(First of all it must be said that the Bible does not contain every word that Jesus spoke during the time he lived on this planet, simply because it is impossible to record every word a person speaks during a lifetime.)

There are some profound words spoken by Jesus that are not recorded in the New Testament of the Bible. In an enlightening book that was translated from the Aramaic (the language Jesus spoke) by Dr. Edouard Szekely titled The Essene Gospel of Peace, the great Prophet – who was a member of the Essene sect that practiced vegetarianism – espouses on God’s laws of eating in the following profound statement:

“God commanded your forefathers: ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill!’ But their hearts were hardened and they killed. Then Moses decided that at least they should not kill men, and he suffered them to kill beasts. And then the hearts of your forefathers were hardened yet more, and they killed men and beasts likewise...

But I say unto you: Kill neither men nor beasts, nor the food that goes into your mouth. For if you eat living food, the same will quicken you; but if you kill your food, the dead food will kill you also. For life comes only from life, and from death always comes death...

For everything that kills your foods kills your bodies also. And everything that kills your bodies kills your soul also. And your bodies become what your foods are; even as your spirits, likewise, become what your thoughts are. Therefore eat not anything which fire, frost or water has destroyed. For burned, frozen and rotted foods will burn, freeze, and rot your body also.”

Jesus also admonishes us to:

“Seek not the law in your scriptures, for the law is life, whereas the scriptures is dead. For I tell you truly, Moses received not his laws in writing, but through the living word. The law is the living word of the living God to living prophets for living men...

In everything that is life the law is written. You find it in the grass, in the trees, in the rivers, in the mountains, in the birds of heaven, in the fish of the sea; but seek it chiefly in yourselves. For I tell you truly, all living things are nearer to God than the scripture – which is without life...

God so-made life and all living things that they might – by the ever-living word – teach the laws of the one true God to man. God wrote not the laws in the pages of books, but in your heart and in your spirit.”

Aqil,

while it is true that a lot of the original text has been transposed i applauded you for such enli9ghtenment. Also, i would like to know more on how you came to the conclusion that Jesus was a vegetarian. Although i am not dispelling your views, i am asking for further evidence of such.

it is true that there are a few other texts that speak on the life of Chrsit but, as with the Four Gospels also, they tend to provide a different viewpoint of Christ. I may comment on this topic at a later date but for now i am reading i consuming. Could you provide me more references supproting your comments. I would like to look further...

"iron shrapens iron"

The words of Jesus in the thread answers your question, dnommo. I suggest that you purchase the book I referred to - The Essene Gospel of Peace.

Jesus was an Essene, and the Essenes were a spiritual sect that practiced vegetarianism. According to Philo of Alexandria, in Quod Omnis Probus Liber:

"The Essene were a sect of Jews, and lived in Syria, Palestine. They were over 4,000 in number, and called 'Essaei,' because of their saintliness; for 'hosio'=saintly, and is the same word as 'Essaius.' They were worshipers of God and did not sacrifice animals, regarding a reverent mind as the only true sacrifice...

At first they lived in villages and avoided cities, in order to escape the contagion of evils rife therein. They pursued agriculture and other peaceful arts; but accumulated not gold or silver, nor owned mines. No maker of warlike weapons, no huckster or trader by land or sea was to be found among them. Least of all were any slaves found among them; for they saw in slavery a violation of the law of nature, which made all men free brethren, one of the other..."

(Philo of Alexandria, in Quod Omnis Probus Liber, written ca. 20 A.D.)

kemestry's point is always the one that occurs to me when I read that Jesus was vegetarian and that we therefore should be as well. It may be a minor one, but the implication bothers me.

Aqil, are you saying that Jesus admonished people to not eat dead flesh, did not eat it himself, yet he willingly served it to the multitude? That does not sound like WJWD.

He served it, so he could not have expected folks not to eat it.

i truly commend your energy and knowledge.
however i quote Romans 14: 14-.....

"i know and am persuaded by the lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteems any thing to be unclean TO HIM it is unclean."

Romans 14:3
"let not him that eats despise him that does not eat; and let not him which eats not judge him that eats: for God has received him.

passage 14:17
"for the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness
and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit."
14:22, 23.....

there is a very noticable contradiction comparing the "essenes gospel of peace and any version (kjv, niv, etc...) concerning what Jesus spoke...

in the bible he says "it is not what goes in that defiles a man, but what comes out.."

nfinitely
jh.

p.s i don't eat pig (exceptional ribs :wink: ) but dang, i need sumfin' to go wit deez eggs.... :mad:

peace.

In the Bible he says "it is not what goes in that defiles a man, but what comes out..."Yes, Jehiah, Jesus does say: "For what goes into your mouth will not defile you, but what comes out of your mouth, that is what will defile you." This is a very significant saying, and it has nothing to do with food. For example, if I insult you and call you a name, that will not defile you...but what comes out - i.e., how you react to my insult - that determines the defilement.

Another thing...if you drank a pint of whiskey right now...that will defile you because it changes your thinking and you become negative and obnoxious. This is certainly a contradiction re: the Biblical verse we are referring to, because in this case it is what goes in that defiles you...not to mention what comes out! :lol:

I have stayed silent and watched the formation of this topic and i must say that some of it has been very interesting. What I also find is that at times some may not like when others question their views. Well, i respect everyone's views but i have a problem with the misuse of scripture.

First, I have read the sections in which you speak of and well it seems that this book you stand on as additional teachings of Jesus tends to separate the creations of man as two fold: body from Mother Earth and spirit from God. There was not a dual parentage to makind. Genesis speaks slearly that man was created when God dug his hands into the ground and created man. Where is it that Mother Earth created man? Just my first question.

Second you spoke that “Poultry was not an article of diet during Jesus' time. “ Well that is incorrect for as you look at Genesis 1:28 speaks, “and over the fowl of the air.” Poultry involves a lot more than just chicken. There are over 350 types of poultry and that is documented. In fact, one of the major occupations in the Palestine region was that of a “fowler.” (Psalm_91:3; Psalm_124:7; Prov_6:5; Jer_5:26; Hosea_9:8; Ezek_17:20; Eccl_9:12.) Because birds of all kinds abound in Palestine, and the capture of these for the table and for other uses, fowler formed the employment of many persons. The traps and snares used for this purpose are mentioned (Hosea_5:1; Prov_7:23; Prov_22:5; Amos_3:5; Psalm_69:22; comp. Deut_22:6,7. )Palestine was the area in which Jesus dwelled, therefore to say that there was no poultry in that area is false.

Now it is very true that Jesus was an Essene but more specifically, he was a Nazarite. The Nazarites followed a very strict vow. There were three things the Nazarite was not to do; these three negatives being simply the fruit and the expression of the positive fact that he was a man devoted "UNTO THE LORD."
1. He was not to eat or drink any part or product of the vine.
2. He was not to cut his hair.
3. He was not to come in contact with a dead body.

Samson, a Nazarites, broke that vow at least twice which cost him his sight as well as his life. Jesus followed the concept to the letter but still it does not speak on whether he did/did not eat meat.

Lastly, the Essene Gospel of Peace speaks highly of not obeying the laws of the land but the laws of Mother Earth,

"I tell you in very truth, Man is the Son of the Earthly Mother, and from her did the Son of Man receive his whole body, even as the body of the newborn babe is born of the womb of his mother. I tell you truly, you are one with the Earthly Mother; she is in you, and you in her. Of her were you born, in her do you live, and to her shall you return again. Keep, therefore, her laws, for none can live long, neither be happy, but he who honors his Earthly Mother and does her laws. For your breath is her breath; your blood her blood; your bone her bone; your flesh her flesh; your bowels her bowels; your eyes and your ears are her eyes and her ears.

If we are in a monotheistic society, then how can we obey the laws of Mother Earth and not of GOD? Just another question…

2 Timothy 3:16states “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.” Yet the passages you quoted says that “I tell you truly, that the scripture is the work of man, but life and all its hosts are the work of our God. Wherefore do you not listen to the words of God which are written in His works? And wherefore do you study the dead scriptures which are the work of the hands of men?" If this is the case then what is man supposed to follow as they strive to seek God’s righteousness and also how can we stand here and debate scripture as well as the teachings of Jesus if the scriptures are just the work of the hands of man.

Leviticus 26:46 tells us that the ten commandments are “the statutes and ordinances and laws which the LORD established between Himself and the sons of Israel through Moses at Mount Sinai. “ This is not the first time that God’s law was established in His people. Abraham was blessed because “he obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws." Genesis 26:5 In Hebrews 10:16 it says "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM," And Jesus spoke one of the most profound verses of them all when He says “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Matthew 5:17-18

Now on your final point responding to J’hiah. The verse he quoted is referring to food. Jesus is using that verse as an anaolgy for the topic at hand. He is letting them know that the food we eat is consumed, separated and the negative harmful things are therefore disposed of, but the things that we speak comes from the ehart and therefore are very dangerous. While it is true that consuming alcohol can be very dangerous and make one talk in an obnoxious manner, it tends to do a lot more. The word speaks of not being drunk with wine, not consuming it. Wine was drunk at meals in biblical times because in that region water has not always readily available. Especially in the area of the Red Sea where the salt content was so high in the water that you could float on top. The problem with alcohol today is that when you consume large amounts you become quite bold and the things that are on your heart will come forward, whether you want them to or not. It is the amount consumed that is harmful not the material itself. Now please don’t get me wrong; I don’t condone alcoholism but I am clearing up some things here.

The book you suggested is interesting reading but touse it as support for vegetarianism? Well I would think there are more support. Using the Bible is also dangerous for althought eh word says in Genesis 1:29 “Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you.” It also says in Genesis 9:2-5

"The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man's brother I will require the life of man.”

The verse you quoted supported this:
"But I say unto you: Kill neither men nor beasts, nor the food that goes into your mouth. For if you eat living food, the same will quicken you; but if you kill your food, the dead food will kill you also. For life comes only from life, and from death always comes death...

Both verse simply say that you must not KILL your food. The Old Testament verse speaks ofKosher food or food without blood whereas the Essene Gospel teaching speaks on killing of food.

Here GOD is giving us permission to eat the flesh of animals BUT we are not to murder it. This is why in Leviticus there are specific explanations on the meat of sacrificed animals. If we are not to eat meat then why did GOD give meat to the children of Israel as they wander in the wilderness? I am just curious about the teachin here.

I feel that vegetarian diets are good for those who seek to follow such but to use Jesus as supportive character for that without valid support is dangerous. I respect your views as I Question your evidence… Now your Daniel evidence was excellent...He was a strict vegetarian.

i pray this is received with open hearts and understanding...

Thank you for your interesting discourse, dnommo...and I received it in the spirit that it was sent. It is complex and I'll deal with different aspects of it as we go along. First the words "Nazarite" and "Nazarene":

"Now it is very true that Jesus was an Essene but more specifically, he was a Nazarite"...We read in Matt. 2:23 that Jesus is to be called a "Nazarene." In the book of Acts (24:5) Paul is referred to as a "pestilent fellow, and a mover of insurrections among all Jews throughtout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes." We also know from some of the early Church Fathers that the Christianoi were originally called (and apparently accepted) "Nazarenes," a name that is supposed to be derived from the name of the city from which Jesus came: Nazareth.

But scholars have always had to accept the possibility that at the time of Jesus there was no city called "Nazareth." They have resisted this possibility, it is true, and sometimes quite vigorously, but it definitely remains, as the reader may discover for himself by reference to the standard Bible dictionaries.

Moreover, Nazareth is not mentioned either in the Old Testament or the Talmud. This is an argument for silence, but is not negligible. Of far greater weight, however, is the silence of Josephus. For besides being a widely traveled writer who never missed anything, and who described voluminously all that he saw, Josephus was the Jewish commander-in-chief in the war with the Romans in Galilee, which he describes at great length, and yet never mentions Nazareth. This too, is said to be an argument from silence, but it might be observed that it is a very profound silence. If Nazareth was an important Galilean city, as so many of the scholars insist, how did Josephus fight a war in which all the resources of Galilee were mustered and overlook Nazareth?

The scholars allow, however, that there is a strong possibility that Nazareth, instead of being the name of a city, is a synonym for all of Galilee. In this case, "Nazarenes" would mean the same as "Galileans," and we know that the Christianoi were called Galileans as late as the time of the Emperor Julian. What this amounts to is that the Essenes of Galilee were sometimes called "Galileans," sometimes "Nazarenes," and that they became strongly identified with a Galilean - and therefore a Nazarene - whose name was Jesus...

There is still a further possibility. Matthew, who was always much concerned for the literal fulfillment of prophecy, tells us that Jesus went to Nazareth (Galilee?) so that "it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene." The only prophecy known to us to which this could refer to is the one in Isaiah 11:1, that there shall be a "shoot" or offspring of Jesse, "and the spirit of Jehovah shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding": one of the passages connected with the Messiah...

Since the Hebrew word for "shoot" (netzer) is the root word for "Nazarene," it is considered that the Nazarenes may have been a Messianic sect, perhaps connected at some time with the Nazarites, a sect of ancient origin (it will be remembered that James the Just followed Nazaritic practices), whose emphasis was the Messiah of David, Jesse's son. If so, what we have is another Essene sect, and the one that existed before the time of Jesus...

So again we find the distinction fading. "Nazarene" means "believer in a Messiah." So does "Christianos." And we know that all the Essene sects believed in a Messiah. The truth about Nazareth may well have been that it was a Nazarene encampment or monastery to which Jesus and James both went, either as blood brothers or as brothers in the community.

Some scholars find in the word "Nazareth" the meaning of a "watchtower," and this, too, is quite plausible since there was a tower connected with the monastery in Qumran. There is nothing the people of this period and area liked better than to find a word with many meanings, so that it had cryptic, as well as self-evident significance...

First, I have read the sections in which you speak of, and well it seems that this book you stand on as additional teachings of Jesus tend to separate the creation of man as two fold: body from Mother Earth and spirit from God. There was not a dual parentage to makind. Genesis speaks clearly that man was created when God dug his hands into the ground and created man. Where is it that Mother Earth created man? Just my first question"I disagree with your statement that the additional teachings of Jesus tend to separate the creation of man as twofold. In the second part of the Lord's Prayer he simply instructs his followers to pray to their Earthly Mother...in other words giving thanks to God for providing us with this planet to live on. As I read the second part of the prayer, I'm convinced that we - as God's greatest creation - should pray to our Earthly Mother, just as we pray to our Heavenly Father...

Secondly, you said that 'poultry was not an article of diet during Jesus' time.' Well that is incorrect for as you look at Genesis 1:28, it speaks, 'and over the fowl of the air...'According to Smith's Bible Dictionary, the diet of eastern nations has been in all ages light and simple. Vegetable food was more used than animal. Bread was the principal food; preparations of corn were, however, common. The Hebrews used a variety of articles, John 21:5, to give a relish to bread.

Milk and its preparations hold a conspicious place in the eastern diet, as affording essential nourishment; generally in the form of modern leben, i.e., sour milk. Authorized Version "butter"; Gen. 18:8; Judges 5:25; 2nd Samuel 17:26.

Fruit was another source of subsistence; figs stood first in importance; they were generally dried and pressed into cakes. Grapes were generally eaten in a dried state as raisins. Of vegetables we have most frequent notice of lentils, beans, leeks. onions and garlic, which were and still are of a superior quality in Egypt Num. 11:5. Honey is extensively used, as is olive oil.

The Orientals have been at all times sparing in the use of animal food. Not only does the excessive heat render it both unwholesome to eat much meat, and expensive from the necessity of immediately consuming a whole animal, but beyond this the ritual regulations of the Mosaic in ancient - as of the Qur'an in modern times, have tended to the same result.

The prohibition expressed against consuming the blood of any animal Gen. 9:4, was more fully developed in the Levitical law, and enforced by the penalty of death. Lev. 3:17; 17:26; Deut. 12:16. Certain portions of the fat of sacrifices were also forbidden Lev. 3:9,10, as being set apart for the altar. Lev. 3:26; 7:25.

In addition to the above, Christians were forbidden to eat the flesh of animals - portions of which had been offered to idols. All beasts and birds classified as unclean, Lev. 11:1 ff.; Deut. 14:4 ff., were also prohibited. Under these restrictions the Hebrews were permitted the free use of animal food. Generally speaking, they only availed themselves of it in the exercise of hospitality or at festivals of a religious, public or private character.

It was only in royal households that there was a daily consumption of meat. The animals killed for meat were - calves, lambs, oxen not above three years of age, harts, roebucks and fallow deer; birds of various kinds; fish, with exception of such as were without scales or fins. Locusts, of which certain species only were esteemed clean, Matt. 3:4, but were regarded as poor fare.

As you mentioned, in the Book of Genesis God gives man dominion over the fowl of the air. Poultry is a word that describes domestic fowl, such as chickens, ducks and geese, and not fowl of the air...it is a domestic fowl that cannot fly, and it evolved much later...

okay...this is my thrid attempt at responding to this forum. It seems that everything that i write is erased by the server. Anyway, i wanted to express my gratitude to you for receivng my response in such a gracious manner and responding with the same respect. Once again, i pray that if my words were too harsh that they would be received in a kind manner. This forum has provided a lot of valuable informantion and i enjoy this. I look forward to discussing other matters with you some day.

I respect your views and responses but there are still soem things that leave questions in my mind. The first is this statement:

In the second part of the Lord's Prayer he simply instructs his followers to pray to their Earthly Mother...in other words giving thanks to God for providing us with this planet to live on. As I read the second part of the prayer, I'm convinced that we - as God's greatest creation - should pray to our Earthly Mother, just as we pray to our Heavenly Father...

Now "Pray, then, in this way: 'Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. [For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.]'

Now, depending on the translation, some stop before "Amen" and some don't but further study can reveal that. The key to this is that it is an example of how to pray not what to pray. Inother words, seeking thanksgiving for the life given to us by
GOD forgivenss of our sins...Even in the Old Testament, they speak consistantly of "one God...our Father the creator" There is no talk of a mother Earth...Moreover, I am seeking Old Testament support for your theory. Not saying you are wrong, but seeking further support.

Aslo you stated
As you mentioned, in the Book of Genesis God gives man dominion over the fowl of the air. Poultry is a word that describes domestic fowl, such as chickens, ducks and geese, and not fowl of the air...it is a domestic fowl that cannot fly, and it evolved much later...

Well this is incorrect. The domestic chicken, (Gallus domesticus )originated from one of several jungle fowl, still found wild throughout Southeast Asia. Although the exact date of domestication is unclear, archaeological evidence places the chicken in human settlements in Indo-Pakistan by 3250 B.C. and in Egyptian tombs dating as early as 2000 B.C. The bird quickly dispersed throughout the world, both for its uses in agriculture and as a combatant in ****fights. Some scholars believe that interest in this "sport" was what led to the domestication of the chicken. This is simply saying that there was poultry available in the times of Christ, actually before He arrived. I understand that the wealthy were the ones who readily are meat but that does not mean that the common person did not eat meat also. Jesus spoke in the parable of the Prodigal Son that the father sent his servant to kill the fatted calf and have a feast to celebrate his son's return.

Now your views on Levitical laws about eating food with blood is correct and i agree with you. It is sad because when i attempted to respond to this forum the first time yesterday, i spoke on that but once again the server dropped out on me. Well we do agree on the Levitical teaching. But, we must also look at the New Testament teachings of Paul who states to the Romans,

Romans 14:2-3, "One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The mans who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him."

He reminds us that both views are correct and that we should understand both sides of the conversation. In this case, we do. i placed this here for those who may feel the need to condemn the voice of understanding instead of reading all that has been said and take it as edification fot he mind and spirit.

as i was rereading i discovered your point about Nazareth.

Moreover, Nazareth is not mentioned either in the Old Testament or the Talmud. This is an argument for silence, but is not negligible. Of far greater weight, however, is the silence of Josephus. For besides being a widely traveled writer who never missed anything, and who described voluminously all that he saw, Josephus was the Jewish commander-in-chief in the war with the Romans in Galilee, which he describes at great length, and yet never mentions Nazareth. This too, is said to be an argument from silence, but it might be observed that it is a very profound silence. If Nazareth was an important Galilean city, as so many of the scholars insist, how did Josephus fight a war in which all the resources of Galilee were mustered and overlook Nazareth?

The importance of the city was that it was the home of Jesus during His youth. In reality the city was not very big. Nazareth was a small and insignificant village during the period of Jesus. While the site was settled during the period 600-900 BCE, it was too small to be included in the list of settlements of the tribe of Zebulon (Joshua 19:10-16), which mentions twelve towns and six villages. Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of the Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus, and her name is missing from the 63 towns in Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.It seems that the words of Nathanel of Cana, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" (John 1:47) characterized the site's seeming insignificance. It is needless to say that the people of Judea had never heard of Nazareth.

The scholars allow, however, that there is a strong possibility that Nazareth, instead of being the name of a city, is a synonym for all of Galilee. In this case, "Nazarenes" would mean the same as "Galileans," and we know that the Christianoi were called Galileans as late as the time of the Emperor Julian. What this amounts to is that the Essenes of Galilee were sometimes called "Galileans," sometimes "Nazarenes," and that they became strongly identified with a Galilean - and therefore a Nazarene - whose name was Jesus...

From this we understand the reason that Pontius Pilate decorates the cross with the sign "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" (John 19:19) - meaning that the "King of the Jews" is from "nowhere." The early name "Nazarenes" given to the Christians might have been a derogatory nickname that the people of Judea gave to the followers of Jesus (Matthew 26:71, Acts 6:38). Jesus was known throughout the Galilee as "Jesus of Nazareth" (Matthew 21:11 , Mark 14:67) - but for those not from the Galilee, this name had no meaning for them. In order to explain where Nazareth was located, the Galileans had to explain that the village was near Gat-Hyefer (Jonah's hometown,Kings II 14:25), which could be seen from Nazareth. Archeological excavations conducted in Nazareth (by Bagati since 1955) show that Nazareth was a small agricultural village settled by a few dozen families.


There is still a further possibility. Matthew, who was always much concerned for the literal fulfillment of prophecy, tells us that Jesus went to Nazareth (Galilee?) so that "it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene." The only prophecy known to us to which this could refer to is the one in Isaiah 11:1, that there shall be a "shoot" or offspring of Jesse, "and the spirit of Jehovah shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding": one of the passages connected with the Messiah...

The main events in Jesus's life, as described in the New Testament, are the annunciation of his birth (Luke 1:26-38),his childhood and early manhood (Luke 2:39-52, Matthew 2:19-23), and the clash with his fellow citizens (Matthew 13:54-58, Luke 4:17-30). From the very first events relating to the life of Jesus in Nazareth, we learn that the people of his village did not approve of his thinking and behavior. To them he was Jesus, one of the sons of Joseph the carpenter (the other brothers were James, Joseph, Simeon and Judah - Matthew 13:55). Luke describes with great drama how Jesus was rejected by the people of Nazareth. After his sermon in the synagogue aroused their anger, the people took him "and brought him to the precipice of the mountain that their city was built upon" (Luke 4). Some have pointed out that this sentence in Luke is not correct, as Nazareth is built in a valley and not on a mountain. But the valley of Nazareth is on a mountain overlooking the Jezreel valley - and the mountain of the precipice overlooks the valley of Nazaret and the valley of Jezreel.

The village existed but it was a small area that gave no reason for Josephus to document during the time of his mapping the region. But the greatness that surfaced from the city still works among us today.

In words of Greg Herrick, Ph.D. pertaining Jospehus findings we see:
it is no mystery that many scholars hold that Josephus is woefully inaccurate at times. And, it would appear from the work of Schurer, Broshi, Mason, Mosley and Yamauchi that such a conclusion is fairly warranted.17 Yet this skepticism does not need to be thorough-going, for there are many places where it appears that he has left for us a solid record of people and events—especially as regards the broad movements in history at this time. These might include facts about the Herodian dynasty, the nature of the Jewish religious sects, Roman rule over Palestine and the fall of Jerusalem. Boshi agrees that in many places Josephus errs, regarding numbers and names, but this is no grounds for dismissing all that he said as without foundation. Once again, the historical trustworthiness of Josephus, is perhaps not a flat declaration, “he is” or “he is not” but rather it proceeds on a case by case basis.

once again i have enjoyed the new information and the overlapping inof as well. It has been a pleasure and i shall check in and out to see if the conversation continues. Looking forward tod ialoging about other things as well..


Excellent dialogue today my friend...

how true kemet..but we were also seeking to get a better understanding. i think we all want to know the best way to biblical natural health but right now there just some clearing up on some points. thanks for the input though...

as gor Happy's point? i'm going to sit back to read the reply...

happy2bnappy:

Here are Jesus' words from the Essene Gospel of Peace:

"But I say unto you: Kill neither men nor beasts, nor the food that goes into your mouth. For if you eat living food, the same will quicken you; but if you kill your food, the dead food will kill you also. For life comes only from life, and from death always comes death...

For everything that kills your foods kills your bodies also. And everything that kills your bodies kills your soul also. And your bodies become what your foods are; even as your spirits, likewise, become what your thoughts are. Therefore eat not anything which fire, frost or water has destroyed. For burned, frozen and rotted foods will burn, freeze, and rot your body also."

"You people are like children sitting in the market and shouting to each other,

'We played the flute,
but you would not dance!
We sang a funeral song,
but you would not mourn!'

John the Baptist did not go around eating and drinking, and you said, 'That man has a demon in him!' But the Son of Man goes around eating and drinking, and you say, 'That man eats and drinks too much! He is even a friend of tax collectors and sinners. Yet all Wisdom is shown to be right by what it does." (Matt. 11:16-19)

"Jesus went on to say, 'What are you people like? What kind of people are you? You are like children sitting in the market and shouting to each other,

'We played the flute,
but you would not dance!
We sang a funeral song,
but you would not cry!'

if he was a vegetarian or not .....

he is my savior.....

but this was interesting

The great Biblical prophet Daniel was also a vegetarian. The first chapter of the Book of Daniel tells us that after King Nebuchadnezzarof Babylon conquered Jerusalem, he ordered Ashpenaz, master of his eunuchs, to “bring certain children of Israel, and of the King’s seed, and of the princes; children in whom was no blemish, but well-favored and skillful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the King’s palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.

And the King appointed them a daily provision of the King’s meat (i.e., “food”) and of the wine that he drank: so nourishing them three years, which at the end thereof they might stand before the King.” (Daniel 1:3-5) “But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion ofthe King’s meat, nor with the wine which he drank.” (1:8)

In 1:12, Daniel tells the prince of the eunuchs who was in charge of them (himself, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego): 'Test your servants for ten days; let us be given pulse (i.e., “vegetables”) to eat and water to drink. then let our appearance and the appearance of the youths who eat the King’s food be observed by you, and according to what you see deal with your servants.'

“So he hearkened to them in this manner, and tested them for ten days. At the end of the ten days it was seen that they were better in appearance and fatter in flesh than all the youth who ate the King’s food. So the steward took away their rich food and the wine they were to drink, and gave them vegetables.

As for these four youths, God gave them learning and skill in all letters and wisdom; and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. At the end of the time, when the King had commanded that they be brought in, the chief of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar. And the king spoke with them, and among them all none was found like Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego; therefore they stood before the King.

And in every manner of wisdom and understanding concerning which the King required of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters that were in his kingdom.”

(Daniel 1:12-20)

As-Salaamu-Alaikum, Pharaoh Jah...and jazaka'lah...
This thread will buttress your decision...:)

I have the highest respect for this civil and probing discourse, but my humble belief is that if we knew if Jesus was vegetarian or not, it would probably profit us very little. I think the question should be, do his teachings invoke a spiritual inquiry for us to make that type of decision today. In other words, will we, who are on a spiritual path increased by Jesus teachings, use the knowledge, wisdom and understandings that we have received, to either continue eating flesh, or not.

Jesus initiated a higher order of spirituality for his people; it wasn’t the end of spiritual growth and learning.

Theological scholars have known for centuries, that Jesus never stopped being a Hebrew, in culture or at the core of his religious beliefs. But this never prevented most of the Christian world from eating “pork”, because most Christians unknowingly believe in Pauline Christology, not the ascetical teachings of Jesus.

As one scholar put it “was Paul trying to make Romans into Christians or was he trying to make Christians into Romans”.

So with all of the interpolation (padding), transliteration, mistranslation, cultural ignorance, the suspicious canonization by the Europeans and the conspicuous inconsistency of four gospels, why are we using the KJV or any book to “exactly” know how Jesus ate.

First of all, the way animals (meat) are genetically altered, raised, drugged, fed and slaughtered today, had no relevance to the teachings of that time. So, if our current information, physiological knowledge, spiritual growth and overall well being, tells us that consumption of meat is a “stumbling block” for us, THEN WE SHOULD REFRAIN FROM EATING IT.


Physiologically and anatomically we are not “meat eaters”.



Peace,

Sun Ship

You are absolutely correct, Sun Ship...and thank you for your enlightening discourse. I am reminded of the words of Mencius:

"To act without clear understanding; to form habits without investigation; to follow a path all one’s life not truly knowing where it leads…this is the behavior of the multitudes."

Ma Salaam.

"Theological scholars have known for centuries, that Jesus never stopped being a Hebrew, in culture or at the core of his religious beliefs. But this never prevented most of the Christian world from eating “pork”, because most Christians unknowingly believe in Pauline Christology, not the ascetical teachings of Jesus." - Sunship




THANK YOU!!!!!!

Another profound passage in The Essene Gospel of Peace is the Aramaic translation of The Lord’s Prayer. In the original Aramaic language, the Lord’s Prayer does not end with the words “For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, forever, Amen.” This was actually the first part of the prayer, in which Jesus instructs his followers to pray to the Heavenly Father. In the second part of the prayer he instructs them to pray to their Earthly Mother, as follows:

“Our Mother, which art upon Earth, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, and thy will be done in us, as it is in thee. As thou sendest every day thy angels, send them to us also. Forgive us our sins, as we atone all our sins against thee. And lead us not into sickness, but deliver us from all evil, for thine is the Earth, the body and the health, Amen.”

Eating and drinking are the primary needs of man, and it is the FIRST DUTY of a religion to guide him in this respect...

"Theological scholars have known for centuries, that Jesus never stopped being a Hebrew, in culture or at the core of his religious beliefs. But this never prevented most of the Christian world from eating “pork”, because most Christians unknowingly believe in Pauline Christology, not the ascetical teachings of Jesus." - Sunship




THANK YOU!!!!!!

Jesus said " Whatever a man puts in his mouth does not make him unclean but what comes out of his mouth makes him unclean" so Paul was just saying what Jesus said.

Jesus said, " Whatever a man puts in his mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes out of his mouth makes him unclean..." So Paul was just saying what Jesus said.Yes, oceolo, Jesus does say: "For what goes into your mouth will not defile you, but what comes out of your mouth, that is what will defile you." This is a very significant saying, however, it has nothing to do with food. Here is the correct interpretation: If I insult you and call you a name, that will not defile you...but what comes out - i.e., how you react to my insult - that determines the defilement.

Here is another point d' appui: If you drank a pint of whiskey right now, that will defile you because it changes your thinking and you become negative and obnoxious. This is certainly a contradiction re: the Biblical verse we are referring to, because in this case it IS what goes in that defiles you...not to mention what comes out!

Yes, oceolo, Jesus does say: "For what goes into your mouth will not defile you, but what comes out of your mouth, that is what will defile you." This is a very significant saying, however, it has nothing to do with food. Here is the correct interpretation: If I insult you and call you a name, that will not defile you...but what comes out - i.e., how you react to my insult - that determines the defilement.

Here is another point d' appui: If you drank a pint of whiskey right now, that will defile you because it changes your thinking and you become negative and obnoxious. This is certainly a contradiction re: the Biblical verse we are referring to, because in this case it IS what goes in that defiles you...not to mention what comes out!

I am afraid you are in error . When Jesus said " what goes into a man's mouth does not make him unclean................" he said that because the pharisees saw that Jesus and his disciples were eating with unwashed hands which was unlawful in the old jewish law but Jesus told him that only what comes out of a man mouth can make him unclean because what goes into a man's body enters then leaves the body but what comes out of a man's mouth i.e. his words makes him unclean because they come from the heart and out of the heart come evil thoughts( murder,theft,immorality,etc) so Jesus clearly was saying food doesnt make you unclean but your words can make you unclean.

You have proffered another erroneous opinion, oceolo. Here is the verse you are referring to in its entirety, under the heading, What Really Makes People Unclean:

"Jesus called the crowd together and said, 'Pay attention and try to understand what I mean. The food that you put into your mouth doesn't make you unclean and unfit to worship God. The bad words that come out of your mouth are what makes you unclean.' Then his disciples came over to him and asked, 'Do you know that you insulted the Pharisees by what you said?' Jesus answered, 'Every plant that my father in Heaven did not plant will be pulled up by the roots. Stay away from those Pharisees! They are like blind people leading other blind people, and all of them will fall into a ditch.' Peter replied, 'What did you mean when you talked about the things that make people unclean?' Jesus then said:

'Don't any of you know what I am talking about by now? Don't you know that the food you put into your mouth goes into your stomach and then out of your body? But the words that come out of your mouth come from your heart. And they are what make you unfit to worship God. Out of your heart come evil thoughts, murder, unfaithfulness in marriage, vulgar deeds, stealing, telling lies, and insulting others. These are what make you unclean. Eating without washing your hands will not make you unfit to worship God.'"

(Matthew 15:10-16)