This comes due to the conceptual meaning of the mother’s milk as something that god made for nurture of the calf
Doing this would be extremely cruel and usage against the intended purpose
The principle was to instill a sense of profound abhorrence against cruel and unnatural acts as guidance towards perfection demanded of them to be able to be god’s chosen people.
Jesus managed to completely fulfill the spirit of the law. Since that moment it was abolished for a new law.
Animals were only a part of it and thinking more about it, the Law contained a number of similar injunctions against cruelty to animals and safeguards against working contrary to the natural order of things.
For instance, the also Law included commands that prohibited sacrificing an animal unless it had been with its mother for at least seven days, slaughtering both an animal and its offspring on the same day, and taking from a nest both a mother and her eggs or offspring
(Leviticus 22:27, 28; Deuteronomy 22:6, 7)
I can’t believe my friend broke containment this hard I woke up to it on lemmy lmfao
I sort of used to have the same problem. You know, if you’re gonna add oat milk to your oatmeal, you might as well just use water. But, whatever the reason, it sites taste better with oat milk.
I bet that tastes dope.
I like Rabbi Joseph Bekhor Shor’s interpretation. It’s far from being accepted in Judaism - probably because it makes so much sense.
The interpretation is based on the fact that the passage originally appears in Exodus twice - but not in a section about Kosher laws. It appears in sections about Bikurim - bringing offerings to the temple:
- https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+23%3A14-19&version=CSB
- https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+34%3A22-26&version=CSB
The very same verse that contains that law also contains a law about Bikkurim:
Bring the best firstfruits of your land to the house of the Lord your God.
You must not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.
Because these two laws seem so unrelated, Rabbi Joseph Bekhor Shor suggests a different way to read the second part.
In Hebrew, the root of the word “cook”/“boil” is B-SH-L - and this is also the root of the word “ripe”/“mature”. Because of that, it’s possible to read “you must not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk” as “you must not let a young goat mature while drinking its mother’s milk”.
This makes the second part of the verse a repetition of the first part - a pattern very common in the Old Testament as a (vain) attempt to prevent misinterpretations. Reading it like so, both parts mean “the offerings should be as young and as fresh as possible”.
That reading is a little bit odd - but not too odd in biblical language standards, and it makes so much more sense in the context where the passage appears.
You know what also doesn’t make sense? Not boiling chicken in milk. I can guarantee you that’s not the milk of the chicken’s mother. The “don’t boil a young goat in the milk of its mother” thing at least has a proper interpretation in the sense of “there were some people who did that and God came and God said ‘yo that’s nasty, stop it’”. Something about not using sacrifice as an opportunity to practice transgression.
In the end I think scripture is just a tool for Jews to have something to argue about endlessly.
In the end I think scripture is just a tool for Jews to have something to argue about endlessly.
Considering how that’s the main way to gain fame in Judaism - you’re not wrong.
Copium at its finest.
I don’t think this word means what you think it means… what is “copium” about discussing possible origins of dogma?
OP is literally saying “this widespread institutionally-reinforced religious practice/dietary restriction could all be due to a mistranslation”, what exactly are they coping with?
The copium is coming up for excuses for why religious stuff doesn’t make sense. There is no one on the face of the earth that can reconcile passages from religious texts such as these. Sometimes data and dogma can not be reconciled and you just need to take things in faith.
I… uh… what? This still isn’t how words work.
I repeat:
what exactly are they coping with?
Who is coping here? With what? It’s… an athiest coping with a lack of faith? A jewish person coping with flaws in their religious law?
There is no one on the face of the earth that can reconcile passages from religious texts such as these.
Uh… way to just miss the point of the entire religion.
All of Judaism - down to their goddamn rite of manhood - is built upon literacy. Reading and interpreting the will of God. Scholarly analysis of their own texts - reconciling the word with the world - is literally the foundation of their entire religion.
You’re not following what I’m saying and it’s fine. It’s not that deep. Enjoy the rest of your day.
Given how many homographs and other homonyms English has (and presumably other languages, I’ve definitely seen one Hebrew homograph when vowels are removed), it doesn’t sound like a complete stretch for this to be a similar homonym situation.
opposite idea from mixing powdered milknin fresh milk for “more milk per milk.”
I’m conceptually opposed to oat milk generally.
It makes for a mean cappuccino, and is environmentally much, much lower impact.
Wow yea that sounds pretty sociopathic
It’s why I refuse to eat chicken and eggs
Might also avoid corn at the same time, if you’re not getting pasture-fed eggs.
Deuteronomy is originally from the Hebrew Bible. According to Jewish mythology, the book is from the sermons of Moses. Though, it’s believed to be much more recent (something like a 1000 years) than the time period where the figure of Moses (or the person(s) he was based on) would have existed. But, even taking Jewish and Christian mythologies at their word, Jesus had nothing to do with that rule. Also, Jesus probably meant for this rule to end for adherents of Christianity.
Mark 7:14-23:
14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this.
15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.”
17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable.
18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them?
19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
20 He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them.
21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder,
22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.
23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”So, feel free to boil a young goat in its mother’s milk. Jesus is A-ok with that.
As I understand it, Jewish followers of the Jesus movement were meant to keep the law. However, especially after the death of Jesus, there was a lot of interest in getting gentiles on board and they, at least according to some authors (and apparently this was not a unified position?), the gentiles were not bound by the law (or maybe only by the Noahide law).
The law as per scripture is just guidance towards an impossible goal for god’s worshippers and part of his chosen.
Jesus managed to fulfill the spirit of the law. Hence since that moment the law was overridden. It was replaced by a new law since then.
This isn’t a sermon of Moses, it’s God’s law. God said to follow his law forever. Christians ignore it, but Jesus said to follow the law forever too.
It’s Yahweh’s laws but the mythology has it provided by Moses in his sermons to the Israelites. As for Christians ignoring bits of it, part of that is based on saying attributed to Jesus in the gospels (e.g. the bit from Mark I quoted above) and also the simple fact that most religions update themselves as society changes. If anything, I think the Catholic church was smart to have a leader who could receive “new revelations from God”. It lets them update canon, while maintaining the illusion that they aren’t just making shit up to stay relevant.
Deuteronomy is originally from the Hebrew Bible
And further back? Babylonian? There’s some Gilgamesh and Atrahasis in the bible, Moses among others…
I would be surprised if they were borrowing ideas from other cultures in the area (and vice versa). The various peoples in Mesopotamia were interacting regularly; so, some back and forth of ideas is to be expected. Though as a law code, Deuteronomy seems like it would be more home grown.
Sorry, just recognized my typo, I meant to say “I wouldn’t be surprised…”., Not sure how I missed that.
Same reason it’s weird to serve chicken with eggs. No need to wipe out the whole family in one meal
I usually refer to a chicken omelette as a Family Reunion.
As much as I appreciate Japanese culture, they also created Oyakodon, which literally means “parent-and-child rice bowl”. Like damn, Japan, what’d those birds ever do to you to necessitate multi-generational violence?
to clarify a bit, you get both the meat of a chicken as well as the egg of a chicken
Then you extrapolate that and the only way to stay kosher is to never prepare meat with dairy. No philly cheese steak, no butter.
Strict households also have completely separate cookware, sinks, and even ovens/stoves. That blew my mind a bit when I first saw it.
There’s more, especially with dishes and flatware.
- milk vs meat
- Sabbath vs the rest of the week
- Passover vs the rest of the year
One of my colleague like to have roasted potato with vegan mayo. So he is having potatoes cooked in oil together with potatos emulsified with oil.
That sounds like an interesting vegan mayo recipe. My wife has tried a few and none contained potatoes.
Jesus was born 5-7 centuries after this was written down, he don’t know either.
