Would Jesus Eat Today's Meat?

Many SDAs reason that if Jesus ate meat, fish, etc. and offered it to others, then we have every right to eat it today. But would He eat the meat and fish that is available at this time? Indeed, we do not have access to the fish, flesh and fowl that was available in Bible times. We have to settle for what is available now. And from my research and study it is in a sorry state. I simply do not trust the ones who produce and raise the poor creatures that so many depend upon for food. Sick and diseased animals are the norm.

More than this, today's food animals are fed ground up carcasses of other sheep, cows and other animals, including their tonsils, intestines, spinal cords, brains, etc. This in the form of rendered pellets, powder or meal, is part of the daily bill of fare for vegetarian (herbivorous) animals that we call "clean meat." In addition massive quantities of blood meal, bone meal and other animal byproducts find their way into their feed. It is grossly unnatural and dangerous to feed blood and other animal parts to cattle, which are natural vegetarians.

And let us not forget the vast amount of antibiotics, hormones, anabolic steroids (the same used by athletes and body builders), and a vast admixture of legal and illegal medications, chemicals and drugs.

Unfortunely, the ill effects of eating a meat-centered diet are epidemic. Study after study clearly demonstrates that beef, pork, poultry and lamb, even when untainted by disease, contain massive amounts of saturated fats and cholesterol, thus helping to clog arteries, hospitals and cemeteries worldwide. Mounting evidence likewise links meat consumption with strokes, cancer, diabetes, gout, osteoporosis and a host of other infectious and inflammatory diseases.

And so the question remains: Considering the sorry state of today's meat, would Jesus partake of it today? Well, let us turn to the "testimony of Jesus, which is the Spirit of Prophecy," Revelation 19:10: "Subsisting on the flesh of dead animals is a gross way of living, and as a people, we should be working a change, a reform, teaching the people that there are healthful preparations of food that will give them more strength, and better preserve their health, than meat." --Ellen White, Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 409.

It should be mentioned here that Ellen White, was a person of like passion as so many of us and struggled with this very issue--meat eating. By the grace and help of the Lord she eventually obtained the victory here and offers inspired counsel on the subject.

Indeed, it is our privilege to benefit from the counsel she gives. Take any one of her books and be thrilled, encouraged, strengthened and uplifted, and yes, for me anyway, shed a few tears. She speaks on many, many subjects--all direct messages from the Lord and I am humbled, thankful, and astounded that God loves and cares for us to the extent as expressed in her many books. And simply by reading her writings, I have been redirected to the Bible and the life-giving message there.

Read The Ministry of Healing for a balanced viewpoint on how to take care of our bodies. This includes sufficient rest, exercise, fresh air, sunshine, stress relief, proper diet, etc. and it points us to the only one who can direct and guide our lives--the Lord Jesus Christ.

Read The Desire of Ages for a magnificant inspired commentary on the life of Christ. Read The Great Controversy for a most enlightening glimpse of last day events. Read the Testimonies, for practical instruction on every-day Christian living. And be prepared to gain a new and exciting appreciation of your Bible. The Spirit of Prophecy is indeed, the lesser light leading to the greater light.

Suzanne

An interesting article appeared in the Spring 2002 issue of [i]EarthSave Magazine. Here Sister Agnita Hill, a 79 year old Catholic nun who has been a vegetarian for many years praises this diet for its many health benefits. This impassioned and articulate spokeswoman for eating low on the food chain, found that after adopting a vegan diet, her angina disappeared and she was able to get rid of 8 different pharmaceutical medications.

Furthermore she started to realize something she had never before been exposed to--that there were serious ethical and moral implications involved with eating meat and dairy. Reading the works of vegetarian theologians and religious leaders like Thomas Berry, Sis. Agnita became acutely aware that the diet she believes literally saved her life also benefited the earth, the people and the animals of this planet.

She quickly subscribed to the words of Thomas Berry that "vegetarianism is a way of life that we should all move toward for economic survival, physical well-being and spiritual integrity."

She believes the scriptural words that the body is the "temple of the Lord," and for both physical and ethical reasons she refuses to deviate from her diet and is fitrmly convinced that if born in this day and age, "Jesus would be a vegan."

She points out that "meat an dairy production are not good ways to use the gifts that God has given us. I'm concerned about the land and water pollution, the waste of food in animal feed that could be used to feed people, and inhumane treatment of animals" in modern factory farming. "If you know the reasons for it, there is a moral responsibility to follow a vegan diet."

She also firmly believes that everyone should only buy GMO-free foods and that factory farming "is a moral issue which should be addressed" by the Catholic Church.

Sis. Agnita follows in the footsteps of other great religious and spiritual leaders in histoty who have followed a vegetarian diet for ethical reasons. She agrees with St. Francis of Assisi who said: "If you have people who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have people who will deal likewise with other people."

Suzanne

I can see how a vegan would object, but if one sees nothing wrong with eating meat, should one object to GMO foods?

Genetically Engineered Food

Also known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), this food is causing concern in some circles. Indeed, it should perhaps concern all. Since the first genetically engineered food--a new breed of tomato--hit the market in 1994 , the issue has at times dominated headlines in Europe, caused protests, and led to vociferous public debates.

Yes, many are wondering whether this type of food presents ripple effects that we can't anticipate--or reverse. To create a GMO, scientis inject a host organism (a plant) with a foreign gene that will help it resist pesticides, pests, or freezing. Scientists also inject a virus or bacteria to encourage the foreign gene's invasion and an antibiotic marker gene to determine if the process worked. Because debate over the safety of GMOs continues, the FDA provides test and regulation updates. But the U.S. government doesn't require labeling of genetically modified foods. The only way to be sure you're not eating GMOs is by choosing products from certified organic producers who, compliant with USDA guidelines, do not use genetically modified seeds or ingredients.

Nations of the European Union, Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand, and many other countries require mandatory labeling of foods that contain genetically modified ingredients.

Transferring a gene from one species into another may result in unpredictable changes. Indeed living things are very complex and all the components interact. So when one gene is changed, a whole slew of other things change as well--and scientists can neither predict those changes, nor control them.

Indeed, many questions remain that should be of concern to all.

Suzanne

But, for those who eat any and everything, should it concern them?

I, for one, am concerned when eating tomatoes that I don't get frog genes, bacteria genes, or who knows what. But then, I would not eat frog. But for someone who does eat frog, swine, rotting meat full of bacteria and poison, should it concern them?

Sure, as a vegan or vegetarian, or at least a clean meat eater, consuming injected genes from random animals would be a high concern. While a pure gene transfer could be analyzed and determined not to do harm, that technology doesn't exist. There are bits and pieces (or even large amounts) surrounding the target gene and then there are bits and pieces of the bacteria used to insert it that no one really understands what it does. I wouldn't want to be consuming those sort of things when trying to eat a plant based diet. Why.... it would be like feeding meat to cows!

But, if someone is going to eat snake, swine, and squid, what does it really matter to them?

kland,

The issue with animal proteins injected into our vegetables does not concern me on the point of cleanliness. The unclean meats were unclean because of their diseases. An individual protein or DNA isolated from the unclean animal cannot give us worms, parasites, germs, bacteria, or other pathogens.

However, where I see a big problem is more in the realm of general body chemistry. Suppose, for example, that you have developed an allergy to cows' milk. What happens if you eat a new strawberry hybrid called "Cream Strawberry" into which biologists have managed to splice the protein casein, or one of its derivative forms such as sodium caseinate, calcium caseinate, etc., which is the milk protein to which you are allergic?

God was so careful in giving the Israelites regulations on purity as to tell them not to sow their fields with diverse kinds of seeds. In other words, keep the plant genetics pure! Since nature has no way of pollinating plant flowers with animal gametes, and since God even asked the Israelites to keep plants pure from other plant types, it follows that God is opposed to this type of genetic manipulation. It represents impurity of another form.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I agree with your thinking, Suzanne...I do not believe Jesus would eat the meat of the day.... If we believe the Spirit of Prophecy, then we must believe that He would not eat what He has counseled us not to eat...

Again, circumstances would dictate what Jesus would do. Obviously He would not violate a "thus saith the Lord". However, in certain parts of the world, where fruits and vegetables are in dire short supply, it seems reasonable to believe Jesus would supplement His diet with the best available meat.

The plant and animal kingdom have been deteroriating since the fall of A&E. Is it possible vegetables need our help?

Outreach for vegetables?
_________

It seems to me that Jesus was more concerned with what came out of the mouth than what went into it. (Mark 7:14-16)

Ha! Sort of.

Would it be accurate to say Jesus is equally concerned with both? And, can we say under no circumstances would Jesus eat meat nowadays?

Do you think worms, parasites, germs, bacteria, or other pathogens is the only reason they were unclean and if we could have a way to insure sterilization of them, there would be no objection to eating unclean meat?

Good point. Suppose everyone really has an allergy to cows' milk since we were never designed to drink it. That is my point, in that we should object to splicing genes since they are inserting proteins and DNA fragments that we were not designed to eat. However, for someone who drinks cows' milk or eat frog, is there any objection?

He also told them not to mix different materials in clothing. How does that relate? If it doesn't, does mixing seeds in fields relate? Would Jesus today plant a mono-crop field or would he plant a mixed and environmentally sustainable field? Would Jesus be for large fields of single crop with low genetic variability (think the corn issue a few decades ago in Texas) or would He be for organizations like The Land Institute?

No, I left one item off the list that I forgot to include: toxins. As we see with shellfish and other unclean animals, toxins build up in their system--things like mercury, DDT, lead, arsenic, etc. So you would have to do more than merely sterilize--detoxification would also be required, and this is virtually impossible to do.

I think allergies are of the devil, and God did not design them. So I don't believe that we must necessarily have an allergy simply on account of not having been designed for something. To take it one step further to illustrate my point, you may notice that the original diet did not include vegetables. Those appear to have been for the animals' sustenance. Our original diet was to have been grains, fruits and nuts (listed in that order in Genesis 1:29, which also constitutes the order of quantities, as in the food chart/pyramid). However, I don't think we have any natural allergies to carrots and potatoes, simply because we were not designed to eat them.
The clothing issue had little to do with health, and much to do with an object lesson of purity. You see, in the Bible, God uses the skin and clothing to represent character. The lamb brought to be sacrificed was also required to have no blot or blemish in its skin, for it represented the Perfect Sacrifice who had no sin. Christ's robe of righteousness represents His character--and we are counseled to obtain and wear it. However, there is no store on planet earth which sells these robes. We must accept them by faith. The Israelites were to have pure robes for this imagery, and not specifically for health reasons.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Could you expound upon the idea vegetables weren't included in the original diet?


Genesis 1:29: "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.



And could it be the same reason with planting the crops?


Again,

for someone who drinks cows' milk or eat frog, is there any objection?

The way I understand it, green plants, vegetables, the "herb of the field," were added to our diet, after sin entered. (Gen. 3:18). Apparently, as long as we are in this world of sin, our bodies require the nutrients, and food elements, or something that these plants offer. Indeed, vegetables are known as protective foods and have a purifying rejuvenating effect that is absobulely essential to good health.

Vegetables are specifics in preventing and conquering many forms of cancer, etc. Indeed they are prevention basics, alleviating disease, detoxifying the body, improving the skin and boosting the immune system. Green foods and other deeply colored veggies with their rich supply of antioxidants are powerful, purifying, cleansing agents. Veggies are considered among the best medicine and have powerful healing ability.

Let us remember that the Lord knew what He was doing when He added these foods to our diet.

Suzanne

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Am I correct in that you are making an association of "herb of the field" with vegetables?

Here's a question...

Is it possible to eat vegan without eating beans, nuts or gluten?

Wow, I guess anything's possible.

I have the same question, Sarah, and I just provided some basis for that question in my response to your "Eating Vegan with Allergies?" thread.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Because....

Genesis 3:18 "the herb <`eseb> of the field <sadeh>"

• `eseb - from an unused root meaning to glisten (or be green); grass (or any tender shoot):--grass, herb.
• sadeh - or saday {saw-dah'-ee}; from an unused root meaning to spread out; a field (as flat):--country, field, ground, land, soil, X wild.

In Genesis 1:11,12 God created the herb yielding seed and the fruit tree yielding fruit after their kind.

In Genesis 1:29 God said He gave man every herb yielding seed and tree yielding fruit after their kind.

In Genesis 1:30, He gave to the beasts and fowl every green herb.
(As opposed to brown herb? Not really sure there's a difference here, but adding the word, green, would be a difference between what man and the animals ate)

In Genesis 2:5 it speaks of plant in the field and herb of the field before they grew. This could mean before God created them. It could be before man created fields.

In Genesis 2:19,20 it says that God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air.

Then in Genesis 3:18, it talks about the curse, the thorns, and having to eat the herb of the field.


Question: If it's not herb of the field what is it? Herb of the forest? Herb of the wayside? An interesting side thought would be, what about herbs of the water?

Question: If in 2:19,20 it talks about God forming beasts of the field, what about the other beasts? Beasts of the forest, beasts of the .... where?

Genesis 4:8 Cain and Able were in the field. Would this be the field Cain was a tiller of?

Abraham and Jacob bought fields, Esau was a man of the field, hunter of the field(?), Isaac killed venison in the field, Reuben found mandrakes in the field, there is the field (translated country) of Edom, cows were in the field, people worked in the field, sowed seed in the field, hid in the field. And don't forget the trees of the field clapping their hands!


"Of the field" sounds like a location, but varies between what one sows and works in and with where one can hide and hunt. Now, one may see deer in a wheat field, but one doesn't normally think of it as a good hiding place.

Question: Where did the plain herb and tree yielding fruit grow?

Is the last part of Genesis 3:18, when taken in context with the rest of that verse and the ones preceding and following it, detailing the curse - the curse of pain and toilsome labor?

Otherwise, one needs to answer such questions as what happens when you plant an herb of the forest in a field? Or vice versa. Does that make one a vegetable and the other a.... well what? You have a fruit of the tree, an herb of the field (claimed to be vegetable) and a plain herb (which would be what?). If fruit, why didn't God use the word fruit like He did with the trees? Why does Genesis 1:11,12 not include vegetables as in the leaves, stems, and roots? Does using the phrase "herb of the field" suddenly imply and encompass leaves, stems, and roots whereas herb of the forest or just plain herb does not?

Sarah, I doubt it is possible to achieve a balanced diet based on what is left over after eliminating meat, dairy, legumes, nuts, and gluten.

kland,

We are drifting away from the original question, as Mike has reminded us. Nevertheless, it is simple to answer your questions.

There is but one observation lacking in your word study. The crucial words are not "herb of the...", but rather "yielding seed." It was the seed given as food, or the fruit which contained the seed.

In other words, man was given carrot seed for food, and the animals could have the carrot. If you don't eat carrot seed, the better example would be wheat versus straw. Man eats the wheat, animals eat the straw. When we look at the distinction between fruits and vegetables, the Bible's definition agrees with our modern one--fruit comes from the ripened flower, vegetable is any other part of the plant: leaf, root, stalk, or even the flower itself, I suppose.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'm not sure one could say it was the seed. And I think it was said of Genesis 3:18 that the crucial words are "herb of the field" defining what vegetables are.

Genesis 1:29: "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.

It seems to me the subject or object is herb rather than seed and tree rather than fruit or seed. If we were to stay by the seed part, then likewise we would have to say it doesn't permit the peach but only the peach pit.

I'm not saying it says we are not to eat the fruit just that if you are defining what vegetables are and whether vegetables were given as food based on that verse, it may not be a wise approach. I agree several people repeat that vegetables were only permitted later, but that doesn't make it true nor does the text support it. Other people use it to say we are not to eat mushrooms or ferns. Others use it to say we are not to eat navel oranges (no seeds).

Either that or there would be something intrinsically evil about that which is called unclean, menstruating women for instance.Concluding that humans were not designed to drink milk leads to the necessary conclusion that the ability to non the less drink it possessed by large populations of humans is evidence of evolution.

I think allergy would not be a correct term for the problem with milk. Some people do not produce the enzymes to break down milk as adults. An allergy is caused by the immune system backfiering and attacking the body. The evidence suggests that the increase of allergies we now experience are caused by us being designed to have dirt under our fingernails. Largely lacking buggs to fight increases the risk of an allergy developing.

For a short while.

kland, God gave explicit instructions. The text is clear. The subject of the sentence is not "herb," but "I." But no one needs a grammar lesson here. Words are used to convey meaning, and very frequently they do so without being the subject of the sentence. In this case we have a qualifying phrase. God did not say "I have given you every herb." He said "I have given you every herb that yields seed." That specification is important. If you want to strip non-subject/object portions of sentences out (like prepositional phrases), and understand God's meaning that way, I suppose Adam and Eve had permission to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil too (all in prepositional phrases).

My view on the matter is that the vegetables were second-class compared with the fruits, nuts, and grains. Who wants to eat straw? How about roots? You have to get under the dirt to get to them, and they sure aren't that pretty. God gave us the best. The rest was intended for the animals. After sin, things did change. We now have briers and thorns too. Here in Asia, there are thorny plants that people eat. Of course, in North America, such plants as stinging nettles are edible too--just cook before eating (collect them with gloves and long sleeves, and take care not to have them touch your face). Obviously, we eat things that are less than the ideal these days.

Mushrooms and ferns were not part of the original diet. As I've already mentioned, and most people agree, we no longer eat the original diet. I eat mushrooms and ferns (Asians like them), but I don't try to claim they were part of the original specification.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Cuteness aside, likewise you would need to demonstrate that it was intended for humans to drink another organism's milk. In the rest of nature, it would be a rare thing if it was that one species drinks another species' milk. Now one could argue there may be parasites in the milk glands and sometimes I have seen grown cows drink from their mother or even other cows, but the cases are rare.

But would you agree with the last part of what you quoted that for those who drink cows' milk and eat frog, is there any objection to consuming that which has inserted DNA from one organism to another whether plant or animal, commonly known as GMO foods?

Given every herb - that yields seed.
Herb is given.
Herb is described. Whether yielding seed, being brown, green, growing in the forest or the field. Call it what part of grammar you want, but the herb is given. It is described or qualified as yielding seed. Seed was not given according to the sentence structure. Vegetables are also herbs that yield seed.

(Something for you to consider: Do you think Adam and Eve knew that those little things coming off ferns which sprout and grow into little plantlike things were spores and not seeds)

But the rest of what you said, that you have decided in your own mind what it means, I can't argue with that.

Fact, a sizeable amount of humans can drink the milk of many different species even as grownups. If God did not give humans this capability and it did not evolve, where did it come from? Does the devil plot to give humans nourishing food?

Obviously there are such objections, for instance here: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering

Likewise a fact, humans can drink alcohol. If God did not give humans this capability did it evolve or where did it come from? Does merely toleration/elimination/use of a substance mean it was intended? As far as the devil plotting, you assume cow's milk is nourishing food for humans. I don't believe that has been determined to be true.

For GMO, if you go with evolution, then having a wider genetic variability and capability which one did not have before would give organisms a much wider and broader ability to withstand environmental changes. Ability to spread the diversity throughout it's environment is nothing more than evolution and genetics at work. Human health is not under question as humans already eat the stuff.

As far as me, I don't drink milk, I don't eat frog, and so would be opposed to such manipulation, but have yet to see any reason why those who are non-discriminating of what they ingest should oppose it.

A cow in the family has saved countless children and youth from starving to death in the days of selfsustained farming, and probably still do where this means of living still exists. I think no simmilar case can be made for alcohol.

A few questions come to mind:

If someone was shipwrecked on an island and all they had to eat was lizards, and they were sustained and kept from starving, would one conclude lizards were intended food?

Why was it necessary, or was it necessary, for countless children and youth to drink milk to keep from starving to death.

(Side question: what is self sustained if they were on the verge of starvation?)

Why not their human mother's milk? Otherwise, why children and youth? I think it's an idea from the milk industry.

What does Ellen White say about eating animals and animal products? There was a Review article concerning her thoughts on cruelty to animals in raising them for food.

Alcohol provides calories and we need calories to survive. Though I do agree one would live longer drinking cow's milk than alcohol, one could also live longer drinking alcohol than drinking cyanide.

kland,

We seem to be in agreement on this. I also do not use milk, and I would have to say I don't think it was intended for human consumption any more than the flesh of animals. Only humans still seem to drink milk as adults!

It so happens that milk is one of the most frequent allergens among people today. Many others have lactose intolerance.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.