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.
Deuteronomy is originally from the Hebrew Bible
And further back? Babylonian? There’s some Gilgamesh and Atrahasis in the bible, Moses among others…
Further back than Babylon. We’re talking ancient Sumer.
Sorry, much further back than the Cappadocians and you’ve lost me
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.
Also, Jesus probably meant for this rule to end for adherents of Christianity.
I mean, Jesus was Jewish and he wouldn’t have called his followers Christians because he hadn’t died on a cross yet. He would have called them his Jewish brothers and his followers would have done the same for decades afterwards. He was the leader of a sect of Judaism.
I think what he’s referring to is much of the Jewish traditions (by other Christian denominations) are deemed unnecessary because Jesus fulfilled the prophecies and therefore “preparation” for his coming is no longer required.
It’s a little hard to explain but that’s why Christians don’t do any of the dietary restrictions in the old testament.
I understand what he’s saying, he’s saying that the followers believe something different.
I’m saying none of that matters. It’s like being Catholic versus Lutheran, but Jewish vs. other Jewish that thinks Jesus was the Messiah. Still Jewish for at least decades, probably centuries.
They believed that while he was still alive. We know this because he and his disciples celebrated Passover at the last supper and they thought he was the messiah while he was alive.
15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.”
Jesus is against the pull out method confirmed.
It’s been a long time since I read any of the bible, but wasn’t there some story in it somewhere where some guy uses that and is immediately killed by god or something? (albiet I think the justification was some sort of tradition obligating him to have a child with a specific person, and his behavior was supposed to be exploiting that without fulfilling his end or something like that).
Onan was punished because he was trying to fuck over Tamar. Tamar was his brother’s wife, and his brother died. Because women had essentially no rights or property, it was expected that a widow without children would be given to her husbands brother, so he could knock her up and have a son to take care of her. (Levirate marriage)
Onan was trying to screw Tamar out of being able to survive - trying to make it so that he would inherit all of his father Judah’s money. God noticed this, and killed him.
The funny part is the follow up - Judah has another son, but is like “oh shit, this women is cursed. She’s lead to the death of two of my sons, I don’t want to lose the last one.” So he tells her to go hang out with her parents until his son is “ready” - clearly intending to blow her off forever.
So Tamar eventually catches on, realizes that she’s never getting what’s hers, so dresses up like a temple prostitute and goes to the city. Judah comes across her disguised as a prostitute, and she asks for his family crest as payment for their roll in the hay.
After this, she becomes pregnant. The elders of the group bring her before Judah, saying “hey, your daughter in law is a massive whore and is pregnant. We’re going to kill her.” He asks her who knocked her up, she produces the crest.
Judah is then like “oh dang, you got me.” She doesn’t get killed, she gets her inheritance, and is possibly an ancestor of Jesus.
Really an amazing trickster figure - very reminiscent of Jacob and Esau. The coolest story in the Bible imho - it’s so out of pocket and against the way that women are usually shown in Genesis (in a way that makes me suspect there’s a true story here somewhere). She’s just as clever as Jacob, and clearly more clever than Judah.
Onan, which is why wanking is called onanism. To me it’s an odd story because it seems more like a social construct than a divine command. So I wonder if it’s been heavily abridged and he died for some other reason that’s been left out and they just said God did it because they wanted to reinforce that construct. If God really had a habit of dropping bodies just for spilling their seed, well, let’s just say there’d be several thousand reasons why I wouldn’t be typing this right now.
Ancient stories are almost always parabolic. If there’s not a lesson to be made, then it’s not preserved. Recording history only for history’s sake a fairly modern value. So you’re absolutely right. Ancient texts, especially scriptures, tend to attribute things to god whenever it’s convenient for the narrative.
That would be Onan, found in Genesis chapter 38.
No idea, but wouldn’t be surprised.
Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is good. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.
So, feel free to boil a young goat in its mother’s milk. Jesus is A-ok with that.
How did you get that it was alright to boil a young goat in its mother’s milk out of that?
Sure, he says you could eat the young goat that has been boiled in its mother’s milk.
But nothing saying it’s alright to boil the young goat in the first place, which the OP verse clearly states.
It’s a technicality. Jesus didn’t require any of the old law to be followed unless expressly said otherwise. The only two things that were expressly said otherwise was “love God” and “love your neighbor”. Therefore, baby goat milk boiling is fine.
Check, check, probably not, check, check, check, check, maybe?, check, check, check and check.
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 God’s law for the Israelites. Jesus was supposed to represent the start of a new era with new (less restrictive) rules to match if I understand this stuff right.
Christians say that but Jesus said “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
Okay that’s fair.
I’m just an atheist that enjoys the subject. None of this makes sense. As you pointed out, this is for Israelites. Jesus didn’t give a shit about gentiles. When the gentile woman asked him to heal her daughter he said he was there for the children of Israel and it would be wrong to take food from children to feed the dogs. 2000 years later and a billion gentiles think he’s sitting on a cloud waiting to hear about their day
From what I remember she gave a good answer and he healed her daughter. Matt 15:25-28.
There’s also the Great Commission “[Jesus said] go and make disciples of all nations” Matt 28. Jesus does give a shit about Gentiles but his mission was to Israel; it would be the church’s mission to bring the Good News to the whole world.
The Old Testament Law/Covenant still stands today and you have the choice to try to follow it if you want. I don’t see why you would want to because it’s “to be perfect you have to do all this all your life but TLDR you’ve already broken it so it’s impossible and you’re already condemned”. Jesus introduced a new covenant (aka testament, hence “New Testament”, also called “New Covenant” in some bibles) of grace and forgiveness, which is superior to the Old. We don’t ignore the Old as such, we just follow the New because it’s better.
How does this benefit your neighbour? If you love God you love thy neighbour and vice versa.
Also what is your take on Mathew 22?
I don’t see how quoting the two most important commandments negates any of the rest. It goes against when he said to follow all of them, even the least of them, until the end of the earth
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.
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
They made themselves taste delicious!
they didn’t tho we did that
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.
According to what I’ve read, the leading theory among scholars today is that this passage is a reference to pagan Canaanite rituals and we have some evidence in the literature of the time that this was indeed practiced.
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.
More oats per oats
I have dairy in my diet, but when it comes to porridge, oat milk only please
Jesus was born 5-7 centuries after this was written down, he don’t know either.
This would have come from a time when ancient Judaism was evolving out of its polytheistic roots. The early sections of the Hebrew scriptures tended to treat other gods as existing, but you’re only supposed to worship YHWH.
Likely, there was some specific ritual that had been used in local polytheistic practices, and it’s specifically telling you not to do that.
This is an issue for the sort of fundamentalists who insist that absolutely everything in the bible is useful for modern times. You say that, but then what’s this goat milk thing about? How about all the idolatry prohibitions when many modern Christians won’t regularly encounter religions that use idols? Why is there a whole book devoted to Solomon’s horny poetry?
You can kinda come up with answers to those, but they will invariably involve some kind of “reading between the lines”. That is, reading assumptions into the text that aren’t explicitly stated. Which fundamentalists also say you’re not supposed to do.
My favourite is that you cannot wear clothes made from more than one kind of thread.
Which means, in essence, that in the XXI c., literally everybody, including priests, is a sinner, and goes to hell, because everything is a blend these days.
Even in medical times, clothes were usually made with wool fabric and sewn with linen thread for strength. Some Jewish communities would only wear kosher clothing sewn with wool thread.
Not Jewish - but my understandings: Those are ritual laws. Non Jews aren’t bound by them. I don’t think the idea is ever that you “go to hell” for not following those rules in Judaism.
It’s more that you have a covenant with God, where you have agreed to follow a set of rules. The rules themselves are less important than the fact that you have an agreement about this with the higher power - that you keep yourself pure and honor that power through these rules. I think in the historical context a lot of the purity rules are a way of distinguishing your group from others - creating a shared culture around those rules.
Why is there a whole book devoted to Solomon’s horny poetry?
I have a theory…
Then you extrapolate that and the only way to stay kosher is to never prepare meat with dairy. No philly cheese steak, no butter.
The rabbinical standard is that you should have 6 hours between a meat meal and a dairy meal.
And yeah, no butter. Kosher delis will use schmaltz (a kind of animal fat) instead of 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.
This kept happening, and was eventually responsible for a substantial portion of the events in Unsong.
Thank you! I was hoping to see a comment about Unsong!
I mean I do feel weird whenever I do this. The solution is soy milk!
Same reason it’s weird to serve chicken with eggs. No need to wipe out the whole family in one meal
Using an egg to coat the tendies is delicious
I’m taking that as a challenge
I usually refer to a chicken omelette as a Family Reunion.
And that’s the justification for why rabbi-created kosher laws say “no cheeseburgers”
Separate your milk plates from your meat or you may boil a young goat in its mothers milk!
Wow yea that sounds pretty sociopathic
Reminds me of the milk rice I made with rice milk. Not a good idea. I generally don’t like rice milk so that might be why. Muesli with oat milk is fine
Wait is goat meat boiled in goat milk particularly tasty? What’s the deal? Anyone done a small portion?
Buttermilk roasted chicken is delicious, so I assume it’s a similar lactose reaction. And you’d use goats milk because you have goats.
Butter is just milk with extra steps. There are quite a few things you can cook with milk (or specifically creams) that you would typically use butter for that you wouldn’t think. Steak is a good example.
Of course it’s not a 1:1 replacement, but that is kind of the point. The question is: How of you prefer your milk fats to taste when cooked? (If you are cooking a steak, are you after a specific butter flavor or a deeper cooked dairy flavor?)
Are you calling for people to eat milksteaks boiled over hard?
gif
Milk-braised veal is a thing; perhaps it is tasty.
