(February 9, 2019 at 8:19 am)Yonadav Wrote:(February 9, 2019 at 6:30 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: It was meat that was forbidden but fish was not.According to the source that I quoted earlier:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tho...were-fish/]
https://thefisheriesblog.com/2017/03/01/...ring-lent/
Beavers were considered fish and not just a swimming creatures, so they could have red meat.
<According to Dolly Jørgensen, an environmental historian in Sweden, the medieval theological debate about forbidden foods during Lent didn't distinguish between mammals and fish, but rather, creatures of the land and sea. So, while meat from chicken, cows and sheep was considered off limits, "other animals that spent their time in the water qualified as aquatic and could be eaten at Lent," >
Read Corinthians 15:39 it clearly says fish and animal flesh is different.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ESV
It does not say anything about land and sea animals.
Or are you saying that all sea animals were fish? which would agree with the thrust that you are arguing against.
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
