"And as to the idea that this is a “false gospel”, it seems then that you would agree with this analogy: that if you were in a room with a lamb, Jesus, the devil and a butcher knife, that it would be Jesus (the truth) commanding you to kill the lamb and eat it, and the devil (false gospel) telling you not to kill it and instead eat a diet that doesn’t necessitate violence or cruelty against animals."

"Do you also believe Isaiah was a false prophet then, for prophesying that Jesus would be raised a vegetarian from childhood (only curds and honey would he eat), or do you not believe this prophecy was of Jesus as most Christians, or how do you explain this (Isaiah 7:14-15)? This description of Jesus being raised a vegetarian matches perfectly with the description of his brother James as also having been raised a vegetarian from birth..."

Being raised on curds and honey, not that he was a vegetarian all his life, as he did later share fish with the apostles. As you state, some may point out that it could've been a scribal addition, but I disagree with this. Peter was a fisher, even if Jesus only mentioned bread (which by the way, bread in Aramaic referred to food in general as it was the staple of Israelite diet). The apostles gave up to preach, they didn't give up to stop eating fish, considering Peter returned to his fishing business later on.

"And I must ask, as you haven’t made it 100% clear, do you believe God WANTS us to kill and torture animals for food (as is done in factory farms to supply meat to the masses), or even just to kill animals in general; is this why animals were created, to be killed for food, or is this only a result of ‘the fall’?"

I don't agree with the animal cruelty in factory farms at all period. I agree that simply killing animals for food is sanctioned by God alongside sacrifice after the fall with his covenants with man. It's in-fact why the sacrifice of lamb ordained in Pascha.

"Slavery is also sanctioned ‘after the fall’, does this mean you support and defend human slavery as ordained and desired by God? I certainly don’t! I think most Christians can agree that human slavery is morally wrong and not desired by the loving Father revealed by Jesus, despite such slavery being ordained and permitted in the law of Moses."

What I'm saying may be controversial, but yes. You can't insert modern conditions of life onto ancient Israel. The reason why Abolitionism even existed in the first place is because of the industrial revolution. As factories replaced plantations, slavery began to go, but before that, nobody went against it both because people needed slavery for agriculture. Following that competition, it was strictly because of what the Bible said about it. The US Civil War was literally about what the Bible says about slavery, and can thus be considered a religious war itself (especially the large Catholic contingent in the industrial northern armies in contrast to the anti-Catholic rural south).

And of course, slavery is all over the New Testament. Unlike many things, Jesus never spoke out against slavery even when confronted with slave owners (the Roman centurion). In the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Luke 12) Jesus says that an unobedient slave will be beaten, harshly if he was aware of his orders, and lightly if not. Thus according to the Bible and specifically Jesus, slavery isn't morally wrong.

"So it appears you admit God did not originally want animals to be needlessly killed for food, then?"

God knows everything and even the future. He didn't "originally want" anything, he knew what he would ordain if man chose to know sin. Yes, God doesn't change, this doesn't refute the Biblical thesis regarding meat here.

"Jesus himself taught that the way God had originally set things up in the beginning superseded the law of Moses when there was a clear contradiction, as explained in regards to divorce which was allowed in the Mosaic law, but not originally ordained by God in the very beginning. God did not want divorce, but “Moses permitted it because of the hardness of your hearts,” Jesus explained. The same can go for animal sacrifice and meat-eating."

Divorce can't be compared to animal sacrifice here. Animal sacrifice is one of the main ordinances of the Law, and specifically leads up to Jesus's sacrifice (and this is what atones for our sins; since Pascha was never abolished the sacrifice of a lamb on Pascha isn't either)

"I do not believe God ever wanted or commanded sacrifice, as Jesus said, “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.” On two occasions he quotes this verse from Hosea, which reads in full: “I desire mercy and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.” (Hosea 6:6) This is the same ‘knowledge of God’ which Isaiah speaks of covering the earth when men and animals no longer kill each other."

This is specifically during a time when the people of Israel sinned, and when sacrifices did become selfish and thus meaningless to God. This is also what's meant in the beginning of Jeremiah. Sacrifices weren't always meaningless, but became so because of the selfishness of the Israelites.

The scribes of Jeremiah 8:8 have had their scriptures destroyed literally 2500 years ago. The current Old Testament was compiled by Ezra after the Babylonian captivity, not the same scribes of Jeremiah 8:8, nor the scribes Jesus was talking about who were in the 1st century AD.

"And Jesus came specifically to free man from sin, not just the penalties of sin as some Christian doctrines teach. He came to set mankind free from this fallen state, in other words he came to bring the kingdom of heaven to earth. In John 8 he teaches that anyone who keeps his word (follows his teachings/commandments) will be set free from sin, and he makes this clear. He also tells the woman taken in adultery to “Go, and sin no more,” and teaches his followers to: “Be perfects, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.”"

Are you saying that I think killing animals is sin? Because it isn't, it just like the Law is simply a result of the fall, but it isn't sinful.

"Well, since the early fathers are infallible as you state, then how can we trust their judgement when it comes to their choice of which gospels to include and which ones to exclude from the now-accepted canon of scriptures?"

Because despite this, these 4 Gospels are universal. No single theologian disagrees regarding the validity of them (and there was a lot of disagreement), PERHAPS some of the Nazarenes only read Matthew in Aramaic, but otherwise the evidence all points to these 4 Gospels as being legitimate, unlike Thomas.

"Regardless, only one of these four gospels has Jesus eating fish, in Luke and only after his resurrection. This same gospel of Luke has Jesus warning his disciples against the eating of flesh and intoxication of wine, in the oldest Syriac transcripts."

The Syriac version of Luke is a simplified (literal meaning of Peshitta) version of a likely original Greek source (or perhaps even an Aramaic translation of said Greek source, meaning it's been under two layers of translation). While Matthew and Mark were originally Aramaic and later had this superimposed Septuagint-based translation for the latter, and a Greek for the former, Luke was likely originally Greek because Luke was from Antioch. He was either a Greek person or a Hellenised Jew, and if either case is true, he wouldn't be writing in Aramaic and especially not Syriac, he would be writing in Greek.

"And while only Luke has Jesus eating fish, all four gospels agree that he disrupted the animal sacrifice system in the temple and freed the animals - which actions directly led to his death."

That was not why he cleansed the temple. He cleansed the temple because of the money changers selling animals inside the temple, and trying to effectively turn it from a house of worship to a den of thieves.

(already covered the last paragraph earlier)

"Agreed. It isn’t the ‘love your neighbor’ part Jesus is denouncing in this reference but the ‘hate your enemy’ part. We are supposed to love both our neighbors and enemies, whereas the commandment to love neighbor in the law clearly permits for hatred towards enemy, for it states the Israelites may take slaves only from the nations outside Israel, and may kill these foreigners in war, etc. Jesus was expanding from love of neighbor exclusively to love of both neighbor and enemy, which precept is not found in the law of Moses, at least not set forth clearly as Jesus here did."

Yet it is still set forth in the Law of Moses, clearly or not. The "enemy" isn't referring to a foreign enemy here. If you actually go back to Leviticus, your enemy IS of your own nation, and you are to love him in your heart. I'll quote Leviticus 19 here:

15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I am the Lord.

17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.

So as you can see, your enemy here is clearly of your own nation. "Love thy neighbour and hate thy enemy" is explicitly a Rabbinical tradition that taught to hate any of those who disagreed with you. It's a perversion, and so is the "eye for an eye" that Jesus talked about, both having nothing to do with their original meaning in Leviticus and Exodus. You are meant to apply the Law to its spirit completely.

And this is still personal by the way. The Law of course outlines what to do with anyone who transgresses the Law.

"I disagree with your interpretation in regards to ‘eye for an eye’ that Jesus was only correcting a Rabbinical teaching in regards to personal revenge and that such applied only to governments. I believe the teaching of Jesus applies to all of humanity, from the individual to the community all the way up to the nation-state level as well. It is the solution to human suffering, but only if universally applied as opposed to only on the individual level."

"I do not see how anything that is wrong for an individual can somehow be ‘right’ for a government or higher authority. If it is wrong for me to kill my enemy, then it is much more wrong for my government to do so on a massive scale in warfare. And if it is wrong for me to kill someone in an act of revenge, then I believe it is wrong for the state to do so as a form of ‘punishment’."

This does not talk about the government being able to punish somebody in a way an individual can't. Let me explain:

In the original example, it referred to an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth as applied to a higher authority, be it not just some government, but anyone of any status. If one does something wrong, they are to be punished, simple as that.

In the Rabbinical example Jesus attacks, if somebody pokes your cheek, you poke their cheek back, if somebody burns part of your house, you burn it back. Et cetera. So clearly, this does not mean "the government can kill somebody in a way the individual doing so can't", or not even just to killing. Their entire meanings are different.

"I cannot say I agree 100% with everything attributed to Paul in the Bible, but do accept much of his teaching as truth, yes. I however disagree with your assessment that Jesus didn’t mean what he said when he flat out prohibited swearing oaths of all kinds and specifically stated that “anything more” than a simple yes or no was “from the evil one.” His words, not mine."

If he meant that all oaths are bad, Paul wouldn't swear oaths at all. Ditto for James, and as a note, unlike the 4 Gospels, the authenticity of the Epistle of James is contested in the early church. It's likely not written by James, the brother of Jesus, and it reads out specifically as a response to Paul's doctrine.