orf - done it again. you are making my beer cloudy, that's abuse.

And your point?

Ray wrote:

"Protien Man" wrote in message
...

Very philosophical "Protein Man" unfortunately your return path is more to
the point.
Safe journey.

Incredible observational skills. You could make living in the food
service industries! However, you failed to demonstrate any ability to
comprehend and comment on the substance of the post. So what we are
stuck with is that you can identify protein when it is mispelled.

Atzilah wrote:
You spelled "protein" wrong.

"Protien Man" wrote in
message ...


---------------------------------------------------

None of what I have written here is a commentary
on the importance and positive thing that a
vegetarian diet is for all life on this planet. It
is merely the addressing of the self worshipping
crap that ego maniacs like you spew in your
attempts to exploit any and all social means for
the sole purpose of inflating your misguided ego!
---------------------------------------------------

A saint in Hindu mythology. According to the
legend, when the celestial Ganga flowed to the
earth from heaven, the hermitages of Jahnu and
other saints were flooded and washed away by the
flood of the river. Enraged at this, Jahnu drank
the entire river waters by using his yogic power.
At the request of gods and saints, he later
released the river through his ear and told that
Ganga would hereafter be known as his daughter.
Thus, the river Ganga (the Ganges) came to be
known as 'Jahnavi' (daughter of Jahnu).
---------------------------------------------------

From below, the King of ego - Jahnu wrote:

"So when we talk about changing one's life,
giving one's time, life,
energy, mind, resources to God and worship him
with all one's heart
mind soul, etc., well we all agree to that."

(Grab your ankles Jahnu)
Agree to what, oh Yogi guru master? As I read all
that you have wrote below it is clear that you are
not submitting your thoughts but seeking
validation of your beliefs. Please explain to all
the would be followers of your great ego how 6
billion humans surviving on an all plant diet
avoid "not killing others (human and animal
alike,...)"

As a member of the privileged class of humans you
have all the free time in the world to troll for
followers of your great ego while billions are
without enough food. They are forced to burn rain
forests to grow corn and beans. Animals of all
kinds are being, and have been, driven to
extinction to grow the plants that 6 billion (and
growing) humans need to survive.

Your attempts to call early christians vegetarians
amounts to what significance in the real world (of
which you are not)? It means squat and ignores the
real problem on this planet. A problem of
ignorance being spread by the humungo ego's of
religous/newage idiots that pooh-pooh science and
the clear picture it reveals of our earth on it's
death bed. Your adherence to creationism and
denial of evolution is an escape from the true
significance of species extinction!

These discussion groups are stuffed with self
worshipping self anointed "spiritualists" that are
nothing more than privileged ego maniacal idiots
that would not know the meaning of life it was
pressed on their brian with a red hot poker.

The real hero's of this world are people like Jane
Goodal who devoted decades of their life living in
solitude (makes 40 days and 40 nights a cake walk)
out in a field of study. Jane Goodal has given to
man more than any socalled prophet/profit before
her. She has not sought to be a messenger or to
control a following of idiots like you. Her life
work has demonstrated that man need only look to
his primate brothers to see and understand a
simple model of himself.

Acknowledge the animal within,
or fail to control the animal within!

My attacks on you and yours on myself are understood by me
for what they are, men competing for an alpha position. For
you though, you live in a dream world like millions of
others that deny their true biology. You seek mastery of
the imagined out of failure to understand the real. I
embrace the real and therefore have clear advantage over
you.

Each time you seek/utilize modern medicine/science you live
a lie. Each time I use science to embrace the real world I
live in truth. You will never know life or the true meaning
of spirituality simply because you deny your true biology.

You can now let go of your ankles!
-------------------------------------------------------------

Jahnu wrote:

Jesus & vegetarianism

So when we talk about changing one's life, giving one's
time, life,
energy, mind, resources to God and worship him with all
one's heart
mind soul, etc., well we all agree to that.

To be non violent, not to kill others (humans and animals
alike, not
even for food (it is quite clear that the Early Christians
were
vegetarians, see below), we all agree on that. We are
citizens of the
spiritual world and we should not unnecessarily use our
valuable time
in mundane pursuits. Unless we give up material life and
turn with
great determination towards spiritual life our life will
be a loss and
end up in disappointment.

On the other side when we start taking about the
resurrection of the
flesh and that Jesus died for our sins, well these are
theological
concepts that were superimposed on the teachings of Jesus
from Paul on
and really miss the point of his actual teachings to
mankind.

Quote from the book "Food for peace":

Major stumbling blocks for many Christians are the belief
that Christ
ate meat and the many references to meat in the New
Testament. But
close study of the original Greek manuscripts shows that
the vast
majority of the words translated as "meat" are trophe,
brome, and
other words that simply mean "food" or "eating" in the
broadest sense.
For example, in the Gospel (Luke 8:55) we read that Jesus
raised a
woman from the dead and "commanded to give her meat." The
original
Greek word translated as "meat" is phago, which means only
"to eat".
So, what Christ actually said was, "Let her eat."

The original Greek word for meat is kreas ("flesh"), and
it is never
used in connection with Christ. In Luke 24:41-43 the
disciples offered
him fish and a honeycomb and he took it (singular, we can
guess which
one). Nowhere in the New Testament is there any direct
reference to
Jesus eating meat.

This is in line with Isaiah's famous prophecy: "Behold, a
virgin shall
conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
He shall
eat butter and honey, so that he may know the evil from
the good."
(Isaiah 7:14-15) (this itself says that meat eating
destroys all good
discretion in man. It is quite typical, that the second
part of the
sentence is omitted in Matthew 1:23).

Jesus rebuked strongly the pharisees with the words:
"...and if you
had known what it means: "I desire mercy and not
sacrifice, ...you
would not condemn the innocent," (Matthew 12:6) which
clearly
disapproves of the killing of animals, as this is a verse
taken from
Hosea 6:6: "I desire mercy instead of sacrifice, the
knowledge of God
more than burnt offerings..." (note: again the the 2nd
part of the
sentence is omitted in Matthew 12:6).

He strongly opposed the custom of temple animal
sacrifices, violently
driving those who were selling oxen, sheep and pigeons and
the
money-changers out of the temple (John 2:13-15).

His words: "...you shall not make my father's house a
house of trade
(which in earlier translations always was translated as
"murders'
den").

We all know that according to Matthew 3:4 John the Baptist
was
refusing to eat meat. ("...and his food was wild locust
(bean) and
wild honey." (orig. Greek: enkris, oil cake and akris:
locust/honey)

But we never hear of the sheer overwhelming evidence which
points to
Jesus being a vegetarian: No less than seven of Jesus'
twelve
disciples refused meat food (the rest we do not know).
This naturally
reflects the teachings of Jesus, as: "...a servant is not
greater than
his master..." (John 14:16).

The seven a

1. Peter, "...whose food was bread, olives and herbs..."
(Clem. Hom.
XII,6)

2. James: Church Father Eusebius, quoting the Churchfather
Hegesippus
(about 160 AD) is stating:

"...But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the
apostles, gives
the most accurate account in the fifth book of his
memoirs. He writes
as follow: '...James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded
to the
government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles.
He has been
called the Just by all from the time of our savior to the
present day;
for there were many that bore the name James.

'He was holy from his mother's womb; he drank no wine, nor
strong
drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head,
he did not
anoint himself with oil and he did not use the bath. He
alone was
permitted to enter the holy place; for he wore no woolen
but linen
garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into
the temple,
and was frequently found upon his knees begging
forgiveness for the
people, so that his knees became hard like those of a
camel in
consequence of constantly bending them on his worship of
God...'" (Eusebius, Church History II, Ch. XXIII,5-7,
Nicene and Post
Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Oxford, N.Y.,
1890, Vol I,
p.125)

It is interesting that Hegesippus is saying that James,
the brother of
Jesus, was holy from his mother's womb on which would
apply that Mary
was not eating meat either and that she never fed him meat
as a child.
That being the case one would think it to be clear that
the whole
family of Jesus and naturally he himself was vegetarian.
In that sense
the statement of Churchfather Eusebius "he was holy from
his mother's
womb" is most indicative pointing towards the
vegetarianism of Jesus.

3. Thomas: The apocryphal Acts of Thomas (Ch. 20), which
actually were
widely in use among early Christian sects, depict this
disciple of
Jesus as ascetic: "He continually fasts and prays, and
abstaining from
eating of flesh and drinking wine, he eats only bread,
with salt and
drink and water, and wears the same garment in fine
weather and
winter, and accepts nothing from anyone, and gives
whatever he has to
others."

4. Matthew: "It is far better to be happy than to have a
demon
dwelling with us. And happiness is found in the practice
of virtue.
Accordingly, the apostle Matthew partook of seeds and
nuts, fruits and
vegetables without of flesh. And John, who carried
temperance to the
extreme, ate locusts and wild honey..."

(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, II.I,16: On
Eating)
(Note here the strong hint of Clement towards the
vegetarianism of
John the Baptist.)

5. Matthias (who filled the place of Judas - Acts
1:21-26). His food
as told by Church Father Clement of Alexandria was the
same as
Matthews. (Clement/Stromata III,4,26)

6. Andrew and 7. Jude: Andrew (Peter's brother in both
flesh and
faith) and Jude of Bethsaida, originally two of John the
Baptists'
followers, must have followed the Baptist's austere diet.
(See above
under Matthew)

Paul also says: "...It is good neither to drink wine or
eat flesh..."
(Roman 14:20-21) though his commitment altogether seems
altogether
somewhat less categorical.

Beyond that there are strong arguments of a similar nature
by many of
the Fathers of the early Church:

"...How unworthy do you press the example of Christ as
having come
eating and drinking into the service of your lusts: I
think that He
who pronounced not the full, but the hungry and thirsty
'Blessed,' who
professed His work to be the completion of His Father's
Will, I think
that he was wont to abstain, instructing them to labor for
that 'Meat'
which lasts to eternal life, and enjoying in their common
prayers
petition, not for flesh food but for bread only..." -
Quintus
Septimius Tertullianus (AD 155).

This knowledge of Tertullianus was supported by fragments
of the
writings by the Apostolic Father Papias (AD 60 - 125).
"...The unnatural eating of flesh is as polluting as the
heathens
worship of devils with its sacrifices and impure feasts,
through
participation in which a man becomes a fellow eater with
devils..."
(2nd century scripture Clemente Homilies - Hom. XII)

Clemens Prudentius, the first Christian hymn writer
exhorts in one of
his hymns his fellow Christians "...not to pollute their
hands and
hearts by the slaughter of innocent cows and sheep..."
Accordingly the Apostle Matthew, "partook of seeds, and
nuts, and
vegetables, without the use of flesh... is there not
within a
temperate simplicity, a wholesome variety of eatables,
vegetables,
roots, olives, herbs, milk, cheese, fruits?" -
Churchfather Clement of
Alexandria (Titus Flavius Clemens, AD 150 - 220)

"...We, the Christian leaders, practice abstinence from
the flesh of
animals to subdue our bodies. The unnatural eating of
flesh is of
demonic origin." And about the early Christians: "...No
streams of
blood are among them. No dainty cookery, no heaviness of
head. Nor are
horrible smells of flesh meats among them or disagreeable
fumes from
the kitchen.." - St. Chrysostomos (AD 347-404)

A most important purport to a controversy, much cherished
and much
cited by meat-eating Christians we find in the writings of
the
Churchfather Jerome (AD 340 - 420), who gave us the
Vulgate, the
authorized Latin version of the Bible still in use today.

The controversy is based on the fact that in Genesis 1:29
meat-eating
is clearly forbidden, "...I give you every seed-bearing
plant on the
face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with
seed in it.
They will be yours for food..."

However after the flood it appears that meat-eating is all
of a sudden
permitted: "...The fear and dread of you will fall upon
all the beasts
of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every
creature that
moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea;
they are
given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves
will be food
for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give
you
everything. But you must not eat meat that has its
lifeblood still in
it..." (Genesis 9:2-4)

Writing in confutation of Jovinian, a monk of Milan, who
abandoned
asceticism, St. Jerome (died A.D. 440) holds up
vegetarianism as the
Christian ideal and the restoration of the primeval rule
of life.

St. Jerome says:
"...He (Jovinian) raises the objection that when God gave
His second
blessing, permission was granted to eat flesh, which had
not in the
first benediction been allowed. He should know that just
as divorce
according to the Saviour's word was not permitted from the
beginning,
but on account of the hardness of our heart was a
concession of Moses
to the human race, (Matthew 9:8: "Moses permitted you to
divorce your
wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this
way from the
beginning.") ...so too the eating of flesh was unknown
until the
deluge. But after the deluge, like the quails given in the
desert to
the murmuring people, the poison of flesh-meat was offered
to our
teeth. The Apostle writing to the Ephesians (Eph. 1:10)
teaches that
God had purposed in the fullness of time to sum up and
renew in Christ
Jesus all things which are in heaven and in earth. Whence
also the
Saviour himself in the Revelation of John says (Rev. 1:8;
22:13), "I
am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending."

At the beginning of the human race we neither ate flesh,
nor gave
bills of divorce, nor suffered circumcision for a sign.
Thus we
reached the deluge. But after the deluge, together with
the giving of
the law which no one could fulfill, flesh was given for
food, and
divorce was allowed to hard-hearted men, and the knife of
circumcision
was applied, as though the hand of God had fashioned us
with something
superfluous. But once Christ has come in the end of time,
and Omega
passed into Alpha and turned the end into the beginning,
we are no
longer allowed divorce (see Matthew 19:3-9), nor are we
circumcised,
nor so we eat flesh, for the Apostle says (Rom. 14:21),
"It is good
not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine." For wine as well as
flesh was
consecrated after the deluge." (Against Jovinianus, Book
I,18)
"The steam of meat darkens the light of the spirit... One
hardly can
have virtue when one enjoys meat meals and feasts..." -
St. Basil (AD
320 - 79)

Besides that contemporary heathen observers describe the
early
Christians as abstaining from meat:

Pliny, Governor of Bithynia (where Peter preached)
referred to the
early Christians in a letter to Trajan, the Roman Emperor,
as a
..."contagious superstition abstaining from flesh food..."

Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD), stoic philosopher and tutor of
Nero, describes
the Christians as "...a foreign cultus or superstition
(under imperial
suspicion) who abstain from flesh food..."

And Josephus Flavius says about the early Christians:
"...They
assemble before sunrising and speak not a word of profane
matters but
put up certain prayers... and sit down together each one
to a single
plate of one sort of innocent food..."

The scholar E.M. Szekely claims to have recovered and
translated from
an old Aramaic scripture, "...Therefore, he who kills,
kills his
brother... And the flesh of slain beasts in his body will
become his
own tomb. For I tell you truly, he who kills, kills
himself, and who
so eats the flesh of slain beasts, eats of the body of
death... Kill
neither men, nor beasts, nor the food which goes into your
mouth...
For life comes from life, and from death comes always
death. For
everything which kills your foods, kills your bodies also.
And your
bodies become what your foods are, even as your spirits
become what
your thoughts are..." - E.M. Szekely, Gospel of Peace

And Albert Schweitzer says: "...Ethics has not only to do
with mankind
but with the animal creation as well. This is witnessed in
the purpose
of St. Francis of Assisi. Thus we shall arrive that ethics
is
reverence for all life. This is the ethic of love widened
universally.
It is the ethic of Jesus now recognized as a necessity of
thought...
Only a universal ethic which embraces every living
creature can put us
in touch with the universe and the will which is there
manifest..."

Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801 - 90) says: "...Cruelty
to animals is
as if man did not love God... They have done us no harm,
they have no
power of resistance... there is something dreadful, so
satanic in
tormenting those who have never harmed us and who cannot
defend
themselves, who are utterly in our power..."

Tolstoy and Dukhobor (Orthodox Russian Christian) were of
the opinion
that meat-eating is against the tenets of Christianity.

His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada,
Founder-Acarya
of ISKCON (Hare Krishna Movement) concludes: "...There are
many
rascals who violate their own religious principles. While
it clearly
says according to Judeo-Christian scriptures, "Thou shalt
not kill,"
they are giving all kinds of excuses. Even the heads of
religions
indulge in killing animals while trying to pass as saintly
persons.
This mockery and hypocrisy in human society has brought
about
unlimited calamities..."

------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------

Paul's teachings and interpretations

And it's absolutely amazing that Paul actually tells it
himself:

"...One man's faith (in the idea of salvation from the
cross) allows
him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith (in
the cross) is
weak, eats only vegetables..." (Roman 14:2)

The smoking gun is right the It is Paul's concept of
faith in the
salvific nature of the cross, declaring the Torah obsolete
which leads
him to view the vegetarianism of the apostles as dietetic
fanaticism
of Nazarene Jewish origin and hence dispensable.

Further proof are at hand. In fact the following
statements make no
sense whatsoever, unless we agree that Paul needed to
convince a large
section of early Christians, that there was no problem
with eating
meat.

"Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.
All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat
anything that
causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat
meat or drink
wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother
to fall. So
whatever you believe about these things keep between
yourself and
God..." (Rom 14:20-22)

In other words it is O.K. to eat meat as long as nobody is
offended
and the community of Christians is not disturbed.

He goes on:
"If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to
go, eat
whatever is put before you without raising questions of
conscience.
But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in
sacrifice," then
do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you
and for
conscience' sake-- the other man's conscience, I mean, not
yours. For
why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience?
If I take
part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced
because of
something I thank God for? So whether you eat or drink or
whatever you
do, do it all for the glory of God." (1 Cor 10:27-31)

In other words as far as eating meat, even when offered in
sacrifice,
Paul had no scruples unless it is declared, that meat is
offered in
sacrifice. In this case do not eat it, to avoid to offend
others.

It is very clear: It needed to be saying that meat eating
is allowed.
There were Christians who are vegetarians. Beware of meat
offered in
sacrifice. Because besides the vegetarian Christians there
were others
who were less strict but who would not approve of the idea
of eating
meat offered in sacrifice. Meat eating in general is
allowed,
according to Paul:

"Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising
questions of
conscience, for, 'The earth is the Lord's, and everything
in it.'"
(1 Cor 10:25-26)

Again, this makes no sense unless there must have been
Christians who
found it difficult to reconcile with their conscience to
buy meat in
the market.

And again mo

"As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced
that no food is
unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as
unclean, then
for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed
because of what
you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your
eating
destroy your brother for whom Christ died." (Roman
14:14-15)

Later this point of view is reflected in Timothy, possibly
addressing
early Christian sects like the later banned Enkratites:

"...They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain
from certain
foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving
by those who
believe and who know the truth. For everything God created
is good,
and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with
thanksgiving..."
(1 Timothy 4:3-4)

So we can see that there was obviously a large group of
people who did
not agree with meat eating in general (hence he says don't
let it be a
matter of conscience to you when buying meat in the
market).
Definitely the issue was not about eating food offered in
sacrifice,
as made out by Christian theologians.

The tensions between Paul are further reflected in the way
how he
addresses the disciples of Jesus. He makes it perfectly
clear that
their opinions are not what Paul is overly concerned with.

He sarcastically describes the Apostles in Jerusalem
(James, Peter) as
"those Super Apostles", "those reputed to be the Pillars":

"...But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those

"super-apostles." I may not be a trained speaker, but I do
have
knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in
every way."
(2 Cor 11:5-6)

He clearly is preaching a different Jesus then the
Apostles in
Jerusalem. Hence he warns his followers:

"...For if someone comes to you and preaches A JESUS OTHER
THAN THE
JESUS WE PREACHED, or if you receive a different spirit
from the one
you received, or a different gospel from the one you
accepted, you put
up with it easily enough."
(2 Cor 11:4)

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a
gospel other
than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally
condemned! As we
have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is
preaching to you
a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be
eternally
condemned!" (Gal 1:8-9)

"And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut
the ground
from under those who want an opportunity to be considered
equal with
us in the things they boast about. For such men are false
apostles,
deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And
no wonder,
for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light." (2
Cor 11:12-14)

www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk
alt.philosophy, talk.philosophy.misc,
talk.politics.animals,
alt.food.vegan, alt.messianic,
alt.bible.prophecy

Again you demonstrate no ability to comprehend and comment on the substance of
the post. Could this be because you have no argument to challenge the point? I
think it is precisely that. You read and you learn but then you deny. We were
all born with common sense. It takes the dumbest of people to discard
intellectual capability for pathetic desires to flatter ones ego with crap
about self defined spirituality.

Some of the greatest oxymoron's are the egotistical statements, "I am a
spiritual person" or "I am very eclectic"

The fact that one would need to define with words that which can only
demonstrated by being, is the best testimony of the absence of that which such
words attempt to define. Saying, "I am spiritual" is not only an egotistical
statement, it is a contradiction and an indication of the failure to grasp the
meaning of the concept.

It will be expected that persons like yourself will at best be able to reply
with snips simply because you have chosen to suppress commonsense in an
attempt to be accepted into group you have chosen to identify with. A group of
like minded cons and coneez!!!!!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ray wrote:

If you were a regular poster you would know that I spell most things wrong,
but
59kb is rather an long spelling correction.
My fault for feeding the trolls.

Fcuk orf - done it again. you are making my beer cloudy, that's abuse.




None of what I have written here is a commentary on the importance and positive
thing
that a vegetarian diet is for all life on this planet. It is merely the
addressing of the self
worshipping crap that ego maniacs like you spew in your attempts to exploit any
and all
social means for the sole purpose of inflating your misguided ego!


A saint in Hindu mythology. According to the legend, when the
celestial Ganga flowed to the earth from heaven, the hermitages of
Jahnu and other saints were flooded and washed away by the flood of
the river. Enraged at this, Jahnu drank the entire river waters by
using his yogic power. At the request of gods and saints, he later
released the river through his ear and told that Ganga would
hereafter be known as his daughter. Thus, the river Ganga (the
Ganges) came to be known as 'Jahnavi' (daughter of Jahnu).


From below, the King of ego - Jahnu wrote:

"So when we talk about changing one's life, giving one's time, life,
energy, mind, resources to God and worship him with all one's heart
mind soul, etc., well we all agree to that."

(Grab your ankles Jahnu)
Agree to what, oh Yogi guru master? As I read all that you have wrote below it
is clear that
you are not submitting your thoughts but seeking validation of your beliefs.
Please explain
to all the would be followers of your great ego how 6 billion humans surviving
on an all
plant diet avoid "not killing others (human and animal alike,...)"

As a member of the privileged class of humans you have all the free time in the
world to
troll for followers of your great ego while billions are without enough food.
They are forced
to burn rain forests to grow corn and beans. Animals of all kinds are being,
and have
been, driven to extinction to grow the plants that 6 billion (and growing)
humans need to
survive.

Your attempts to call early christians vegetarians amounts to what significance
in the real
world (of which you are not)? It means squat and ignores the real problem on
this planet. A
problem of ignorance being spread by the humungo ego's of religous/newage
idiots that
pooh-pooh science and the clear picture it reveals of our earth on it's death
bed. Your
adherence to creationism and denial of evolution is an escape from the true
significance
of species extinction!

These discussion groups are stuffed with self worshipping self anointed
"spiritualists" that
are nothing more than privileged ego maniacal idiots that would not know the
meaning of
life it was pressed on their brian with a red hot poker.

The real hero's of this world are people like Jane Goodal who devoted decades
of their
life living in solitude (makes 40 days and 40 nights a cake walk) out in a
field of study.
Jane Goodal has given to man more than any socalled prophet/profit before her.
She has
not sought to be a messenger or to control a following of idiots like you. Her
life work has
demonstrated that man need only look to his primate brothers to see and
understand a
simple model of himself.

Acknowledge the animal within,
or fail to control the animal within!

My attacks on you and yours on myself are understood by me for what they are,
men
competing for an alpha position. For you though, you live in a dream world like
millions of
others that deny their true biology. You seek mastery of the imagined out of
failure to
understand the real. I embrace the real and therefore have clear advantage over
you.

Each time you seek/utilize modern medicine/science you live a lie. Each time I
use
science to embrace the real world I live in truth. You will never know life or
the true
meaning of spirituality simply