Saying that Jesus was NOT a vegetarian is purely a fundamentalist viewpoint that considers no other source than the New Testament. The New Testament, however, was written after Jesus, and compiled many years later, and the choice of which Gospels and other content to be canonized, thus chosen to represent the "Word of God" was heavily influenced by politics of that era. History reveals that Jesus was a pacifist and man of compassion that respected ALL of God's creatures.
There are numerous non-biblical sources of historical information that was written closer to the time when Jesus lived, and the works of three well known historians of Christianity are prominent. There was Flavius Josephus, the Jewish historian who lived just after Jesus did [before Christianity as we know it existed] and who later in life became an Essene, which some sources say Jesus himself was, a sect that practiced a totally pacifist, communalist, non-violent lifestyle that excluded meat-eating, consumption of alcohol ["strong drink"], and maintained celebacy, etc. Josephus personally knew people who had known Jesus when he lived and that were influenced by him directly. There is also Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine [260-~341] and Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis on Cyprus from about 367 until 402. These men were around when Jewish Christians, including people whose ancestors knew Jesus personally, lived and had access to some of their literature for use in their own historical writings. Notably, Eusebius and Epiphanius both were opposed to the anti-sacrificial position that Jesus took, but still wrote about it because they needed to deal with it. In fact, Epiphanius is an especially good source for this because he actually despised Jewish Christianity, so he cannot be accused of manufacturing evidence favorable to it, such as matters that are ethical in nature. In numerous occasions both Eusebius and Epiphanius cite Jesus’ teachings of non-violence toward all of Creation, anti-sacrifice and pacifism. If Jesus really was not opposed to animals sacrificed for food, they needn’t have brought it up in their writings.
Apocyphal texts and other historical writings make it very obvious that many of Jesus’ teachings have been supressed. That is why the Gospel of the Nazarenes and other gospels that were written by direct disciples of Jesus [Thomas, Mary Magdalene, James, etc.] are not in the new Testament, but instead a slew of epistles written by an apostle [Paul] who once persecuted early Judaic Christians, never knew Jesus when he was alive and even opposed his direct disciples, but instead wrote stuff that the Romans could live with. This included acceptance of slavery, oppression of women, eating the flesh of slain animals, consumption of alcohol, all of which were very traditional in Roman culture, but were rejected by Christ and his followers. Before Rome would accept a version of Christianity as the official state religion, it had to conform with its ways and traditions, and that necessitated portraying Jesus as accepting the eating of flesh.
The following is an example of a quote that appears VERBATIM in both the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and in Epiphanius’ Panarion, where he discusses the Gospel of the Ebionites:
Now, if you were the gluttonous, meat-eating Emperor of Rome enjoying a lavish lifestyle at that time, would you allow that to be exposed to your people?
You will constantly hear that despite this, Jesus ate fish and fed people fish. The source of this is an interesting twist of translations from the parable about Jesus feeding 5000 with two fish and five loaves. In the original Greek text, the word ‘opsarum’ is used, but that word has a double meaning. Its primary meaning is ‘relish’, and its secondary is ‘fish’. Using fish in the translation was a convenient way to portray Jesus as being agreeable to eating sea creatures despite the fact that in no Middle Eastern culture is fish and bread known to be or have been known to be a combination in a traditional snack. However, bread dipped in relish was common just like pita bread dipped in hummus. There are numerous other twists of translation throughout the New Testament where words such as ‘flesh’ and ‘meat’ have been substituted for other references to food or where a meal is implied.
True, nowhere does the New Testament will tell you that Jesus was a vegetarian, but there is plenty of suppressed evidence that clearly suggests Jesus was strongly opposed to the idea of exploiting animals, especially for food. If you are an ethically minded vegan or vegetarian it is time you stop accepting as gospel these assumptions about Jesus that are based purely on faith as has been handed down from generation to generation but is brutally inconsistent with historical fact.