Daniel

Genesis 1 It's not tripartite in kabalah. The best example is betzalel The attributes of god are not negations in kabalah. The k'lipot are negations.

You didn't read this one either did you? A reverberation. Possible source.. not certain influence. There it is... ~eye-rolls~ Since the story doesn't ACTUALLY match they ASSUME it was changed. That's all that should be needed here to dismiss this. If the story needs to be changed in order to make the point, then it's w-e-a-k.

Moshe Idel... who studies Abulafia... who is a devotee to Maimonides... who was condemned and cursed by kabalists...

Did you read it? As is shown below, there is nothing clear about any direction of infuence into Judaism. The scholar actually avoids the prime example of Maimonides who was cursed by the mystical community after attempting to smuggle greek wisdom into judaism. Hints that look like... <--- not even close to certainty It's not so clear. <--- not even close to certainty There's some shared ideas? Between Judaism and Isalm? Of course! The direction of influence is Judaism ----> Islam. Anyone who has studied the Quran can attest to this. Right! There is a methodology which is found in the written at that time and place, around 1000CE. There was a philosophical bebate happening between Jewish, Islamic, and Greek philosophers. In order to debate, they adopt each other's language and methods inorder to show where they're right and where they're wrong. There was an attempt to smuggle greek wisdom into Judaism. I'll get too that. Important Note: The scholar is admitting that their conclusion deviates from what the authors actually have written. OK. They don't know why, probably because they haven't studied Tanach and Talmud. None the less, this is an argument from ignorance. "What else could it be?" is far from certain. Uh-huh. Very important but they don't tell you the whole story. Maimonides' books werre burned. The mystical community condemned his work. Some thought he was possessed. Some thought his work was forged. The scholar doesn't tell you that. The Ravad, a famous kabalist cursed Maimonides. It doesn't get much harsher than that. When it crosses the line from methodology to adopting ( and in Maimonides case perscribing ) other religious concepts, that is NOT Judaism.

Similarities are not influence. And if you haven't read it, then, this is just parroting someone else's ideas without understanding them. This is typical. It doesn't appear to me that you are capable of having an actual discussion of the merits ( or lack there of ) of these opinions.

It seems as if the notion is "they didn't have it in writing." Plato wrote about creating an illusion of ancient divine authority over the law. Having the blessing on an amulet shows that there was a divine authority in writting PRIOR to the hellenist era, prior to being iinfluenced by the greeks. The dating is off. Gmirkin doesn't know about the archeology, probably. OK. It looks like I'm not the only one who is noticing some major problems in this idea: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_Torah#Criticism_of_Hellenistic_origin_theories It doesn't look like he has any real credentials. It doesn't matter too much to me. Anyone can come up with good ideas. But he's not a "scholar" so the appeal to authority doesn't work here at all. http://russellgmirkin.com/biography-and-publications

Compilation is not conception. "with much evidence ... " People say they have ample evidence for these sorts of claims and then on examination it turns out to be minimal and often misuderstood. I've heard all this stuff before. If you have something to discuss, please bring it so we can discuss it. If you're claiming a direction of influence, then, you'd need to show it. Otherwise it's just a popular idea. Do you know what kabalah is? Do you actually know what you're talking about here? I'm serious. Have you read the Zohar, can you read aramaic? Plato didn't come anywhere near these subjects. Please don't mispresent what I wrote. There are 2 issues. They are seperate. If you smoosh them together, that is misrepreseting me. Issue 1: Judaism is defined by the Torah. That's it. Denying the Torah is denying Judaism. Issue 2: Jewish people often do things which are against the law. When they are breaking the law, they are not practicing Judaism. This does not change the law. If the speed-limit is 55. Driving 75 does not change the law. It really is that simple. It doesn't matter if the one who wrote the law is driving 100. They are still breaking the law. The reason that I'm saying it didn't happen is because: 1) there is no evidence to support it 2) it makes no sense for the ones who are preaching not to do it, to do it anyway. That encourages people to flock to the other religions. 3) The entire tanach would need to have been rewritten in order to support this idea that judaism is syncretic and was influenced by the greeks and egyptians Start with #1, bring some actual evidence of influence. No, "I heard it on youtube", or, "I read it in a book" doesn't work. People tell stories about Judaism all the time. On examination they turn out to be false. If you can't bring a real example, it's just a rumor. Enuma Elish has been debunked. The Epic Gilgamesh has already been debunked. You'd need to bring the actual stories and their actual dates so that we can discuss them. Name dropping them doesn't work. I've researched it before. Yes the epistles came first, but the ideas you're talking about seem to be missing from the stories of Jesus. If they were included then there would be no debates about them.

The point is, criticising the word choice "what you call mind" is inappropriate. I didn't choose that word. What relevance does it have? The words you've chosen are not defined there? It's completely unrelated. What is preventing it from being pulled forth? And, may we review for a moment? Maybe take a detour? Chaitanya? = "empty/clear-light-of-knowing"? What was previously referred to as "awareness"? Is this also what should be used instead of "thought"? The quad: manas-chitta-buddhi-ahamkara? Does this quad have a name? Manas? "the reflected concsciousness"? Is this where "being-ness" is reflected? Buddhi? you wrote this is "pulling"? Was that an intentional word choice? It "pulls"? What is "driving" it? What directs the buddhi to pull the specific impression from chitta? Of all the impressions that are collected there ( hopefully "collected" is a good word for this ), what is making the selection? Ahamkara? The ego? ( public enemy #1. I'm kidding. It's everyone's favorite scapegoat. ) You wrote the memory is "appropriated". That's interesting. I would very much appreciate elaboration on this appropriation? It's claiming the memory as itself?

What sort of bad memories?

Just a note, I'm using the same word choices you are using. "Thought" and "Mind" are your word choices. Not helpful. Seems perfectly reasonable. We're discussing forgotten-memories. A memory is an impression stored in the chitta. What happens when it is forgotten?

No. But if you read the prophets you'll see that institutional power structures always-always fail. 1 Samuel: 8:1 ויהי כאשר זקן שמואל וישם את־בניו שפטים לישראל׃ And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel. 8:2 ויהי שם־בנו הבכור יואל ושם משנהו אביה שפטים בבאר שבע׃ And the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba. 8:3 ולא־הלכו בניו בדרכו ויטו אחרי הבצע ויקחו־שחד ויטו משפט׃ And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after unjust gain, and took bribes, and perverted judgment. This is a complete departure from what the other nations ( all of them ) were doing by setting up genetic dynasties. Then what happens? 8:4 ויתקבצו כל זקני ישראל ויבאו אל־שמואל הרמתה׃ Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel to Ramah, 8:5 ויאמרו אליו הנה אתה זקנת ובניך לא הלכו בדרכיך עתה שימה־לנו מלך לשפטנו ככל־הגוים׃ And said to him, Behold, you are old, and your sons walk not in your ways; now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. 8:6 וירע הדבר בעיני שמואל כאשר אמרו תנה־לנו מלך לשפטנו ויתפלל שמואל אל־יהוה׃ But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed to the Lord. 8:7 ויאמר יהוה אל־שמואל שמע בקול העם לכל אשר־יאמרו אליך כי לא אתך מאסו כי־אתי מאסו ממלך עליהם׃ And the Lord said to Samuel, Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. 8:8 ככל־המעשים אשר־עשו מיום העלתי אתם ממצרים ועד־היום הזה ויעזבני ויעבדו אלהים אחרים כן המה עשים גם־לך׃ According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, how they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also to you. They wanted to setup an instituion like all the other nations. Not good... not good at all.

Let's look at what was posted. If there was not a written torah prior to 2nd temple era, then, Jesus would have had nothing to quote. So, whatever it is that is beng conjectured, it would have happened prior to 2nd temple era. Around 270 BCE is a good estimate for when the written torah was stiched up into a scroll, for lack of better words. Until then, it's very difficult to say what was written. That's fair. But. It cannot be anything drastically different, otherwise the population would not accept it. There's no way to change the paradigm and get everyone to agree on tribes and a lineage from abraham, if, everyone has a pre-existing lineage from canaanites. When it comes to law, OK. That makes sense to say to a population: "Hear-ye, Hear-ye, you didn't know it, but God has decreed from sinai no mixing wool and linen!". OK. The population may accept that. But they would never accept, en mass, "You're Levi. You're Benjamin. You're Asher. No... don't argue. You're Asher..." like some sort of harry-potter sorting ceremony. People know their lineage. From there, the question becomes, who is the abraham person, what made him significant... and the story flows from there. Did abraham come from polytheism ( pagan )? absolutely! But he rejected it. ויאמר יהושע אל־כל־העם כה־אמר יהוה אלהי ישראל בעבר הנהר ישבו אבותיכם מעולם תרח אבי אברהם ואבי נחור ויעבדו אלהים אחרים׃ And Joshua said to all the people, Thus said the Lord God of Israel, Your fathers lived on the other side of the river in old time, Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nahor; and they served other gods.

Whatever I bring will likely be denied... But here is something from 600BCE. That's 300 years prior to hellenstic times. Something like this doesn't magically poof into existence. These scriptures would greatly predate 600BCE. And if the words were not considered of divine origin, they would have not have been fashioned into an amulet. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketef_Hinnom_scrolls If that's the filter you're using, then facts are irrelevant.

Assumption ^^ Judaism rejected the canaanite "milieu". Rejection is the opposite of syncretic. A common misconception. ^^ Nope. Jewish kabalah is found in Tanach. So it's not borrowing nor influenced by it. If they were worshipping egyptian gods, they were not practicing judaism. It really is simple. Leviticus: 18:3 כמעשה ארץ־מצרים אשר ישבתם־בה לא תעשו וכמעשה ארץ־כנען אשר אני מביא אתכם שמה לא תעשו ובחקתיהם לא תלכו׃ After the doings of the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, shall you not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan, where I bring you, shall you not do; nor shall you walk in their ordinances. The fact that some people, or even many people did it, is irrelevant. That confirms the story in the hebrew bible. None the less, it's an assumption that there were no monotheistic jews in the area. The wiki article below indicates otherwise. In the course of this appeal, the Jewish inhabitants of Elephantine speak of the antiquity of the damaged temple: Now our forefathers built this temple in the fortress of Elephantine back in the days of the kingdom of Egypt, and when Cambyses came to Egypt he found it built. They (the Persians) knocked down all the temples of the gods of Egypt, but no one did any damage to this temple. Notice the distinction? Their forefatthers built the temple to YHVH, the god of abraham, isaac, and jacob. And persians didn't knock it down. That specific temple was not egyptian. IOW, not syncretic. It's different. the papyri show that the Jews at Elephantine sent letters to the high priest in Jerusalem asking for his support in re-building their temple, which seems to suggest that the priests of the Jerusalem Temple were not enforcing Deuteronomic law at that time. Cowley notes that their petition expressed their pride at having a temple to Ya'u Yahweh (no other god is mentioned in the petition) and gave no suggestion that their temple could be heretical. What most don't know is, the common jews did not learn the law nor study it until around 200 bce. They were known as am-ha-aretz. The people of the earth. It's written about in the mishnah. There's halachic concerns about working with the am-ha-aretz regarding whether or not to asssume that produce rec'd from them had been tithed properly. First of all. Some things are simple. Some things are complex. When it comes to syncretism and polythesim, it's really simple. That you don't like it really doesn't change anything. Regarding judaism as a religion, it is a "revealed" religion. That means it has scripture which is deemed to be revealed, known, extant. That really is all there is to it. I am not bothered in the slightest with labeling it fundementalist, nor wahabi, nor bible-thumper, nor any of that. It's just a simple fact. These arguments about whether it is editted, or revised, or altered, or corrupted, are all valid discussions to have. But. When it comes to polytheism and syncretism the entire story would have to be rewritten, top to bottom, in order to reverse it into polytheistic syncretism. Which is why I said, they didn't need to be there. You can call it fact... that doesn't make it fact. Hebrews 8... 1 Corithians 15... If you recall I asked if Jesus could be connected to learning platonism. I didn't ask about the author referred to as "Paul". None the less I'll re-read those and get back to you. "... they're right there in Paul." <---- not Jesus. Judaism is not a moving target when it comes to polytheism and syncretism.

It's called creativity. It's a cognitive function. Here's a study I was referring to in the other thread on non-duality. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050914004992

Inference or deduction confirmed by experimentation.

I don't want to go too deep into this. This isn't the proper venue. The best I can say, I think, is, there's a method to the madness. If you want to discuss it in more depth, maybe send me a private message.

You're making quite a lot of assumptions. For example: Monotheism predates judaism? In the other thread I referred you to archeological evidence of jewish monotheism. You have a date for that 900BCE. I suppose I can search for the archeology report from the excavation. Hopefully I still have it saved somewhere. Which monotheistic religion predates it? It's not the Persians. Contrary to popular belief Zoroastarianism is not monotheistic. It looks like it until you read the gathas where there are multiple devas. Do people say it's monotheistic? Sure. Have they read the gathas? Nope. Ignoring the label monotheism, if the gathas and avestas are read there is virtually zero similarities between zoroastarianism and judaism. Zero. So where is the influence? What's shared between them? ( I'm asking rhetorically. I know what people claim is shared between them. The foremost authority on it is ... Boyce, Boyles.... ummm.. I have her book. I've researched the arguments they're all lacking. ) I just checked. Mary Boyce. The problemm here is the inherent bias. Mary Boyce is in-love with zoroastarianism. So she's natually going to see their influence everywhere even if it doesn't exist. And if she isn't an expert on judaism, then, she's going to make some rather massive blunders. The same thing happens with sumerian genesis myths. Have you actually read them? Do you know what they are? Have you read the Enuma Elish? Did you know that the earlier version has zero correspondence with the genesis myths? None! The Enuma Elish has adapted over time. The oldest version is 2000BCEish. Nothing matches. In 1000BCEish after there was contact with judiasm, there are minor matches. A sentence or two has similarity. Then, the version that is most common that people read is, I think, from 700BCEish. That one has 2 or 3 decent matches with genesis. 2 or 3 similarites out of 1000+ lines of text. The entire story is different! But a few things are the same. Then, the Enuma Elish shows up again in another adpated version around 300CE. That one, yes, more similarities. But it's still nothing at all like the genesis creation myth. What this shows is a consistent trend of the Enuma Elish changing over time, becomiing closer and closer to the genesis myth. The Akkaidans, if you research it have a track record for doing this. They were adopting other people's religions as they conquered them. This is what they did. Compare that to the jewish scripture which discourages it. Why would jewish "prophets" take someone else's story if they are preaching don't mix with the others? It makes no sense. Borrowing frommt he others encourages mixing. It validates tthe other's beliefs. That's why the Akkadians did it. They wanted the other peoples to join them. "We believe what you believe, now, join our empire." Jews said the opposite: "We don't believe what you believe, please don't join us." If you read the epic of gilgamesh, the same thing happens there. There's multiple versions. The first version has zero similarity at all. There isn't even a flood in it! Then, I think it's arround the same time 1000BCE, poof! A flood shows up in the story. What happened around 1000BCE? The ( 2nd? ) iron age collapse. It was a catalytst for a great deal of mixing of peoples, a massive poswer struggle. Adopting other people's myths was a way to solidfy the masses. "Why are you so opposed to judaism being influenced by other traditions?" It needs to be true, my-dude. If it's not true, and it's just rumors, I'm going to push back against it. Don't you care about whether or not it's true? Mayybe ask yourself this: "Why aren't any of the sources your watching on youtube ( or maybe reading in books ) telling you there are multtiple versions of the Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh? Why aren't they telling you that the early versions have NO matches with Genesis at all?"

Chosen people? Not really. It can't be a chosen people because it's not a bloodline, it's not genetic. We accept converts, but strongly discourage it. God did choose to have a nation set apart. The question is, set apart for what? We have a rather difficult set of rules to follow. None of us are exempt ( although the women have much more freedom ). Once a Jew, always a Jew. There is no escaping it. There are benefits, of course, but, it doesn't make us greater just different. Judaism is special because it permits approaching the divine on a very high level without losing our sense of self nor losing the capability for accurately assessing right from wrong. It's also a huge religion inspite of our minimal number of adherents. There is a cornucopia of opportunity to encounter the divine in Judaism. That's the benefit of having so many laws. Each one is an opportunity.

It's not a problem for me. Strangely, it's a benefit. But that's a long story. Maybe think of it this way? There is no evidence for almost ANYTHING in the Torah the way it is described. By the time you've gotten to the exodus: 7 days of creation talking serpent Adam lives to be nearly 1000 an impossibly large ark an impossible weather event an impossible flood all the earth sharing a language a tower being constructed to heaven abimelech's entire household is cursed in an impossible manner abram's small houehold ( soon to be abraham ) conquers 5 other nations the man circumcises himself has a child at 99 jacob does some weird stuff mating the sheep each of the 10 plagues is impossible the splitting of the red sea is impossible There's no evidence for any of it. It's fine.

Everything? LOL. No. My belief is this is what God revealed to me and the jewish people at sinai. How that happened is a expression of extremely imaginative thinking. Although, that sort of imaginative thinking has produced very good results for those of us who practice it, so, I don't discourage it in myself or others.

It's never been polytheism. It's never been greek. Once it includes other religions, it has violated the Torah and it stops being Judaism. Judaism cannot call itself Judaism if it is denying the Torah. Different interpretations can happen. Differences of opinion *always* happen. But that cannot ever be syncretic. That is not Judaism. A great example is homosexuality. Perfect example. The conventional view is... harsh. There's another view which is extremely permissive. The method for making it permissive is going to the verses and very carefully reading the words, hyperliterally, which does not actually prohibit homosexuality. In this way, the permissive point of view is certainly jewish. The one who is carefully reading the text IS practicing Judaism. There's another way to be permissive. It too involves going to the Torah and reading it carefully. That is also Judaism. But simply saying I'm influenced by my surroundings, and my neighbors ,therefore homosexuality is kosher.... That's not practicing Judaism. It cannot ever be that way. That makes the Torah a historical suggestion not divine. Aren't those debates post-Jesus, post-epistles, and post-gospels? If you'd like to discuss each of those concepts, maybe link to some defintions and their corresponding verses in the Christian bible? I'm not asking for those words specifically to be in the verses, just the word, defintion, and a link to the scriptures which include them. Honestly any example of platonism attributed to Jesus would work well. Then it'll be interesting to see if I can source it the hebrew bible. ( I'm guessing it'll be in psalms or isaiah, Jesus loves psalms and isaiah. ) Before replying I went to refresh myself on platonism, to make sure I wasn't forgetting anything. Yes, during the 2nd temple period there is linguistic borrowing. Words were borrowed. I don't see any theological or mystical concepts being borrowed. In fact I see some sharp contrasts. And since most acaddemics are not well versed in the hebrew bible nor our mystical tradtion, they have no clue what connections are happening in the christian bible. No clue. I am shocked that Luke 10 is not on anyone's radar. That is like a bright blinking neon sign: "Jewish mystic was here." Is there anything, anywhere, in platonism that explains that reference to 72 ( or 70 depending on the manuscript ) along with the directions given. And the reference to the kingdom of god? What's the platonic view of that chapter? The thread is asking about the Christian bible, not, the debates which occured later.

You keep asserting that there is a thought producing the letter "g" when the word thought is recalled from vocabulary, but, you have not articulated it other than "g is g in the word thought". This is a tautology. Is there anything more that can be expressed about the letter "g" in the word "thought" other than its identity: "g is g in the word thought"? Similarly, is there anything that can be expressed about the letter "u" in the word "thought" other than "u is the letter u in the word thought"? What is the thought for "identity". Being-ness. Can you articulate it? If you cannot articulate it, how do you know it is a thought other than assuming it is, because, you do not have any other word to describe it? It's not just any memory. It's a forgotten-memory. That's a specific type of memory. How does a forgotten-memory surface in the mind? It's a mystery. The science of forgetting-and-remembering is in the majority at this time not understood. Please notice. When I do not know the source of a phenomenon, or the mechanism which is producing it, I do not place it in any category other than "unknown". This is true absolute ambivilance. It is literally having no like nor dislike for the phenomenon. If I placed the forgotten-memory in the category of "thought", then, that shows a preference for the category "thought". However, there is an interesting correlation between the remembering the forgotten-memory and having an epiphany. The liklihood of both remembering the forgotten-memory and having an epiphany greatly increases in the absence of thought. Un-thinking encourages the phenomena. This is good reason to exclude both the forgotten-memory and the epiphany from the realm of thought. The forgotten-memory which is remembered exists beyond thought. The forgotten-memory which is remembered exists prior to appearing in the mind. When it is remembered it is a thought appearing in the mind. Before it is remembered, it is not thought. A great example of this is when a word is temporaily forgotten. In english the expression used is "it's on the tip of my tongue". The individual knows the word exists, but cannot think if it. The word exists but is not a thought which has appeared in the mind. They can feel it. It's the same thing that happens when I know I have a great idea, but, I don't know what the idea is yet. I can feel the idea "percolating" for lack of a better word, but I don't have any thoughts of it yet. This aspect of creativity is outside of the scope of thought. I can understand the desire to force everything into the category of thought, but, this would violate the previously stated principle "I have no like nor dislike". Forcing everything to be "thought" is liking "thought" and disliking every other category. "What else could it be?" is an argument from ignorance which is the root cause of dillusion. If it is not known, then labeling it "unknown" is the only way to satisfy all three conditions: "I have no like, nor dislike, nor dillusion." Edit: there is another category which includes both the known and the unknown, both thought and not-thought. That category is "truth". "Truth" is the best fit so far for any english word describing non-dual.

Hellenized? That is against judaism. What makes you think 2nd Temple Judaism is hellenized? The original source for this goes back to joshua: לא־ימוש ספר התורה הזה מפיך והגית בו יומם ולילה למען תשמר לעשות ככל־הכתוב בו כי־אז תצליח את־דרכך ואז תשכיל׃ This Book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth; but you shall meditate on it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written on it; for then you shall make your way prosperous, and then you shall have good success. It shall not depart means no greek philosophy is permitted. This can be linked to moses, to whom it would have originally come from the lord at sinai. So, no. hellenization is not judaism. Are you able to connect Jesus to learning plato?