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.

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

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.

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.

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 mean I do feel weird whenever I do this. The solution is soy milk!

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?

opposite idea from mixing powdered milknin fresh milk for "more milk per milk."

More oats per oats

I have dairy in my diet, but when it comes to porridge, oat milk only please

Wow yea that sounds pretty sociopathic

Jesus was born 5-7 centuries after this was written down, he don't know either.

Then you extrapolate that and the only way to stay kosher is to never prepare meat with dairy. No philly cheese steak, no butter.

I'm conceptually opposed to oat milk generally.