Was Jesus a Vegetarian?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Exodus 12 gives us a glimpse at the initial menu and it isn't very likely that Jesus deviated from that.

1 lamb per household and if that is too much lamb for one household you found neighbours who could help you eat a lamb. Unleavened bread (no idea how much). Bitter herbs (again no idea how much).
Do you offer lamb with communion?
 
It is both to me..... literal ... yes
Symbolically ..... Jesus was to be the sacrificial lamb that was to die instead of us.
This would have deep religious significance to anyone of the Jewish faith.
And the literal interpretation of communion in the RC church......does it disgust you?
 
Have you wondered if Jesus was a vegetarian?

No. Largely because, without any clear evidence in the Bible, there is no reason to do so. Vegetarians were not that common in that world save for the odd group like the Pythagoreans or Essenes (and I'm taking your word that they were vegetarian, I have not done much research on them myself) so it was unlikely. Had he been a Hindu preacher in India, it would be more likely.

Would that change the meaning of Easter?

Depends on how you understand the meaning of Easter. For me, it is about the renewal that comes with resurrection (a spiritual, rather than physical process, for me) and I don't think that what Jesus ate for dinner makes much difference in that interpretation.
 
But Jesus only offered wine and unleavened bread.....it appears it wasn't a tradition He followed.
You are reaching. THe text says he sent his friends to prepare teh Passover. THen the text tells of some things that took place at that meal. NOwhere does the text say the full Passover was not celebrated.
 
Right, so as others have said - fish, Passover lamb. Course, he may have been a flexitarian. There's a thought.
 
You are reaching. THe text says he sent his friends to prepare teh Passover. THen the text tells of some things that took place at that meal. NOwhere does the text say the full Passover was not celebrated.

Precisely. Telling his friends to prepare the Passover implies they would prepare "the usual". If he had commanded them to leave out the paschal lamb or other odd changes to the celebration, it would have been unusual enough to be mentioned.
 
No. Largely because, without any clear evidence in the Bible, there is no reason to do so. Vegetarians were not that common in that world save for the odd group like the Pythagoreans or Essenes (and I'm taking your word that they were vegetarian, I have not done much research on them myself) so it was unlikely. Had he been a Hindu preacher in India, it would be more likely.



Depends on how you understand the meaning of Easter. For me, it is about the renewal that comes with resurrection (a spiritual, rather than physical process, for me) and I don't think that what Jesus ate for dinner makes much difference in that interpretation.
Unless He was trying to change the world back to where it was in the beginning, when all was good. Adam and Eve living with the animals, and not eating them and eating the nuts and fruit from the vegetation.

How far of a leap do we have to make to see that killing animals can lead us to killing anything that gets in our way.
 
Unless He was trying to change the world back to where it was in the beginning, when all was good. Adam and Eve living with the animals, and not eating them and eating the nuts and fruit from the vegetation.

Show me the passage in Genesis that say that A&E did not eat meat prior to the fall. Preferably explicitly, not implicitly. It may be there but I do not recall it and I suspect you're reading into the text here.
 
Precisely. Telling his friends to prepare the Passover implies they would prepare "the usual". If he had commanded them to leave out the paschal lamb or other odd changes to the celebration, it would have been unusual enough to be mentioned.
However, those instructions alone don't necessarily mean that Jesus ate any of the lamb (granted that they do imply it).
 
However, those instructions alone don't necessarily mean that Jesus ate any of the lamb (granted that they do imply it).

Right, but I'm sure that in your studies at Tyndale, they don't tell you that you can read into the text based on your suppositions about what happened. If it doesn't explicitly say whether he ate the lamb or not, you would tend to go with the assumption that he did because that makes the most sense based on the culture, etc.
 
You are reaching. THe text says he sent his friends to prepare teh Passover. THen the text tells of some things that took place at that meal. NOwhere does the text say the full Passover was not celebrated.
Unless his "crime" was that he didn't participate in the full passover and Judas snitched.
 
Right, but I'm sure that in your studies at Tyndale, they don't tell you that you can read into the text based on your suppositions about what happened. If it doesn't explicitly say whether he ate the lamb or not, you would tend to go with the assumption that he did because that makes the most sense based on the culture, etc.
Well was Jesus a Nazorean or not?
 
Unless his "crime" was that he didn't participate in the full passover and Judas snitched.

But, again, you're reading into the text here. There is nothing anywhere in the four gospels that even implies that. And, in fact, it fairly clear that his crime went back much further than the Last Supper and was related to the challenges he presented to the scribes and Pharisees, who were the ones who paid Judas off. Remember that Judas left during the meal after Jesus exposed him as a traitor.

Well was Jesus a Nazorean or not?

That is a reading of the Gospels that some have embraced, others have not. I have not, not because I don't think it is a possibility but because I haven't researched the evidence enough. From what I have read, it appears to consist of taking passages and interpreting them to fit the theory rather than there being any clear, definitive proof of his being part of that movement. So I don't think you can use this as an argument given that it is not altogether clear that the Nazorean hypothesis for Jesus holds water.
 
Right, but I'm sure that in your studies at Tyndale, they don't tell you that you can read into the text based on your suppositions about what happened. If it doesn't explicitly say whether he ate the lamb or not, you would tend to go with the assumption that he did because that makes the most sense based on the culture, etc.
Depends largely on the Prof. Son of them encourage us to strive toward new ideas and insights into the Scriptures.
 
It is both to me..... literal ... yes
Symbolically ..... Jesus was to be the sacrificial lamb that was to die instead of us.
This would have deep religious significance to anyone of the Jewish faith.

agreed, Jesus was the Passover lamb from the OT when Blood was smeared on the doors , thats why us Italian Catholics for Easter we have lamb as a tradition and lots of wine of course :)
 
agreed, Jesus was the Passover lamb from the OT when Blood was smeared on the doors , thats why us Italian Catholics for Easter we have lamb as a tradition and lots of wine of course :)

Yes, Jesus was the Passover lamb. He was also like a mother hen who wanted to gather Israel under his wings. That's why us Baptists have chocolate lambs, chocolate hens, and chocolate eggs as a tradition. Oh yeah, and peeps.
 
Back
Top