Occult ideology in the christian bible?

[SirPalomides]

3 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

 

Judaism rejected the canaanite "milieu".  

 

According to texts compiled much later than the events they describe. And with much evidence- archaeological and internal to the texts themselves- to paint a different picture.

3 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

 

A common misconception. ^^

 

 

If so, it’s one shared by many eminent Jewish scholars of Kabbalah. 
 

3 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Nope.  Jewish kabalah is found in Tanach. 
 

 

“Found” there in the same way post-Nicene Trinitarianism is “found” in the New Testament… by reading it into the text. But Kabbalah actually arises much later and rests on plainly neo-Platonic metaphysical foundations.

 

 

3 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

 

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.

 

There it is again: “it says in this book you can’t do this so that’s not what they did.” It’s a circular argument. It might work for fellow sectarians but it rings hollow everywhere else.

 

"... they're right there in Paul."  <---- not Jesus. 
 

 

 

Jesus didn’t leave us any writings. If you want to talk about the accounts attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, we can do that but those are later than the Pauline writings.

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, SirPalomides said:

 

According to texts compiled much later than the events they describe. And with much evidence- archaeological and internal to the texts themselves- to paint a different picture.

 

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.

 

Quote

If so, it’s one shared by many eminent Jewish scholars of Kabbalah. 

 

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.  

 

Quote

“Found” there in the same way post-Nicene Trinitarianism is “found” in the New Testament… by reading it into the text. But Kabbalah actually arises much later and rests on plainly neo-Platonic metaphysical foundations.

 

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.  

 

Quote

There it is again: “it says in this book you can’t do this so that’s not what they did.” It’s a circular argument. It might work for fellow sectarians but it rings hollow everywhere else.

 

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.

 

Quote

Jesus didn’t leave us any writings. If you want to talk about the accounts attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, we can do that but those are later than the Pauline writings.

 

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.

 

Edited November 30, 2023 by Daniel

[SirPalomides]

An interview with Dr. Sarah Pessin on the phenomenon of Jewish neoplatonism in general: 

 

https://historyofphilosophy.net/transcript/jewish-neoplatonism-pessin

 

One of Moshe Idel's many essays on the influence of neoplatonism in Kabbalah, with plenty of examples and citations:

 

http://jewishstudies.ceu.edu/sites/jewishstudies.ceu.edu/files/attachment/basicpage/71/08idel.pdf

 

Those interested can consult other work of Pessin, Idel, Gershom Scholem, and other eminent scholars. Note that there is debate as to the extent and nature of the neoplatonic current in Judaism, versus other currents such as gnosticism, but actually denying that it's there at all? No. 

 

The Zohar is a medieval book and a pretty  bad example if you want to disprove the influence of neoplatonism in Kabbalah- the neoplatonic elements in the Zohar have long been recognized (e.g. emanationist cosmology, tripartite soul, etc.), including by rabbis who wrote against it, such as Elia Delmedigo, who recognized that it was not as ancient as it claimed and that it contained Greek philosophical content. 

Edited November 30, 2023 by SirPalomides

[Daniel]

2 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

The Zohar is a medieval book and a pretty  bad example if you want to disprove the influence of neoplatonism in Kabbalah- the neoplatonic elements in the Zohar have long been recognized (e.g. emanationist cosmology, tripartite soul, etc.), including by rabbis who wrote against it, such as Elia Delmedigo, who recognized that it was not as ancient as it claimed and that it contained Greek philosophical content. 

 

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. 

Edited November 30, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

On 11/30/2023 at 6:40 AM, SirPalomides said:

An interview with Dr. Sarah Pessin on the phenomenon of Jewish neoplatonism in general: 

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 4 by Daniel

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

One of Moshe Idel

 

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

[Daniel]

 

On 11/30/2023 at 6:40 AM, SirPalomides said:

One of Moshe Idel's many essays on the influence of neoplatonism in Kabbalah, with plenty of examples and citations:

 

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.  

 

Edited November 4 by Daniel

[SirPalomides]

Ravad, whom you call a famous kabbalist, was as much animated by Greek philosophy as Maimonides. His proof of God as first cause/ prime mover is straight out of Aristotle (via Islamic commentators). As for Maimonides, his reception is a lot more varied, including among Kabbalists, than what you're letting on. 

 

Since you're so insistent that Kabbalah comes straight out of Tanakh with no Greek influence whatsoever, find the following kabbalistic doctrines in the pages of the Tanakh:

 

Creation by emanation (not ex nihilo);

Tripartite soul;

Transmigration of souls;

The attributes of God as negations

 

 

[Daniel]

1 minute ago, SirPalomides said:

Creation by emanation (not ex nihilo);

 

Genesis 1

 

2 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

Tripartite soul;

 

It's not tripartite in kabalah.

 

3 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

Transmigration of souls

 

The best example is betzalel

 

9 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

The attributes of God as negations

 

The attributes of god are not negations in kabalah.

 

The k'lipot are negations.

[Daniel]

14 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

Ravad, whom you call a famous kabbalist, was as much animated by Greek philosophy as Maimonides.

 

Two can come to the same conclusion without being animated by one or the other.

 

14 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

His proof of God as first cause/ prime mover is straight out of Aristotle (via Islamic commentators)

 

Your judgment ( or recollection ) is lacking credibility.  Bring Ravad's proof and Aristotle's proof if you want to discuss it.

 

Edited November 30, 2023 by Daniel

[SirPalomides]

1 minute ago, Daniel said:

 

Genesis 1

 

There is no emanation in Genesis 1, unless, of course, you rely on much later interpretations. Do you understand what is meant by emanation? 

 

1 minute ago, Daniel said:

 

It's not tripartite in kabalah.

 

Nefesh, ruach, neshama.

 

1 minute ago, Daniel said:

 

 

The best example is betzalel

 

I would love to see an exposition of how Bezalel demonstrations transmigration of souls that doesn't rely on much later commentaries. 

 

1 minute ago, Daniel said:

 

The attributes of god are not negations in kabalah.

 

The k'lipot are negations.

 

So you don't know what "negation" means in the context of theology. 

[Daniel]

11 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

 

There is no emanation in Genesis 1, unless, of course, you rely on much later interpretations. Do you understand what is meant by emanation? 

 

Sure there is.  You don't know what to look for.  Can you read hebrew?  Your assumptions about the age of these ideas are meaningless.

 

Quote

Nefesh, ruach, neshama.

 

... hayah ,yechida.  There's 5.  Your reaction to this simple fact will be telling.

 

Quote

I would love to see an exposition of how Bezalel demonstrations transmigration of souls that doesn't rely on much later commentaries. 

 

Um.  Exposition is commentary.  So no matter what I bring, you'll just flip-flop and call it a later exposition. That's #1.

 

#2 You believe with absolute certainty that a "reverberation" of a theme or a "hint" proves there is platonic influence.  Eventhough both "scholars" admit that their conclusions deviate from what's written.  At least what I would bring is congruent with what's writen.

 

It's either a huge double standard or you didn't read your own sources.

 

Quote

So you don't know what "negation" means in the context of theology. 

 

Of course I do.  If you want to discuss it bring a source.

 

Edited November 30, 2023 by Daniel

[SirPalomides]

 

17 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Your judgment ( or recollection ) is lacking credibility.  Bring Ravad's proof and Aristotle's proof if you want to discuss it.

 

 

Ravad's proof of God's existence is that all motions must originate from a Prime Mover that is unmoved. It's the argument from Aristotle's Metaphysics  which is a basic philosophical authority for Ravad and basically all the intellectuals around him, Arab and Jewish. That's in the second part of his book ha-Emunah ha-Ramah which is Aristotelian through and through. It's chock full of very Aristotelian concerns like the distinction between substance and accident, the lunar and sublunar realms, etc. He assumes the Aristotelian and Neoplatonic model of the cosmos as a series of nested spheres with earth at the center and the divine realm as the outermost sphere or outside the spheres. Each sphere is presided over by incorporeal intelligences emanating triads.  Quick, find this cosmology in the Tanakh!  

[Daniel]

38 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

Ravad's proof of God's existence is that all motions must originate from a Prime Mover that is unmoved

 

No, no.  You'd need to bring Ravad's actual words.  It's too easy for you to just quote Aristotle and then say that Ravad said the same thing in the same way.  Since you've greatly exaggerated your own sources, you'll need to bring a quote if you want to be believed.

 

Then, if there is sufficient similarity you'd need to rule out that the two individuals did not come up with the same idea independently.  

 

Both Newton and Leibniz are creditted for the creation of calculus.  They were in different countries. 

 

And this ignores the big picture, which is, God as the un-moved-mover, acausal-cause, is not an idea which is brought into judaism.

 

Hoenstly I think you're mistaking Maimonides for Ravad.  Maimonides has a proof for the unmoved mover which is identical to aristotle in the Moreh Nevuchim ( guide for the perplexed ).

Edited November 30, 2023 by Daniel

[SirPalomides]

52 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Sure there is.  You don't know what to look for. 

 

I know what to look for because I'm familiar with much later eisegesis

 

 

52 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

... hayah ,yechida.  There's 5.  Your reaction to this simple fact will be telling.

 

Yes, in some versions it is expanded to five... which is in keeping with Aristotle. 

 

 

52 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Um.  Exposition is commentary.  So no matter what I bring, you'll just flip-flop and call it a later exposition. That's #1.

 

#2 You believe with absolute certainty that a "reverberation" of a theme or a "hint" proves there is platonic influence.  Eventhough both "scholars" admit that their conclusions deviate from what's written.  At least what I would bring is congruent with what's writen.

 

I'm asking you to find reincarnation in the Tanakh. Where is it? 

 

52 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Of course I do.  If you want to discuss it bring a source.

 

 

Negative theology is not about the k'lipot. Good god man. 

[Daniel]

1 minute ago, SirPalomides said:

 

I know what to look for because I'm familiar with much later eisegesis

 

If you don't know hebrew, you won't be able to find it in the original text.  If you don't know hebrew, you're not reading the original text.  At a certain point unless a person is off-the-chart ignorant and arrogant, they'll need to accept that they cannot make any conclusions about what is NOT in the original text if they cannot read it.

 

1 minute ago, SirPalomides said:

Yes, in some versions it is expanded to five... which is in keeping with Aristotle. 

 

All 5 are in the Torah.  If you'd like to discuss the 5 aspects of the soul and compare it to what's written by aristotle, bring aristotle.  Your original question was about a tripartriate soul, which is not in kabalah.  You're going to find 2 parts or 5 parts, not 3.

 

1 minute ago, SirPalomides said:

I'm asking you to find reincarnation in the Tanakh. Where is it? 

 

Betzalel.  

 

1 minute ago, SirPalomides said:

Negative theology is not about the k'lipot. Good god man. 

 

"Negative theology" is not kabalah.

[Cobie]

.

Edited December 23, 2023 by Cobie

[SirPalomides]

From the Encyclopedia Judaica:

 

EMANATION, a theory describing the origin of the material universe from a transcendent first principle. According to this theory, the universe, which is multiple, is generated from the One, which is unitary, through the medium of a hierarchy of immaterial substances. The ultimate source is undiminished, while the beings which are emanated are progressively less perfect as they are further removed from the first principle. The process is conceived as being atemporal. In neoplatonic emanationism the ultimate product, the material universe, is not regarded as evil, as in gnostic systems of emanation. A variety of models are used to describe emanation. For example, it is compared to the efflux of light from a luminous body, or to water flowing from a spring. The emanationist theory was given its classical formulation by Plotinus in the Enneads, in which the typical fourfold scheme of the One, Intellect, Soul, and Nature is found. Emanationism tends to be combined with an eschatology (or soteriology) that envisions the soul's return to its ultimate source of being by epostrophē or "reversion" (see A. Altmann, Studies in Religious Philosophy and Mysticism (1969), 41ff.). The theory of emanation was developed further by Plotinus' successors, particularly Proclus, who systematized the scheme of monēproodos-epistrophē (immanence, procession, reversion) to account for the process of emanation.

In Jewish Philosophy

The Hebrew terms used for emanation are aẓilut or aẓilah (cf. Num. 11:17), hishtalshelut, meshekh, shefa; the verbs shalaḥ and sadar (in the pu'al) are also used (see J. Klatzkin, Thesaurus Philosophicus (1930), 96; 4 (1933), 112). The theory of emanation was known to medieval Arabic and Jewish philosophers from several sources. Plotinus was known from the Theology of Aristotle (in both a vulgate and long recension), a paraphrase of texts from the Enneads, as well as from Plotinian material ascribed to "al-Sheikh al-Yūnānī" ("The Greek Sage," probably Porphyry, editor of the Enneads), and a work titled al- ʿ Ilm al-Ilāhī ("The Divine Science"), falsely ascribed to al-*Fārābī (translations of this material are in Plotinus, Opera, ed. by H. Schwyzer (1959), vol. 2). Proclus was known from the Liber de causis (Kitāb al-Idāh fi al-Khayr al-Maḥḍ) ascribed to Aristotle but actually based on Proclus' Elements of Theology (ed. and tr. by E.R. Dodds, 1963). One must also take into account neoplatonic texts such as the pseudo-Aristotelian source utilized by Isaac *Israeli and Abraham *Ibn Ḥasdai (see S.M. Stern, in Oriens, 13–14 (1960–61), 58ff.) and the pseudo-Empedoclean Book of Five Substances (ed. by D. Kaufmann, Studien ueber Salomo Ibn Gabirol (1899), 17ff.). Jewish philosophers also relied on the appropriation and development of emanationism by Arabic philosophers such as al-*Kindī, al-Fārābī, *Avicenna, and the Sincere *Brethren (Ikhwān al-Ṣafāʾ). In medieval Arabic and Jewish neo-Aristotelianism, the neoplatonic theory of emanation was applied to the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmology which posited a series of nine concentric spheres encompassing the earth, each endowed with an intelligence. Thus, Aristotle's active intellect (De Anima, 3) was identified either with Plotinus' universal intellect in the neoplatonic hierarchy, or with the intelligence of the lowest sphere (of the moon) in the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmology. Emanation is a necessary (natural) and eternal process, and is thus thought to imply the absence of will and design on the part of the ultimate source. Thus, the theory of emanation is in conflict with the biblical concept of temporal creation by divine volition. Also, emanationism sees the divine source as somehow omnipresently immanent in the world, and it therefore tends toward pantheistic expressions.

In their discussions of cosmology, Jewish philosophers sometimes tried to harmonize emanation with biblical concepts of *creation and *providence. Isaac Israeli, for example, postulates an initial act of creation by "the will and power" of God which results in the first two substances, which are in his system prime matter and form (or wisdom), while the subsequent entities are generated by a process of emanation. These are the typical hierarchy of intellect, soul, and nature of Plotinus, but the universal soul, like the individual soul, is tripartite (rational, animal, vegetable; as in Ibn *Gabirol), and nature is identified with the first or outer sphere. Each emanated being is derived from "the shadow" of its anterior cause. Ibn Gabirol injected an element of voluntarism into an emanationist system with his notion of "will," which mediates between the first essence and primary matter and form, which together constitute the hypostasis of intellect. Will thus appears not as a function of the creator (cf. Israeli), but as a distinct hypostasis. Gabirol often appeals to the metaphors of a spring of water, light from the sun, the reflection in a mirror, and human speech to explain emanation. There is a pronounced tendency toward pantheism (see Mekor Ḥayyim 5:39, 3:16).

Pseudo-*Baḥyaʿs Kitāb Maʿanī al-Nafs ("On the Essence of the Soul") combines creation and emanation. The entire chain of being hinges on God's will and wisdom. Intellect is called Shekhinah and soul is called Kevod Elohei Yisrael (see Guttmann, Philosophies, 110). *Abraham bar Ḥiyya posits five worlds above the celestial spheres, which he correlates with the five days of creation, giving each a theological interpretation. The lower three (the worlds of knowledge, soul, and creation) seem to correspond to the neoplatonic hypostases. Above them are the world of light (ha-olam ha-nurani) and the world of dominion (olam ha-ravrevanut), probably derived from an Arabic neoplatonic work (Megillat ha-Megalleh, ed. by A. Posnanski (1924), 21ff.; see also, G. Scholem, in MGWJ, 75 (1931), 172ff.; and Guttmann, Philosophies, 112ff.). Like Ibn Gabirol, Abraham bar Ḥiyya uses expressions which are tantamount to pantheism. God is essentially identical with the universe insofar as He gives it the power of being.

The emanation theory of Arabic and Jewish Aristotelians, an intricate system explaining the derivation of the spheres and their intelligences, was rejected by *Judah Halevi as an unproven claim (Kuzari, 4:25). Abraham *Ibn Daud also rejected the emanationist explanation of the derivation of the spheres and their intelligences, but without denying the order itself (Emunah Ramah, ed. by S. Weil (1852), 67). The position of *Maimonides is complex. He was keenly aware of the opposition between eternal necessary emanation of the world from God and the free act of creation. Nevertheless he wrote: "It has been said that the world derives from the overflow (fayḍ) of God and that He has caused to overflow to it everything in it that is produced in time." In the same context he compares the derivation of the world from God to a spring of water which, he says, is "the most fitting simile for the action of one who is separate from matter" (Guide of the Perplexed, 2:12). Divine emanation also accounts for cognition and prophecy (ibid., 2:37). The governance of the lower world is perfected by means of forces emanating from the spheres (ibid., 2:5). Still, this emanation is said to be unlike that of heat from fire and light from the sun in that it constantly assures duration and order for the existents that emanate from God by "wisely contrived governance" (ibid., 1:59). Maimonides' insistence on creation in time and insertion of intention and wisdom into a scheme of emanation appear to contradict the presuppositions of the latter. *Levi b. Gershom found several difficulties with the theory of emanation which postulates an eternal procession from God (Milẓamot Adonai, 6:1, 7; see also Guttmann, Philosophies, 211ff.). He maintained, for example, that it was impossible for existence to flow constantly from God to the heavenly bodies (as opposed to their being brought into being at once), for the heavens would thus exist only potentially.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Guttman, Philosophies, index; D. Neumark, Geschichte der juedischen Philosophie des Mittelalters 1 (1907), 503ff.; Scholem, Mysticism, S.V. emanation; idem, in: Tarbiz, 2 (1931/32), 415–42; 3 (1932/33), 33–66; J. Ben-Shlomo, Torat ha-Elohut shel R. Moshe Cordovero (1965), 170–82. ADD. BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Gottlieb, Studies in Kabbalah Literature (1978), 11–17, 397–476; E. Gottlieb and M. Idel, Enchanted Chains (2005); M. Idel, "Between the View of Sefirot as Essence and Instruments in the Renaissance Period," in: Italia, 3 (1982), 89–111 (Heb.).

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, SirPalomides said:

In Jewish Philosophy

 

And ... What is your point? 

 

I don't see any thing or any one "kabalistic" being cited.  The Torah isn't being cited.  There's a couple of critics listed.  Judah HaLevi is a good example because he was familiar with the Greek and Islamic philosophy of that era.

 

It really doesn't matter how many opinions you post.  If you haven't read the material you can't comment about what is or what isn't included.

 

Edited November 30, 2023 by Daniel

[SirPalomides]

An interesting article discussing a parallel between Zohar and Iamblichus on theurgy: http://jsri.ro/ojs/index.php/jsri/article/download/457/455

Edited December 1, 2023 by SirPalomides

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, SirPalomides said:

An interesting article discussing a parallel between Zohar and Iamblichus on theurgy: http://jsri.ro/ojs/index.php/jsri/article/download/457/455

 

If you haven't read the zohar, you'd never know if this is accurate or not.

[Daniel]

12 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

An interesting article discussing a parallel between Zohar and Iamblichus on theurgy: http://jsri.ro/ojs/index.php/jsri/article/download/457/455

 

In the linked article, the author is making a very simple argument.  If the Zohar asserts that its concepts are not original, and, there is a good match for its concepts elsewhere then, it is reasonable to conclude that the concepts originated from the source of the matching concept.  Simple.  Then the author attempts to show this is precisely what happened.  The problem, as usual, is the author either did not read the Zohar nor understand it. 

 

Those who are reliant on academics for this subject matter will scoff:  "But they're a scholar, certainly they know how to read!"  All I can in response is:  "This happens all the time."  Because of this, a good rule that is employed by many religious people is, always-always double check the original source.  When that is done in this case, yet again, it is an example where there is a claim:  "The Zohar says:  X", but, when the Zohar is acctually read it does not say "X".

 

Here is the original claim:   "the Zohar does not pretend to be original. It refers explicitly to its sources, saying..."  If this is false, then, the entire argument fails.  It's not the only failure of the article, but, this is the primary focus since your intention is to show that Zohar was influenced by "greek wisdom" in spite of the strict jewish prohibition against it.

 

Following the claim, the author attempts to bring a Zohar quote to confirm the asssertion.

 

 

Here's the problem.  They didn't give enough of the story.  Not even close.  There's a method for reading the Zohar.  It's not something that can be cherry picked.  It's something that is studied.  First, one needs to know what was inspiring the section which is in focus.  Then one needs to zoom out and pickup on the flow, the "shefa", of the story.  Then one needs to put themself in the story, and listen what it is teaching. 

 

But, let's skip all of that and simply confirm whether or not the author's assertion is true.  Does the Zohar, in fact, in this section, assert that the teachings are coming from an outside source?

 

Here's the passage from the linked article: ( footnote #2 is incorrect, ignore it, the quote spans two pages, hence, the page break )

 

 

 

Here's the story begin referred to:  LINK

 

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָא יוֹמָא חַד אִעַרְעָנָא בְּחַד מָתָא מֵאִנּוּן דְּהֲווּ מִן בְּנֵי קֶדֶם, וְאָמְרוּ לִי מֵהַהִיא חָכְמְתָא דְּהֲווּ יָדְעִין מִיּוֹמֵי קַדְמָאֵי וְהֲווּ אַשְׁכְּחָן סִפְרִין דְּחָכְמְתָא דִּלְהוֹן, וּקְרִיבוּ לִי חַד סִפְרָא. 

 

וְהֲוָה כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ, דְּהָא כְּגַוְונָא דִּרְעוּתָא דְּבַּר נָשׁ אִיכַוֵּון בֵּיהּ בְּהַאי עָלְמָא, הָכִי אַמְשִׁיךְ עֲלֵיהּ רוּחַ מִלְּעֵילָא כְּגַוְונָא דְּהַהוּא רְעוּתָא דְּאִתְדָּבַּק בֵּיהּ, אִי רְעוּתֵיהּ אִיכַוִּין בְּמִלָּה עִלָּאָה קַדִּישָׁא אִיהוּ אַמְשִׁיךְ עֲלֵיהּ לְהַהִיא מִלָה מִלְּעֵילָא לְתַתָּא לְגַבֵּיהּ. 

 

וְאִי רְעוּתֵיהּ לְאִתְדַּבְּקָא בְּסִטְרָא אָחֳרָא וְאִיכַוֵּין בֵּיהּ, אִיהוּ אַמְשִׁיךְ לְהַהִיא מִלָּה מִלְּעֵילָא לְתַתָּא לְגַבֵּיהּ. וְהֲווּ אָמְרִי דְּעִקָּרָא דְּמִלְּתָא תַּלְיָיא בְּמִלִּין וּבְעוֹבָדָא וּבִרְעוּתָא לְאִתְדַּבְּקָא, וּבְדָא אִתְמְשַׁךְ מִלְּעֵילָא לְתַתָּא הַהוּא סִטְרָא דְּאִתְדָּבַּק בָּהּ.
 

OK... great!   What comes next?  Why did the author stop reading?  Here's their quote:

 

"They had found their books of wisdom, and they brought me one, in which was written: “As one’s aspiration is directed in this world, so he draws upon himself a spirit from above, corresponding to the aspiration to which he cleaves. If his aspiration focuses on a supernal holy entity, he draws that entity from above to himself below. If he aspires to cleave to the other side,5 focusing there, then he draws that from above to himself below.“

 

Here's the continuation of the story the very next line is:

 

וְאַשְׁכַּחְנָא בֵּיהּ, כָּל אִינוּן עוֹבָדִין וּפוּלְחָנִין דְּכֹכְבַיָא וּמַזָּלֵי, וּמִלִּין דְּאִצְטְרִיכוּ לוֹן, וְהָאֵיךְ רְעוּתָא לְאִתְכַּוְּונָא בְּהוֹ, בְּגִין לְאַמְשָׁכָא לוֹן לְגַבַּיְיהוּ.

 

"... and I found in it [ the book that the they brought ] kolh eenoon ohvadin, oofool'chanin dee'chochvayah, oomazalei ( "all manner of serving and worshipping in the stars and their corresponding angels. ) "

 

That doesn't sound very jewish does it?  The story continues a bit, the kedim ( the children of the east ) further explain their position and what is in their book(s).  Then Rabbi Abba expliicity states:  This is NOT infuencing our teachings.  It's the opposite of what the author has claimed.

 

אֲמִינָא לוֹן בָּנַי קְרִיבָא דָא לְמִלִּין דְּאוֹרַיְיתָא. אֲבָל אִית לְכוּ אִתְרַחֲקָא מֵאִנּוּן סִפְרִין בְּגִין דְּלָא יִסְטֵי לִבַּיְיכוּ לְאִלֵּין פּוּלְחָנִין וּלְכָל אִנּוּן סִטְרִין דְּקָאֲמַר הָכָא דִּילְמָא חַס וְשָׁלוֹם תִּסְטוּן מִבָּתַר פּוּלְחָנָא דְּקוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא.

 

"He says to the children of the east:  "Keerivah dah l'milin d'oraisa."  It's close to the words of our teachings.... but you should stay away from these books.  "Haas v'shalom tee's'toon mbatar pool'chanah d'Koodshah B'rich-Hoo" Heaven forbid you will be accused/attacked by the satan tee's'toon (s'toon, samech-tet-nun, a conjugation of the word for satan) "from-behind-worshipping-the-blessed-holy-one". 

 

Here's the important part which disproves the thesis: 

 

דְּהָא כָּל סְפָרִים אִלֵּין אַטְעַיָּין לוֹן לִבְנֵי נָשָׁא, בְּגִין דִּבְנֵי קֶדֶם חַכִּימִין הֲווּ, וִירוּתָא דְּחָכְמְתָא דָא יָרְתוּ מֵאַבְרָהָם דְּיָהַב לִבְנֵי פִּלַּגְּשִׁים, דִּכְתִיב, (בראשית כ״ה:ו׳)

 

"All of these books, they are deceiving ( literally causing errors ) to the children of men ( humanity ). [They are decieving ] because the children of the east ( the kedim ) are wise, and it is an offshoot of the wisdom in the sprouting from abraham which was given to the the children of the concubines, as it is written Genesis 25:6...

 

So.  There you have it.  The Zohar does NOT in any way claim that these books from the east are its source material.  The source is the torah, which was being taught by abraham according to the story.  The author admits this, see below:

 

 

So, what is the the source the Zohar is claiming for itself?  Its' the teachings of Abraham as written in the Torah.  The author is confused, obviously, because what preceeds this little story about the book of "wisdom" of the east, and what follows it is nothing but quotations from the Torah.  In order to understand what iss actually being taught by the Zohar, one needs to go back to the beginning of the story and read is "the opening".  Then work through the reasons why this is significantly different than what is being presented in the "wisdom from the east".  Then find that the entire exposition following matches this.  Then realize tthis is the same theme that is being presented all through the whole Zohar which is a rising from falling in a brilliant mysterious intentional divine plan.

 

That's not neoplantonism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nungali]

On 11/29/2023 at 12:28 AM, NaturaNaturans said:

 

I am not sure exactly what occult entails, but i know there are some speculation about the gospel of mark involving a mystery tradition:

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00393389508600159

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Gospel_of_Mark

 

 

 

Occult  is NOT about 'making miracles'  - you being led up the garden path there .  Religion deals with  the supernatural by ascribing it to God as good or otherwise bad and evil .  Occult is knowledge outside of religion OR a variant way of explaining the supernatural aside from the religious view .

 

It basically means hidden from the word occluded  and its roots. From PIE ;  to cover /  conceal .

[Nungali]

On 11/29/2023 at 10:28 AM, Maddie said:

 

The obvious problem with this is that there isn't any evidence that the Exodus actually happened as described in the Torah. 

 

The other obvious problem is there isnt any evidence that Daniel was at Sinai  .  

[Nungali]

On 12/1/2023 at 7:12 AM, SirPalomides said:

 

I know what to look for because I'm familiar with much later eisegesis

 

 

 

Yes, in some versions it is expanded to five... which is in keeping with Aristotle. 

 

 

His added two,  are qualities of the soul,   so have no impact on its tripartite nature  , one may as well have said :

 

I have a single soul , it is immortal  ( ' haya '  ???   -  Chaya  )  and unique ( Yechida )    so therefore  tripartite .

 

- stuff like that is all the way through his posts , but I think you realize .

 

 

 

I'm asking you to find reincarnation in the Tanakh. Where is it? 

 

 

Negative theology is not about the k'lipot. Good god man. 

 

Edited December 3, 2023 by Nungali