Our subjects cover: animals, religion (Christian, Jewish and others); diet and lifestyle (vegan and vegetarian); and other miscellaneous subjects.
I believe that Jesus provided fish for others but did not eat it himself
Then, if this is/were the case, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to use THAT (image of) Jesus as a moral paradigm for ethical vegetarianism.
Why not merely scrap the entire idea?
"Luke 24:42-43 states 'They [the disciples] gave him [the risen Christ] a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence.' "
I don't think that Jesus was a vegetarian, but I do think that if he had been born into our society he would be appalled at factory farming methods, and though secondary to his mission to people, he would speak out against it. I wouldn't presume to say whether he would be a vegetarian, but there is a long and continuing line of Christian vegetarians, and it is in no way incomaptible.
Johnny Clayton wrote:
"I believe that Jesus provided fish for others but did not eat it himself.. similar to the following:
Luke 24:42-43 states 'They [the disciples] gave him [the risen Christ] a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence.' "
Actually the verse says they gave him a piece of a broiled fish and of an honeycomb. And he took "it" and did eat before them. "It" is singular so which did he eat the piece of fish or the honeycomb?
Clearly the verse doesn't say he ate them which would imply he ate both.