# Rabbit meat not kosher



## PrettyPaisley

I have a question about this. I'm not Jewish and am no expert on the bible but from what I've been told the New Testement clears up the kosher issue and says all meat is clean. Right? 

I was talking to a friend I'd not seen in a couple of years. I may be picky about how I feed my kids but this lady is *really* picky. She told me that rabbit meat was not kosher (knew this) but that if you study the science behind it rabbits don't have the multiple stomaches other animals have to clean the meat well before it's consumed. 

It makes some sence since a rabbit is just a rodent but I wasn't sure if it if made enought sence not to eat them. I don't have rabbits because I think they are cute or because they smell nice (OMG they are stinky)-but because I want a variety of easy to raise/process/control what they eat animals. But I don't want to be eating unclean meat. (And no, we don't eat a lot of pork because all I really like is bacon and sausage and I don't need to have it around or I'd eat it everyday.)

Any thoughts on this?


----------



## jen74145

Yes, it's all clean, as I understand it. Also, a rabbit is a lagomorph, not a rodent. 

Some people do feel that the original old Testament rules might apply for health reasons, so avoid on that basis. 

*says the vegetarian, lol


----------



## Shrarvrs88

Well, a rabbit is not a rodent, it's a lagomorph (sp?) and while I don't know much about "cleanliness" of meat, to me it seems that toxins are stored in fat (I have heard many times that when you lose weight your body releases toxins that have gathered in your fat, so to drink extra water) and since rabbits are very lean, they really don't have much ability to hold on to toxins. Plus, the food they eat (esp if you feed unprosseced rabbit food) is pretty clean food, ie, not like a pig that can be fed all kinds of gross stuff. 

Personally, with the current way our commercial beef is raised, I would be (and am) more comfortable feeding my sons rabbit meat that is free of hormones/unnatural food/various antibiotics than any commercial meat. I DO still buy some beef and pork (yummy!) but feel safer with the meat I can raise at home and control what goes into it. 

Just my feelings.


----------



## ||Downhome||

I say it is clean, if you raise it in a healthy enviroment and watch for health issues.
any animal can become sick some times it apparent other times you wont know untill you slaughter and butcher. if it appears healthy I would not worry.


----------



## glazed

To answer your specific question about rabbits being clean/unclean ... read Leviticus 11:6.


----------



## ||Downhome||

mama c must of missed the part about PrettyPaisley eating bacon and sausage,even though not alot. which according to the old teachings is a no no. 

I took it she wanted to know if it was truely a unclean animal rather then the food laws labeling of it. which yes your right according to the laws it is but in practice I say no.


----------



## Riverdale

Niether is the back quarters of a cow


----------



## glazed

||Downhome|| said:


> mama c must of missed the part about PrettyPaisley eating bacon and sausage,even though not alot. which according to the old teachings is a no no.
> 
> I took it she wanted to know if it was truely a unclean animal rather then the food laws labeling of it. which yes your right according to the laws it is but in practice I say no.


:doh: Whoops! Yes I sure did! :doh:

I read the OP closely this time, and, so, to address the initial question 
about being told the New Testament clears up the clean/unclean laws issue and says all meat is clean ... right? 

I had been told that, too.


----------



## deaconjim

Acts 10:9-16:



> On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:
> 
> And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
> 
> And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
> 
> Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
> 
> And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
> 
> But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
> 
> And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common.
> 
> This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.


----------



## fetch33

Thank goodness I am not Jewish... I think the dietary laws are rediculous. Not eating the back half of a bull because the law says milk and meat can not mix.... hello... a bull doesn't have milk! Don't think I am picking on any religion... I am Catholic and think not eating meat on Fridays is just as rediculous.


----------



## tailwagging

In Leviticus it says hare (not rabbit, not the same). I have a Tora around here and will go look it up after I feed everyone.

There was an interesting chapter in The Cambridge World History of Food that said over the years and translations of "the law" only pork and camel were consistently unclean.

go here http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Wor...=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279886936&sr=8-7

click on look inside. put rabbit in search then click

page 379 &#8230;Hare Swine Hawk Pelican Chameleon Rabbit Rabbit Vult&#8230;

Some even consider duck unclean since "swan and her kind" are mentioned


----------



## Macybaby

Jesus said that it is not what we put in our mouths that makes us "clean or unclean"

Jesus did not address the issue of whether certain foods are safe (healthy) to eat. Modern cooking and cleaning methods address a lot of issues that use to be major concerns. 

From a Christian perspective, if you eat raw pork, you are not going to be condemned by God for it, but you may still get trichinosis (though current practices have cut the likely hood of that way down too). If you research, you can find that for a lot of the "unclean" issues mentioned, there were real health safety issues that went with them because of the living conditions of the time.


----------



## Dry Bridge

Hmmmn...and here I was thinking that the 'food laws' were based on processes and bacterial trends of the period. 

Historically (not necessarily Biblical - but potentially a factor), rabbits were not a food to be eaten in the Summer due to their succeptability to Tularemia (i.e.Rabbit Fever). This also rabbits slaughtered in the Summer would tend to be very lean, the Fall being preferred to slaughter due to their Fall/Winter Weight.

Sorry if this diverged the topic...I just think in evaluating why the 'Old Testament' had food laws, was for the preservation of society based on the times (i.e. no refrigeration, spread of contamination, limited medical treatment...etc.).

Paul B.


----------



## PrettyPaisley

Dry Bridge said:


> Hmmmn...and here I was thinking that the 'food laws' were based on processes and bacterial trends of the period.
> 
> Historically (not necessarily Biblical - but potentially a factor), rabbits were not a food to be eaten in the Summer due to their succeptability to Tularemia (i.e.Rabbit Fever). This also rabbits slaughtered in the Summer would tend to be very lean, the Fall being preferred to slaughter due to their Fall/Winter Weight.
> 
> Sorry if this diverged the topic...I just think in evaluating why the 'Old Testament' had food laws, was for the preservation of society based on the times (i.e. no refrigeration, spread of contamination, limited medical treatment...etc.).
> 
> Paul B.


No - this is more what I am trying to understand. While I greatly appreciate the bibical teachings, I think that there is some amount of science behind it. I'm not religious but the more time I spend cultivating our food the more I figure The Creator knew what he was doing.  

So my question is more about the science behind it Old Testament teachings. Like with raw milk, I understand why it's important the cow consume very little to no grain-or why grass is so good from them. I don't feed the rabbits grass (they are raised on soy free Countryside pellets and alfalfa grass) and like you mentioned, worry about the literal lack of cleanliness of the meat for scientific reasons. 

It's the religious aspect that made me even question the idea of eating the meat at all. Maybe it's something that can't be separated? 

Thanks for all the input!


----------



## jkmlad

I used to work in a Kosher Nursing Home. Some of our residents were very learned and respected members of the faith. There were often Rabbis and Rabbinical students in our facility visiting residents and holding discussion groups. I made it a point to listen in so I would be better informed. We discussed Kosher laws and practices often. Kosher law is not just based on biblical info. Mores and habits of the time also helped mold the laws as we know them. Pork was the typical pagan ritual meat, and that was one of the main reasons it was eliminated. When the kosher laws were being formed, there was a big debate over whether poultry should be parve like fish. The supporters of making it a meat item obviously won. When the rabbi was discussing this with our group, one of my residents said: "Great, so a bunch of old rabbis are the ones who made it impossible for me to enjoy Chicken Parmesian!"


----------



## Otter

I agree with Dry Bridge, I always thought that it was because way back when, some foods just weren't very safe. As he pointed out, to this day there are seasons that you still really don't want to eat a wild rabbit.

And pigs, besides the trichinosis, through most of history pigs were free range and in lots of places, by necessity, they were a little ... umm... casual... how they buried people. 
Which is part of the reason that some cultures went all out with burial and there have always been peoples who regard pigs as unclean.

But I don't think most of this is a problem with domestic animals.


----------



## deaconjim

While the OT dietary laws certainly made some sense from a sanitation standpoint, there were some that were strictly ceremonial in nature and were in no way related to food safety. This would indicate that the OT laws had a spiritual context that was of greater importance than simple food hygiene.


----------



## Danaus29

For the true Old Testment list read all of Leviticus 11. Coney is rabbit which is unclean. Mice are also listed as unclean. Catfish, sharks, shrimp, and lobster are called unclean.


----------



## WildernesFamily

I looked into this too before we started raising meat rabbits. While I don't believe we live under the old law, I did want to know WHY rabbit was considered unclean.

We eat pork, but cook it well. I think some (most?) of the foods prohibited in the Bible were to protect people from sickness (improperly cooked pork can make you very sick, etc.)

After researching it, it is my personal opinion that rabbit was forbidden because rabbits eat their own (night) poop, called cecotropes. The cecotropes are essential to their well being.

I looked at that, and decided that even if rabbits eat their own poop, their meat is still decidedly healthier than any meat you can buy at the store... especially compared to chicken.

JMHO.
:shrug:


----------



## CrashTestRanch

Danaus29 said:


> For the true Old Testment list read all of Leviticus 11. Coney is rabbit which is unclean. Mice are also listed as unclean. Catfish, sharks, shrimp, and lobster are called unclean.


Could be that the catfish, sharks, shrimp, and lobster are scavengers?!?!


----------



## PrettyPaisley

So I just read about cecotropes. Eeeew. I had no idea. 

That said, I'm sure if there were a way to explain CAFOs in the bible, modern day mass produced meat would not have been kosher either.


----------



## CrashTestRanch

PrettyPaisley said:


> So I just read about cecotropes. Eeeew. I had no idea.


I know, just read that as well and thought what the  ?


----------



## WildernesFamily

PrettyPaisley said:


> So I just read about cecotropes. Eeeew. I had no idea.
> 
> That said, I'm sure if there were a way to explain CAFOs in the bible, modern day mass produced meat would not have been kosher either.


That was exactly my conclusion too!


----------



## Danaus29

CrashTestRanch, could be. Clams and oysters are also unclean. They all filter water and are exposed to all kinds of nasties in the mud.


----------



## Pops2

another aspect of dietary laws was to prevent excessive interaction w/ their heathen neighbors and so reduce their ability to draw the israelites away from the path of the lord.


----------



## deaconjim

If we are to live by the OT dietary laws, then we cannot eat in most restaurants, or buy our food from most grocery stores due to the handling of the food. If you look at the requirements lined out in Leviticus chapter 11, you will find that it would be quite difficult to follow them.


----------



## PrettyPaisley

Pops2 said:


> another aspect of dietary laws was to prevent excessive interaction w/ their heathen neighbors and so reduce their ability to draw the israelites away from the path of the lord.


Well there is something to be said for that. :goodjob:

Not being very religious my mother laughs when I tell her I'm following the scripture (that I cannot quote) that says something along the lines of "sequester your children from the world or lose them to it". That's my argument for homeschooling when she says they need to be "socialized".


----------



## Devoville

First I must say I find this a very interesting thread, I have really enjoyed it. But now I have a couple questions/remarks.. First the cecotrophes are not "waste" material so are not scientifically considered "poop", it is partially digested food. Cows and goats and sheep all regurgitate their partially digested food and rechew it, rabbits cannot throw up so I guess it goes the other way. Rabbits are also true vegetarians as well. Now the biggie, rabbits originated in what is now Portugal and remained there until explorers /wanderers found them and brought them to their various lands. There "may" have been rabbits present around Turkey (Angora types) So were there even rabbits living in what is now known as Israel during the biblical times?


----------



## tailwagging

PrettyPaisley said:


> Well there is something to be said for that. :goodjob:
> 
> Not being very religious my mother laughs when I tell her I'm following the scripture (that I cannot quote) that says something along the lines of "sequester your children from the world or lose them to it". That's my argument for homeschooling when she says they need to be "socialized".


OHHHHH be very very careful about doing that!!!
I grow up with no tv in the house, no going to movies, no music with a beat, no friends out of the church, vegetarian, no caffeine, no competitive sports, no bowling and the like, private schools........

I ran away from home at 16, PG and married at 17,
Now I have over 2000,yes over 2000 movies. 3 TVs, went to tso for xmas, show dogs, drink coffee,tea and cola and eat chocolate, have friends of and studied many beliefs even Wicca,raise and eat my own meat, have two bowling balls of my own and you won't catch me in church.......
So be careful not to go over board.


----------



## PrettyPaisley

Tailwagging-thanks for the warning. I won't take it that far-I can't live without TV or caffine. We seem pretty normal, I just don't want her in public school or watching MTV.


----------



## trinityoaks

tailwagging said:


> OHHHHH be very very careful about doing that!!!
> I grow up with no tv in the house, no going to movies, no music with a beat, no friends out of the church, vegetarian, no caffeine, no competitive sports, no bowling and the like, private schools........


 Sequestering (i.e. protecting from unwanted influences) isn't the same as complete isolation.


----------



## ozark_jewels

trinityoaks said:


> Sequestering (i.e. protecting from unwanted influences) isn't the same as complete isolation.


Amen! (says someone who was homeschooled all the way through and glad of it)
Incedently, I was reading this thread because we do not eat any of the meats labled as unclean in the Bible. I truly believe our maker had good health reasons for the food laws he gave.


----------



## Truckinguy

As to whether rabbit is kosher or not, I couldn't say for sure. Whether it should be is another question. I believe that most, if not all, of the old bible directives had a scientific reason behind them whether people realized it or not. Many people got sick from eating improperly prepared pork so someone said "Ok, God says not to eat pigs." However, we now have a better understanding about food safety and preparation, knowledge of animal diseases and refridgeration. Most foods are now safe to eat if prepared properly so it would be silly to not eat something because someone long ago arbitrarily said not to eat it.


----------



## steff bugielski

Well rabbit is definitely not kosher.
If it is not mentioned in the Tors as kosher then it is not. Regardless of how it is raised.
now chicken is Kosher but not all chicken. The chicken must have clean legs, 3 toes pointing forward and one back and something else I do not remember. But there is also what they call Tradition. If the breed of chicken has been eaten by your family for generations then it is OK to eat. Silkies, and Arucanas are not kosher, neither are their eggs. Same for ducks. Not all ducks are Kosher. The duck must have an orange or yellow beak. like the Peking. The Muscovy is not Kosher.

As for the hind end of beef the reason is that one, of Jewish faith, should not eat the Sciatic nerve. Apparently over the years the kosher butchers have forgotten how to cut around this nerve cleanly. So to avoid the slight possibility of eating something that is not kosher the religious avoid all meat after the 13th rib. I believe that goes for goat, deer,elk and so on.

No I am not Jewish but many of my customers are. I have learned a lot about Hassidic law over the years.


----------



## southerngurl

deaconjim said:


> Acts 10:9-16:





> On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:
> 
> And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
> 
> And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
> 
> Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
> 
> And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
> 
> But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
> 
> And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common.
> 
> This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.


Read the whole story and Peter's final conclusion on what God was telling him. It was not about meats. 


> Thank goodness I am not Jewish... I think the dietary laws are rediculous. Not eating the back half of a bull because the law says milk and meat can not mix.... hello... a bull doesn't have milk! Don't think I am picking on any religion... I am Catholic and think not eating meat on Fridays is just as rediculous.


Just note that this is not biblical, this would be something added later by man. 



> In Leviticus it says hare (not rabbit, not the same). I have a Tora around here and will go look it up after I feed everyone.
> 
> There was an interesting chapter in The Cambridge World History of Food that said over the years and translations of "the law" only pork and camel were consistently unclean.
> 
> go here http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Worl...9886936&sr=8-7


 The bible is consistent, it hasn't changed thrugh different translations. We still have hte original hebrew (and greek) text. 



> Jesus said that it is not what we put in our mouths that makes us "clean or unclean"
> 
> Jesus did not address the issue of whether certain foods are safe (healthy) to eat. Modern cooking and cleaning methods address a lot of issues that use to be major concerns.
> 
> From a Christian perspective, if you eat raw pork, you are not going to be condemned by God for it, but you may still get trichinosis (though current practices have cut the likely hood of that way down too). If you research, you can find that for a lot of the "unclean" issues mentioned, there were real health safety issues that went with them because of the living conditions of the time.


If you read the context, the topic of Christ's discussion was not unclean foods. The bible never says it's ok to eat these foods that God never intended for human consumption. 

From Noah's ark when man first ate meats (Genesis 7:1-8) , all the way to the future prophesies in Isaiah (66:17- this is future tense after Christ's return), unclean meats are still forbidden. Peter did not eat them after Christ's death, this is why God's symbolism to him was confusing to him at the first- but made perfect sense to him later. But if you read the short story, you see that he understood that he was to call no MAN unclean. The uncleaness of the meat was used to symbolize gentiles- the way Peter viewed them. 

There have also been studies done by a Dr Macht on the unclean meat's toxicity. They were consistently found to have higher toxicity than the clean animals. Not that this is the only reason God says not to eat them. But it makes sense. 

The REASON we are not to eat these meats is "because God said so". He didn't give His reasons. So we are not able to say, "He said that because of this, and now this reason no longer applies". Or "Well, I cooked it real good". We have ways of seeing certain things about these meats that are bad, but we don't see what He does so we do no have the authority to decide they are clean now. They are the same as they were 1,000's of years ago. He knows what He's doing.


----------



## tailwagging

Not trying to be argumentative, did you read the link I put up?
are you going to tell me that a gecko and a ferret are the something?
over the years and translations these were interchanged in texts. Like you said go to the oldest ( Hebrew, Sanskrit and Greek)

if you go back even more in the timelines you will find

"Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." 
Genesis 9:3

Go back more and you will be a vegetarian.


----------



## deaconjim

southerngurl said:


> Read the whole story and Peter's final conclusion on what God was telling him. It was not about meats.
> Just note that this is not biblical, this would be something added later by man.


I do recognize that there are two messages in this passage, and I believe both are applicable. Your interpretation is of course, the primary message, but I do not believe God would have used this vision as an illustration if both messages were not accurate. Given just this particular part, I would not take it in itself to mean that all meats are acceptable. There is an abundance of scripture that give me reason to believe that the dietary laws are no longer in effect.

First, given the fact that Christ's death means that we are no longer living under the law, that would include dietary laws. We are saved by Christ, not by what we eat. Romans chapter 7 explains this very well. The dietary laws were a part of the ritualistic obedience commanded by God to the Jews. The purpose of the law was to illustrate our inability to achieve the perfection necessary for salvation. Rituals cannot save us, only Christ can do that. 

If we are still bound by the dietary laws, then are we not bound by all of them? If that were the case, we would not be able to shop in most grocery stores, eat in any restaurant; and in fact, our most people would have to make some major changes in their own kitchens. Read Leviticus chapter 11 and you will see that it would be nearly impossible for most Americans to live by these laws.

Another important point to consider is that Christ told us that it is what comes out of a man's mouth that defiles him, not what goes in.

Consider also Paul's instruction to the Corinthians in I Corinthians 10:25-28. If the dietary laws were still applicable, this instruction would have been in error. Also consider verse 23 of this chapter:



> All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.


Romans chapter 14 gives us further insight into this matter. The entire chapter is instructional, but the last 4 verses sum it up:



> For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed [are] pure; but [it is] evil for that man who eateth with offence.
> 
> [It is] good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor [any thing] whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
> 
> Hast thou faith? have [it] to thyself before God. Happy [is] he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
> 
> And he that doubteth is ----ed if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.


There are many churches today that teach people that they are still bound by these laws, but they are in error. Colossians 2:16 warns us about taking heed of such teachings:



> Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]:


1 Timothy Chapter 4 verses 1-5 warn us about this as well:



> Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
> 
> Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
> 
> Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
> 
> For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
> 
> For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.


The laws were given to provide us with a clear contrast to the things of this world and those of God. We cannot depend on ourselves or earthly things for salvation, Christ alone is our path to the Father.


----------



## Shrarvrs88

Well said, deacon jim! really appreciate the deep discussion, guys!


----------



## PrettyPaisley

Shrarvrs88 said:


> Well said, deacon jim! really appreciate the deep discussion, guys!


I concur! Especially on a Sunday morning!


----------



## smilesnsunshine

If we weren't supposed to eat rabbits and pigs, they wouldn't taste so good.


----------



## PrettyPaisley

smilesnsunshine said:


> If we weren't supposed to eat rabbits and pigs, they wouldn't taste so good.


Adam might have had the same argument for that apple.


----------



## southerngurl

> First, given the fact that Christ's death means that we are no longer living under the law, that would include dietary laws.


The bible does not say exactly that. We are not "under the law" meaning the law has nothing over us.. that is our breaking of the law through ignorance is taken away and that penalty is taken away. It's the consequence of breaking the law (death and sickness) we can be saved from. Much like the law of driving, say the speed limit, has nothing over you if you don't speed. It can't "get" you. 

God's laws are perfect and good. Christ specifically said He did not come to do away with the law. The sacrifice symbols were changed because of Christ's sacrifice- that is they pointed to His sacrifice. The Passover symbols were changed, but the law of Love, from God has not been changed. Just some symbols of how it's kept.

I never said anything about us being saved by the law. We are saved by Christs death, by grace through faith. Our faith in God, our confidence in Him, is what causes us to keep His laws, because they came from Him and show what kind of being He is. Just as man made a religion out of God's creation we live in (paganism), some make a religion of His law, by putting their confidence in the law and their word for word keeping of it, (which isn't possible as that excludes judgement, which God wants us to have, and the spirit of the law which God's wants us to keep). This is not what I'm talking about. Rather a realization of God's ways and a desire to keep them because they seperate us from the world and help us to understand Him and become like Him as we are to do.


----------



## southerngurl

deaconjim said:


> I do recognize that there are two messages in this passage, and I believe both are applicable. Your interpretation is of course, the primary message, but I do not believe God would have used this vision as an illustration if both messages were not accurate. Given just this particular part, I would not take it in itself to mean that all meats are acceptable. There is an abundance of scripture that give me reason to believe that the dietary laws are no longer in effect.
> 
> First, given the fact that Christ's death means that we are no longer living under the law, that would include dietary laws. We are saved by Christ, not by what we eat. Romans chapter 7 explains this very well. The dietary laws were a part of the ritualistic obedience commanded by God to the Jews. The purpose of the law was to illustrate our inability to achieve the perfection necessary for salvation. Rituals cannot save us, only Christ can do that.
> 
> If we are still bound by the dietary laws, then are we not bound by all of them? If that were the case, we would not be able to shop in most grocery stores, eat in any restaurant; and in fact, our most people would have to make some major changes in their own kitchens. Read Leviticus chapter 11 and you will see that it would be nearly impossible for most Americans to live by these laws.


I have read it, more than once. I am confused by what you mean here. It is not nearly impossible. 



> Another important point to consider is that Christ told us that it is what comes out of a man's mouth that defiles him, not what goes in.


This was NOT in the context of clean and unclean meats. The people around him would have been mortified if He implied such a thing, it would have been heatedly discussed, his disciples would have known this after His death as well, which obviously they did not as they continued, at least Peter did, to not eat those foods. Christ was making a point that these men kept their own law (not eating without washing their hands) rather than keeping God's laws (like honoring their parents). Read Mark 7, 3-23. You can see this is exactly what the context was. 



> Consider also Paul's instruction to the Corinthians in I Corinthians 10:25-28. If the dietary laws were still applicable, this instruction would have been in error. Also consider verse 23 of this chapter:
> 
> Quote:
> All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
> 
> 
> Romans chapter 14 gives us further insight into this matter. The entire chapter is instructional, but the last 4 verses sum it up:
> 
> For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed [are] pure; but [it is] evil for that man who eateth with offence.
> 
> [It is] good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor [any thing] whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
> 
> Hast thou faith? have [it] to thyself before God. Happy [is] he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
> 
> And he that doubteth is ----ed if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.


The context of this chapter is meats offered to idols, NOT unclean foods. Consider the situation, past idol worshippers that are converted. They have eaten these meats in worship of these false gods all their life. It could cause them to stumble to eat these meats because of their association to it. If an elder int he church is eating these sacrificed meats, it could cause him to do the same, but cause him harm where it didn't the other man. This is talking about considering your brother. There was nothing wrong for Paul to eat a meat that was killed for an idol, the idol meant nothing to him. But if it still meant something to his brother, he should not eat it. All things that were lawful for him, were not good to do. 

Also, consider the translation of verse 23. The words would be something like this: "All lawful me but all bring together not. All lawful me but all build up not. "

My point is the structure of the sentence is added, and it could easily say, all these things (that which he is talking about) are lawful for me to do, but all these thing are not good for my brother. Much like if you are driving down the road and the speed limit is 55, but you come up on a sharp corner. It's lawful for you to go 55, but you should slow down for the corner, because it's not going to be good to go that fast around it. It's judgement. 

It is scary to build new doctrine off of scripture that like this, when the doctrine is not what is being discussed and the scriptures not perfectly clear, when we have fully clear scripture going against said doctrine elsewhere in the Bible. 



> There are many churches today that teach people that they are still bound by these laws, but they are in error. Colossians 2:16 warns us about taking heed of such teachings:
> 
> Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]:


That verse doesn't say not to keep God's holy days. Read it again. 

These people were gentiles, they kept pagan religion before conversion and lived among pagans. Don't you expect they got flack from all around about keeping God's ways and not keeping the ways of those around them? And verse 17 goes on to tell you they are a shadow of things to come. God's holy days picture His plan, a plan still unfolding and not completed. Which is why, for example, the feast of Tabernacles is still kept in the millenium (it pictures the 2nd resurrection, which would still be future at that time). Zech 14:16-19


> 1 Timothy Chapter 4 verses 1-5 warn us about this as well:
> 
> Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
> 
> Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
> 
> Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
> 
> For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
> 
> For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.


Let's consider this verse. He's talking about having a conscience seared, then some forbidding to marry (like the catholic church does), then to abstain from meats which God has created to be recieved with thanksgiving... God did NOT create unclean meants to be recieved, as in eaten. From the beginning of the Bible it was not that way. 

Also, meats here is "bro&#772;ma" simply "food". There are many places in the bible where food is translated meat in the old english, even when it is referring to grains. 

"creature" here is from ktisma
ktis'-mah
From G2936; an original formation (concretely), that is, product (created thing):

Marriage and eating of foods are creations of God. This word doesn't necessarily mean creature as in animal, the way we use creature today. Rather just something created.

If it meant all creatures were ok to eat, cannibalism would be ok.


----------



## deaconjim

The OT laws were given to us as the conditions of the Covenent between God and Isreal. Jesus did say that he did not come to do away with the Law, but he also went on to say that he came to fulfill the Law. Having accomplished that, we are no longer bound by the Law. To believe otherwise is to ignore the significance of Christ's sacrifice.

Note that Christ was a priest of the order of Melchisedec rather than the order of Levi, under which Isreal recieved the Law. Hebrews chapter 7 says:



> If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
> 
> For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
> 
> For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
> 
> For [it is] evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
> 
> And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
> 
> Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
> 
> For he testifieth, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
> 
> For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
> 
> For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh unto God.


It is worth noting that, unlike the Levitical priests, God swore an oath to the new priest, Christ.



> And inasmuch as not without an oath [he was made priest]:
> 
> (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec: )
> 
> By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.


Because of the imperfection of mankind, the first covenent could not restore our fellowship with God. This of course, was what God intended for us to learn by giving us this covenent. It was His desire that we learn that we cannot depend upon ourselves or things of this world for our salvation. Through Christ, we have obtained a new, better covenent that does restore us to fellowship with the Father. Hebrews chapter 8 says:



> But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
> 
> For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
> 
> For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
> 
> Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
> 
> For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
> 
> And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
> 
> For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
> 
> In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.


While we are no longer bound by the Law, it is true that we are bound to do the will of God. How do we know His will? Through the example of Christ and by the leading of the Holy Spirit that dwells within us. 

The Holy Spirit dwells in the heart of the believer, providing guidance and discernment of God's will.

We can look to the teachings of Christ as an example of the life we should lead. God is obviously not concerned about what food or drink we have, He is concerned about the love we have for him and for His creation. We are commanded to love God and to love our neighbors. We are commanded to


> Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


By fulfilling the Levitical Law, Christ has freed us from the bondage of our sins. We no longer have to dedicate our efforts, our thoughts, or our time to the rituals and sacrifices of the law in a vain effort to purify ourselves from our sins. Christ, through his life, death, and ressurection has done that; and in doing so has freed us to spend our time and efforts doing the expressed will of God, teaching and demonstrating to others His love for us.


----------



## southerngurl

> The OT laws were given to us as the conditions of the Covenent between God and Isreal. Jesus did say that he did not come to do away with the Law, but he also went on to say that he came to fulfill the Law. Having accomplished that, we are no longer bound by the Law. To believe otherwise is to ignore the significance of Christ's sacrifice.


Law is not a synonym for covenant. These two words are different. A covenant is an agreement, not law. It was an _agreement_ to KEEP _God's_ law. God's law existed before Israel's covenant with God. Otherwise it would not have been sin for Cain to kill Abel. Because sin is the transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4)

So, what does fulfill mean? 

G4137
&#960;&#955;&#951;&#961;&#959;&#769;&#969;
ple&#772;roo&#772;
play-ro'-o
From G4134; to make replete, that is, (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.:

To fill or level up a hollow, to make complete. How did Christ do that? The Israelites agreement with God was simply to keep the law, that is they could keep their promises from God if they, for example, did not kill their brother, but still hated him. 

If you read where Christ said this, He goes on to explain what fulfill means. He made the law more complete and binding, because He brought the spirit of the law. The law is what love is. That is, it explains love, in a way made for carnal human beings. Before God made man, there was certainly a law, "do not kill", but it never had to be written down. It was the law of love and that covered it. For man, we are carnal and look to be able to do evil, things that come not out of love. So God wrote down points to show us what love is. He went on to make separations for His people and holy days for His people to teach us things. 

Keeping God's laws and His holy days are a blessing. They teach you His plan and you simply will not understand it well without keeping them. It's just the way He set it up. And we are motivated out of love for Him to keep them.

Matthew 5:
Mat 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. 
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 
Mat 5:18 *For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled *(note this fulfill is a different word than the fulfill above, it means to come to pass- until all come to pass). 
Mat 5:19 *Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 
*
What commandments is He talking about? Go on and read the rest of this chapter to see what He's saying. He's saying not only do you not commit murder, you do not allow yourself to desire to murder. It's about the heart and the spirit of the law. Just keeping yourself from physically murdering someone isn't a good enough keeping of the law for this new agreement. 

'ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.'

What scripture was that verse talking about? The Old Testament. 

When the New Testament was being written, all they had to teach out of was the Old Testament.

So to recap:
-The clean and unclean meats were made known to man, by God before the Israelites existed. 
-Peter kept the clean and unclean meat laws before and after Christ death. 
-Paul kept the feasts after Christ death. (hadn't posted about that yet, Acts 18:21)
-The unclean meat laws are kept and enforced in the future.
-The holy days (Feast of Tabernacles anyway) are kept in the future, and by those who are NOT Israelites. 
-Christ said not one little piece of the law or prophets would be destroyed until all is finished and heaven and earth would pass first.


----------



## deaconjim

You are quite right that law is not a synonym for covenent, but it was a condition of the covenent. Because Christ fulfilled the Law, we now have a new covenent.

Hebrews chapter 9 explains how Christ fulfilled the law:



> Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service [of God].
> 
> But into the second [went] the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and [for] the errors of the people:
> 
> The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
> 
> Which [was] a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
> 
> [Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation.
> 
> But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
> 
> Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].
> 
> For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
> 
> How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
> 
> And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


If we are to interpret Matthew 5:18-19 as you suggest, then I am as lost as a ball in high weeds. I don't have a tabernacle staffed by the tribe of Levi available to make animal sacrifices for my sins. I buy meat at the local grocery store where they also handle pork. I cook on a stove that has been used to prepare pork, with utensils used to prepare pork, in a kitchen that has been used for the same purpose. We often eat in restaraunts where pork is served. 

Matthew 5:18 says "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, *till all be fulfilled*". The purpose of the law was to show us that we were incapable of perfection, not to enable us to be perfect. It was simply a measuring stick by which we could see the extend of our depravity. Christ came to provide the blood sacrifice that fulfilled the requirements of the law once and forever. Christ has fulfilled the law, and we are no longer bound by that law.


----------



## frugalmomma2

If we go all the way back to the original question, Is rabbit kosher? If you are Jewish and think it not kosher then by all means don't eat it. If your not Jewish but wish to conform to Jewish dietary laws and feel it is not kosher don't eat it. This is no different than the question of which day is the Sabbath Sat. or Sun. Most of the Jewish faith observe Sat. and most Gentiles observe Sun. I don't think either is a Heaven or Hell issue. I base my opinion on this post on Acts : 15, I won't post the entire chapter, I can see that most have a Bible close at hand. You will find that Gentiles are not required to conform to Jewish laws so in light of this it makes it a matter of personal choice. Just my two cents worth. This is posted by the more opinionated DH.


----------



## Shrarvrs88

I agree with Frugalmomma2. If you think it would be bad for you to eat it, then don't, if you are fine with eating it, then do.


----------



## deaconjim

frugalmomma2 said:


> If we go all the way back to the original question, Is rabbit kosher? If you are Jewish and think it not kosher then by all means don't eat it. If your not Jewish but wish to conform to Jewish dietary laws and feel it is not kosher don't eat it. This is no different than the question of which day is the Sabbath Sat. or Sun. Most of the Jewish faith observe Sat. and most Gentiles observe Sun. I don't think either is a Heaven or Hell issue. I base my opinion on this post on Acts : 15, I won't post the entire chapter, I can see that most have a Bible close at hand. You will find that Gentiles are not required to conform to Jewish laws so in light of this it makes it a matter of personal choice. Just my two cents worth. This is posted by the more opinionated DH.


I agree. Without going back to look up the scripture (I think I may have posted it earlier), it says that for those who believe something is a sin and does it anyway, it is a sin. It's not about the action itself, it's about the willful disobedience of God.


----------



## PrettyPaisley

Actually, the original question was about the science behind why rabbit was not kosher. I don't want to eat an animal that I (mistakenly) thought was a rodent.


----------



## MaggieJ

Nothing wrong with certain rodents! Squirrel makes very fine eating.


----------



## big rockpile

CrashTestRanch said:


> Could be that the catfish, sharks, shrimp, and lobster are scavengers?!?!


But Spoonbill are not.

big rockpile


----------



## deaconjim

PrettyPaisley said:


> Actually, the original question was about the science behind why rabbit was not kosher. I don't want to eat an animal that I (mistakenly) thought was a rodent.


I hope no one minded the thread drift. It did result in an interesting (for me at least) discussion, and gave me a chance to dig into the scriptures a little.


----------



## PrettyPaisley

I didn't! I love reading about religion. Thanks for the insight!


----------



## Pat Lamar

Well, Deaconjim, perhaps you can help me with another rabbit/religion question to which I can't seem to find anything to substantiate it: 

I have read in TWO different books that, at one time, rabbit was considered not to be "meat" and placed in the same category as fish. This was supposedly for the purpose of allowing monks to eat rabbit on Fridays, during Lent, etc. I would like to know WHEN this came about, how this determination was made and/or based on (e.g., why was rabbit considered to be NON-meat), and what Pope authorized it. LOL... how's that for a project for ya?

Pat Lamar


----------



## tailwagging

I liked the thread.


----------



## tailwagging

Laurices are unborn or newly born rabbits.


"It is said that Pope Gregory I authorized the consumption of laurices during Lent and other fasts, declaring them to be a marine species, like fish or shellfish. For this reason there was a great burgeoning of cuniculture in monasteries during the early Middle Ages.[6]. The demand would have been high, considering that the ecclesiastical calendar of the time specified more than 180 fast days which religionists had to observe. The economics of cuniculture are also thought well suited to the monastic setting"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurices

"Laurice was officially classified as &#8220;fish&#8221; in 600 A.D. by Pope Gregory I, and thus permissible during Lent."
http://albc-usa.org/cpl/rabbits.html


uummm...ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww


----------



## deaconjim

Pat Lamar said:


> Well, Deaconjim, perhaps you can help me with another rabbit/religion question to which I can't seem to find anything to substantiate it:
> 
> I have read in TWO different books that, at one time, rabbit was considered not to be "meat" and placed in the same category as fish. This was supposedly for the purpose of allowing monks to eat rabbit on Fridays, during Lent, etc. I would like to know WHEN this came about, how this determination was made and/or based on (e.g., why was rabbit considered to be NON-meat), and what Pope authorized it. LOL... how's that for a project for ya?
> 
> Pat Lamar


I think they were refering to the rabbit fetus, known as a laurice. Both Pliny the Elder in _Naturalis Historia _and Gregory of Tours in _Historia Frankorum_ refer to the practice. It is said that Pope Gregory I authorized the eating of laurices as fish because they were found in water (amniotic fluid). 

According to E.K. Balon in the _Journal of Fish Biology 2004_ this was due largely to the fact that during the middle ages that there were more than 180days per year that the only animal protein that the priests, monks, and nuns could consume came from fish, shellfish, and laurices.


----------



## Pat Lamar

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I knew about laurices, as they were also commonly eaten as a delicacy dipped in honey in ancient Greece, so that makes sense. The two references I had read, however, didn't specify laurices, but just "rabbits," and that's what obviously threw me off track. This question has been bugging me for the past ten years and even my own church priests didn't know, so it's good to finally have an answer. Thank you to Tailwagging and Deaconjim!

Pat Lamar


----------



## Pony

PrettyPaisley said:


> Tailwagging-thanks for the warning. I won't take it that far-I can't live without TV or caffine. We seem pretty normal, I just don't want her in public school or watching MTV.


Meh, the "socialization" argument is specious.

IMO, there are some people with whom you don't WANT your children associating. Further, school is an artificial construct. Where else in the "real" world are you forced to learn in lockstep with your age cohort?

(Now observe how deftly I pull this back from a thread drift). Finally, do you really think that the discussion of "clean" vs "unclean" food will come up in your community school district? I mean, look at the so-called "lunches" served in most schools... Not a bite of rabbit meat in them.


----------



## southerngurl

> If we are to interpret Matthew 5:18-19 as you suggest, then I am as lost as a ball in high weeds. I don't have a tabernacle staffed by the tribe of Levi available to make animal sacrifices for my sins.


No, we have Christ instead.



> I buy meat at the local grocery store where they also handle pork. I cook on a stove that has been used to prepare pork, with utensils used to prepare pork, in a kitchen that has been used for the same purpose. We often eat in restaraunts where pork is served.


Unless your utensils are clay, it isn't a problem biblically. The jews have added their own things. As far as eating in a restaurant that serves pork, that's not specifically in the bible so it's a personal judgment call. I don't generally eat in them since what they serve isn't exactly food half the time IMO. Molecularly altered "foods" like hydrogenated oils just aren't what God made us to run on.


----------



## southerngurl

deaconjim said:


> I think they were refering to the rabbit fetus, known as a laurice. Both Pliny the Elder in _Naturalis Historia _and Gregory of Tours in _Historia Frankorum_ refer to the practice. It is said that Pope Gregory I authorized the eating of laurices as fish because they were found in water (amniotic fluid).
> 
> According to E.K. Balon in the _Journal of Fish Biology 2004_ this was due largely to the fact that during the middle ages that there were more than 180days per year that the only animal protein that the priests, monks, and nuns could consume came from fish, shellfish, and laurices.


Why would someone come up with a loophole in order to eat something that nasty?







http://planetsmilies.net/vomit-smiley-32.gif


----------



## Shrarvrs88

> Why would someone come up with a loophole in order to eat something that nasty?



I'm with you on this, Southerngirl. EEEWWWW......

Then again, some people care very much for rocky mountain oysters...


----------



## deaconjim

southerngurl said:


> Why would someone come up with a loophole in order to eat something that nasty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://planetsmilies.net/vomit-smiley-32.gif


That's one question I can't answer.


----------



## Truckinguy

> It is said that Pope Gregory I authorized the eating of laurices as fish because they were found in water (amniotic fluid).


Why not stretch this to include any mammal, then they could eat piglets, calves, lambs, etc. They were already changing the rules to suit themselves anyway, why not go all the way?


----------



## deaconjim

magicdave said:


> Understanding that the question posed did have religious aspects is not a reason to turn the thread into a religious debate. I will agree that Rabbit Meat isn't Kosher but another thought popped up regarding the absurdity of "dietary crowd control" regulations. Technically because I use worms to convert the manure under my rabbit hutches and then feed those worms to my chickens it would make logical sense that my chickens cannot be Kosher because they eat the worms that ate the poop from my "unclean" rabbits. Now THAT is a religious absurdity. My belief in a god ended when I was in first or second grade when I discovered that more people have died in the name of god than for any other reason. Then in "Sunday School" they tried to convince me that Samson defeated an entire army all by himself with the jawbone of an ass. I might have been 6 or 7 years old but even then I was not stupid. I found that the path to enlightenment is introspective and not in professing love for a fictitious "being" that supposedly is our creator. Compared to many animals raised for meat, Rabbits are one of the cleanest among them. It comes down to survival. Do you want to eat and live or follow some ancient story based on mythology and not eat but then stave to death. The maintaining of a religious law because of tradition seems absolutely absurd to me. I think I will add a new slogan to the labels on my Rabbit Meat products.
> "Cleaner than Kosher" now that would certainly get me in trouble with the many of the more orthodox Jewish sects but not my friends that are Jewish by birth but not religious. They would see the humor in it and have a hearty laugh but hopefully wouldn't choke while taking a bite of the big fat "uncured ham" sandwich I just made for them.


Nothing like calling all the Christians on the board stupid in your first post, while dredging up a thread that's been idle since August of last year. You're off to a good start, magicdave.


----------



## Pony

Wow, the guy HAS to be a troll. What in the world? It's like he came here looking for a fight, and when he couldn't find one, dredged up a discussion from last Summer.



Perhaps we should direct him to Dale Carnegie's _How to Make Friends and Influence People_?


----------



## John Massey

He might have to change his mind when he has to stand before God and explain that comment.:hammer:


----------



## byexample

Wow, this might just be the most eclectic and esoteric thread ever!  I've personally enjoyed the rambling nature of this thread.

As far as rabbit meat goes, I believe it's one of the more "clean" meats that we're able to produce. The way I look at it -- the older a creature becomes the more toxins it's body and fats accumulate. We butcher rabbits at 10 weeks old. They have never been given any medicine, vaccines, or chemicals and always have access to clean food and water. They go from cage to frig in under 15 minutes. And (perhaps most importantly) our rabbits are cherished and loved.

I can't see how meat could be any cleaner.

Ironically, I rarely hear of anyone questioning the cleanliness of chicken. And birds are some nasty, dirty creatures compared to the other livestock we raise. 

Thanks again for the great discussion.


----------



## Pony

byexample said:


> Wow, this might just be the most eclectic and esoteric thread ever!  I've personally enjoyed the rambling nature of this thread.
> 
> As far as rabbit meat goes, I believe it's one of the more "clean" meats that we're able to produce. The way I look at it -- the older a creature becomes the more toxins it's body and fats accumulate. We butcher rabbits at 10 weeks old. They have never been given any medicine, vaccines, or chemicals and always have access to clean food and water. They go from cage to frig in under 15 minutes. And (perhaps most importantly) our rabbits are cherished and loved.
> 
> I can't see how meat could be any cleaner.
> 
> Ironically, I rarely hear of anyone questioning the cleanliness of chicken. And birds are some nasty, dirty creatures compared to the other livestock we raise.
> 
> Thanks again for the great discussion.


I can understand why someone would avoid rabbit if they were following Levitical dietary laws, but I do know some fairly orthodox Jews who have no trouble eating coney if it's bled out to kill it. 

Some chickens can be nasty, but if you keep up after them, they're not too bad. Our pastured poultry is a lot nicer than the birds I have in the chicken houses!


----------



## tinknal

southerngurl said:


> I have read it, more than once. I am confused by what you mean here. It is not nearly impossible.
> 
> .


Do you keep two sets of utensils? Two refrigerators? Two washing sinks? Two sets of pots and pans?

Since you cannot know how most food is handled in a regular grocery store you would need to buy all fresh meat, dairy and produce in a Kosher grocery.


----------



## steff bugielski

tinknal said:


> Do you keep two sets of utensils? Two refrigerators? Two washing sinks? Two sets of pots and pans?
> 
> Since you cannot know how most food is handled in a regular grocery store you would need to buy all fresh meat, dairy and produce in a Kosher grocery.


Most kosher households do have two sets of everything, two sinks and two countertops. Not two refrigerators because if cold they can be kept together, meat and dairy that is.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

PrettyPaisley said:


> I have a question about this. I'm not Jewish and am no expert on the bible but from what I've been told the New Testement clears up the kosher issue and says all meat is clean. Right?


Not to bog you down in too many details, but "kosher" is not Biblical. It's a Judaism thing (religion). Yes, in the Old Testament, God said "do not eat a Coney" (which is thought to be a rabbit type animal). However, after Christ's Death and Ressurection and Assention, God said to Peter "kill and eat". The Lord had cleaned everything.



> I was talking to a friend I'd not seen in a couple of years. I may be picky about how I feed my kids but this lady is *really* picky. She told me that rabbit meat was not kosher (knew this) but that if you study the science behind it rabbits don't have the multiple stomaches other animals have to clean the meat well before it's consumed.
> 
> It makes some sence since a rabbit is just a rodent but I wasn't sure if it if made enought sence not to eat them. I don't have rabbits because I think they are cute or because they smell nice (OMG they are stinky)-but because I want a variety of easy to raise/process/control what they eat animals. But I don't want to be eating unclean meat. (And no, we don't eat a lot of pork because all I really like is bacon and sausage and I don't need to have it around or I'd eat it everyday.)
> 
> Any thoughts on this?


What The Bible Says About Healthy Living by Dr. Rex Russell 
This book does a great job of explaining Biblical Truths about food, diet, and restrictions. It's not 'religion' but just the facts.
It's not a huge book, and it's a very easy read.

HTH


----------



## breckenmore

Macybaby said:


> Jesus said that it is not what we put in our mouths that makes us "clean or unclean"
> 
> Jesus did not address the issue of whether certain foods are safe (healthy) to eat. Modern cooking and cleaning methods address a lot of issues that use to be major concerns.
> 
> From a Christian perspective, if you eat raw pork, you are not going to be condemned by God for it, but you may still get trichinosis (though current practices have cut the likely hood of that way down too). If you research, you can find that for a lot of the "unclean" issues mentioned, there were real health safety issues that went with them because of the living conditions of the time.


I agree wholeheartedly. Modern cooking, cleaning, and preserving methods plus common sense clear up most if not all of these issues.


----------



## breckenmore

deaconjim said:


> I think they were refering to the rabbit fetus, known as a laurice. Both Pliny the Elder in _Naturalis Historia _and Gregory of Tours in _Historia Frankorum_ refer to the practice. It is said that Pope Gregory I authorized the eating of laurices as fish because they were found in water (amniotic fluid).
> 
> According to E.K. Balon in the _Journal of Fish Biology 2004_ this was due largely to the fact that during the middle ages that there were more than 180days per year that the only animal protein that the priests, monks, and nuns could consume came from fish, shellfish, and laurices.


It's funny how you can find a loophole if you really want to eat something. I have a couple friends that have gone on safari that told me the local muslims were extremely happy when they bagged their hippos as they consider them fish since they live in water.

Just found this thread and it was a very interesting read.


----------



## Uncle JD

Shalom,

This is a really funny thread. Loved reading it.  

Shalom V'berekot,

jd


----------



## Pat Lamar

Just so y'all know... Catholics did NOT "invent" the eating of rabbit fetuses (laurices). They were a common treat enjoyed in Greece and were eaten dipped in honey. LOL

Pat Lamar


----------



## XLT

that mental image first thing in the morning is something I could have done without


----------



## Cheribelle

I also enjoyed this thread. Nothing to contribute.... But it does seem pretty wierd to call a hippo a fish....


----------



## pfaubush

Wow. This is the thread that keeps on giving. I learned quite a bit last year and am learning more this time around (though some of it I could have done without knowing).


----------



## Macybaby

Though a bit off topic - I remember my Mom telling me that the old timers (when she was little) said it was OK to eat mudhens during lent. They said that because they could sit in the cold water and thier feet didn't freeze, they were "cold blooded" and ok to eat.

At some point, the Parish Priest found out about it and put a stop to it. 

BTW, most other waterfall had headed south for the winters, but there always seemed to be some mudhens that would stick around on any open water they found - even in MN winters.

Now days, it seems lots of people use Lent as a reason to go out for nice fish dinners on Friday - somehow I don't see how that works in with the intent of the season.


----------



## Annsni

deaconjim said:


> I do recognize that there are two messages in this passage, and I believe both are applicable. Your interpretation is of course, the primary message, but I do not believe God would have used this vision as an illustration if both messages were not accurate. Given just this particular part, I would not take it in itself to mean that all meats are acceptable. There is an abundance of scripture that give me reason to believe that the dietary laws are no longer in effect.
> 
> First, given the fact that Christ's death means that we are no longer living under the law, that would include dietary laws. We are saved by Christ, not by what we eat. Romans chapter 7 explains this very well. The dietary laws were a part of the ritualistic obedience commanded by God to the Jews. The purpose of the law was to illustrate our inability to achieve the perfection necessary for salvation. Rituals cannot save us, only Christ can do that.
> 
> If we are still bound by the dietary laws, then are we not bound by all of them? If that were the case, we would not be able to shop in most grocery stores, eat in any restaurant; and in fact, our most people would have to make some major changes in their own kitchens. Read Leviticus chapter 11 and you will see that it would be nearly impossible for most Americans to live by these laws.
> 
> Another important point to consider is that Christ told us that it is what comes out of a man's mouth that defiles him, not what goes in.
> 
> Consider also Paul's instruction to the Corinthians in I Corinthians 10:25-28. If the dietary laws were still applicable, this instruction would have been in error. Also consider verse 23 of this chapter:
> 
> 
> 
> Romans chapter 14 gives us further insight into this matter. The entire chapter is instructional, but the last 4 verses sum it up:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many churches today that teach people that they are still bound by these laws, but they are in error. Colossians 2:16 warns us about taking heed of such teachings:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Timothy Chapter 4 verses 1-5 warn us about this as well:
> 
> 
> 
> The laws were given to provide us with a clear contrast to the things of this world and those of God. We cannot depend on ourselves or earthly things for salvation, Christ alone is our path to the Father.


I was going to post a long response to southerngirl - but this sums it up!! Thanks for giving me the extra time to work on the ladies' retreat! LOL

So I agree with DeaconJim.


----------



## Annsni

I should really learn to read thread dates. Sorry to respond to such an old thread!


----------



## brown22jkb

It is great to see you look at the OT and try to understand why it is unclean. I look at it this way. Can we 100% scientifically prove it is a clean meat? No! Our Creator who never changes who is the beginning and the end may know a little more then us about His creation. 

Scientifically speaking I am not impressed with the whole recycling its own poop and the fact that it is close relation to a rodent. 

Jewish Kosher laws usually add to the written laws of the OT and complicate things and it can be overwhelming. I try and stay away from them. I simply read the bible and try and use common since to discern what is clean and unclean. It sounds like you are trying to do the same thing. Keep it up:grin:


----------



## mekasmom

PrettyPaisley said:


> the New Testement clears up the kosher issue and says all meat is clean. Right?
> 
> 
> It makes some sence since a rabbit is just a rodent
> Any thoughts on this?



A rabbit is actually a lagomorph not a rodent. And the NT does clear it up for me. It's all clean now.


----------



## Pony

The Thread That Doesn't End
(sung to the tune of The Song That Doesn't End)

This is the thread that doesn't end,
It just goes on and on my friend!
Some people started asking for
The answers to God's laws
And they'll continue talking 'bout it
Forever just because....

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_47KVJV8DU[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Pony

Argh. The youtube linky thing never works for me...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_47KVJV8DU


----------



## SimplerTimez

PrettyPaisley said:


> I have a question about this. I'm not Jewish and am no expert on the bible but from what I've been told the New Testement clears up the kosher issue and says all meat is clean. Right?
> 
> I was talking to a friend I'd not seen in a couple of years. I may be picky about how I feed my kids but this lady is *really* picky. She told me that rabbit meat was not kosher (knew this) but that if you study the science behind it rabbits don't have the multiple stomaches other animals have to clean the meat well before it's consumed.
> 
> It makes some sence since a rabbit is just a rodent but I wasn't sure if it if made enought sence not to eat them. I don't have rabbits because I think they are cute or because they smell nice (OMG they are stinky)-but because I want a variety of easy to raise/process/control what they eat animals. But I don't want to be eating unclean meat. (And no, we don't eat a lot of pork because all I really like is bacon and sausage and I don't need to have it around or I'd eat it everyday.)
> 
> Any thoughts on this?


As a Torah observant person, perhaps I can shed some light on this question. First of all 'kosher' is not a Torah term; it is related to kashrut, which is a rabbinical Jewish term and is found nowhere in the text.

Tamei and tahor are the words you are looking for, which have to do with all kinds of things being fit for certain purposes - eating, sex, wearing, sacrificing, etc. They are normally translated as 'clean' and 'unclean'.

A rabbit is not tahor (fit or clean) for consumption by someone who observes the laws of Torah. Nor is it 'fit' to be offered as a sacrifice, were one wanting to do so. A rabbit is tamei in that arena.

Having a rabbit, raising a rabbit, etc., all fine for a Torah keeper. We just don't eat them  (or lots of other things)

The whole purpose of the Torah was to distinguish between the clean and the unclean. 

There is nothing in the Torah about different dishes, or not eating a cheeseburger either. Those are what the rabbi's called 'putting a fence around the Torah', and are additional, man-made rules. 

I hope that sheds some light on some of the terms, meanings and how it relates to bre'r rabbit (or would that be Scottish rarebit - has no rabbit in it...lol)

~ST


----------



## arnie

go on and raise a nice clean rabbit in a nice clean environment .milk your healthy cow raiese your own healthy pig .feed yourself and them off the garden and farm take care feeding them and keeping them shiny healthy .when the time comes for them to feed you put em in the pot' and like me you will be shiny and healthy ,


----------

