A View About the Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith

[Ben Masada]

A VIEW ABOUT THE RAMBAM'S 13 PRINCIPLES OF FAITH

1- I believe with perfect faith that God is the Creator and Ruler of all things. Since there is nothing perfect about man, IMHO, Maimonides must have meant, I trust, I admit, or I agree.

2- I believe with perfect faith that God is One. That there is no unity which is in any way like His. He alone is our God, He was, He is, and He will be. Since God is eternal, and there is no time in eternity, the affirmation that God was, is and will be is unnecessary. That God is, surfices.

3- I believe with perfect faith that God does not have a body, as physical concepts do not apply to Him. And that there is nothing whatsoever that resembles Him at all. IMHO, since God is Spirit, that would also be sufficient.

4- I believe with perfect faith that God is First and Last. This principle is by itself meaningless, for the idea
of being the First implies second or more. And the idea of being the Last, implies temporality. Therefore, no reason for this concept to figure here as a principle of faith. I wonder what was going on in the Rambam's mind.

5- I believe with perfect faith that it is only proper to pray to God, as one may not pray to anyone or anything else. Given the nature of prayer, whose aim is to change God's mind, it subjects God to anthropomorphism. Unless prayers are to follow the pattern of thankgiving prayers or prayer songs of praises.

6- I believe with perfect faith that all the words of the prophets are true. Since there were false prophets, and
they are not mentioned in this principle, the concept is discredited by default.

7- I believe with perfect faith that the prophecy of Moses is absolute true. And that he was the chief of all prophets, both before and after him. This principle is valid if Moses' role to mediate between God and man is here considered; because, to speak as the spokesman between God and man, is the main characteristic of being a prophet.

8- I believe with perfect faith that the entire Torah that we have now is that which was given by Moses. Scholars
and some Philosophers, especially Spinoza, assert that only fragments were extant from the time of Moses, and much change to almost all of it was written by Ezra during the Second Jewish Commowhealth after the return of the Jewish People from exile in Babylon. I wonder that Maimonides was not aware of that strong probability, especially
because Moses was spoken of in the 3rd person all throughout the Torah.

9- I believe with perfect faith that this Torah will not be changed, and that there will never be another given by God. I won't bet on being changed, but that God will never give another, that's for sure.

10- I believe with perfect faith that God knows all man's deeds and thoughts, as it is thus written in Psalm 33:15. "He has molded every heart together, as He understands what each one does." God indeed does know all, but it is as if He doesn't, considering His policy, so to speak, of non-interference with man's free will.

11- I believe with perfect faith that God rewards those who keep His commandments, and punishes those who transgress them. That's absolutely false and unacceptable for being part of a Hellenistic doctrine inherited by Christianity. I won't dig further but I wonder how the great Rambam, so adverse to anthropomorphism would speak of God in such terms as to bring Him down to the level of the Greek gods.

12- I believe with perfect faith in the coming of the Messiah. How long it takes, I will await his coming every day. The reason why Maimonides is not here talking about an individual Messiah is the fact that this principle comes just prior to the principle about resurrection. The point is that Messiah means anointed of the Lord in Hebrew, and Israel is mentioned so in Habakkuk 3:13. Now, according to Isaiah 53:8,9 when the Jewish People are forced into exile, it is as if we have been cut off from the land of the living, which is Israel, and graves are assigned to us in the Diaspora among the Gentiles. Then, at the end of the exile, the Lord opens up those graves and brings us back to the Land of Israel, according to Ezekiel 37:12. And now for the 13th principle...

13- I believe with perfect faith that the dead will be brought back to life when God wills it to happen. There is nothing in this principle to imply bodily resurrection. Therefore, resurrection here is metaphorical for the return of the Messiah from the graves of exile and back to the Land of Israel.

Ben

 

[radarmark]

I shall reply on Monday. Good commentary.

 

[Ben Masada]

I shall reply on Monday. Good commentary.

I can't hardly wait.

 

[BrotherMichaelSky]

A VIEW ABOUT THE RAMBAM'S 13 PRINCIPLES OF FAITH

1- I believe with perfect faith that God is the Creator and Ruler of all things. Since there is nothing perfect about man, IMHO, Maimonides must have meant, I trust, I admit, or I agree.

2- I believe with perfect faith that God is One. That there is no unity which is in any way like His. He alone is our God, He was, He is, and He will be. Since God is eternal, and there is no time in eternity, the affirmation that God was, is and will be is unnecessary. That God is, surfices.

3- I believe with perfect faith that God does not have a body, as physical concepts do not apply to Him. And that there is nothing whatsoever that resembles Him at all. IMHO, since God is Spirit, that would also be sufficient.

4- I believe with perfect faith that God is First and Last. This principle is by itself meaningless, for the idea
of being the First implies second or more. And the idea of being the Last, implies temporality. Therefore, no reason for this concept to figure here as a principle of faith. I wonder what was going on in the Rambam's mind.

I believe that it is the same question rearing it's head that is everywhere else a question... How can divinity be indwelling in man, if it cannot be divided...

5- I believe with perfect faith that it is only proper to pray to God, as one may not pray to anyone or anything else. Given the nature of prayer, whose aim is to change God's mind, it subjects God to anthropomorphism. Unless prayers are to follow the pattern of thankgiving prayers or prayer songs of praises.

where does the idea of changing God's mind come from?

6- I believe with perfect faith that all the words of the prophets are true. Since there were false prophets, and
they are not mentioned in this principle, the concept is discredited by default.

there is no Book of False Prophets...
sideways argument....

7- I believe with perfect faith that the prophecy of Moses is absolute true. And that he was the chief of all prophets, both before and after him. This principle is valid if Moses' role to mediate between God and man is here considered; because, to speak as the spokesman between God and man, is the main characteristic of being a prophet.

i'm not so sure of that... to be a prophet is to "open" to receiving the Word of God... I would like you to show me where a prophets job is to "mediate"... i have missed this idea...
I have read where prophets were told to suffer in plain view, speak loudly of Israel's neglect of it's job, and generally be abused - but mediate?
Moses is not simply a prophet - he was the most actual founder of Israel...
maybe that was why he was so important...

8- I believe with perfect faith that the entire Torah that we have now is that which was given by Moses. Scholars
and some Philosophers, especially Spinoza, assert that only fragments were extant from the time of Moses, and much change to almost all of it was written by Ezra during the Second Jewish Commowhealth after the return of the Jewish People from exile in Babylon. I wonder that Maimonides was not aware of that strong probability, especially
because Moses was spoken of in the 3rd person all throughout the Torah.

Just goes to show you how easy it is to make assumptions based on how clever one considers themselves..... I'm sure he thought to himself before beginning "well - i have all the info that man possess right here in front of me... so lets make some changes to make sure everything matches.....

9- I believe with perfect faith that this Torah will not be changed, and that there will never be another given by God. I won't bet on being changed, but that God will never give another, that's for sure.

somehow these fellows from back ago never saw the discrepancies between 8 & 9

10- I believe with perfect faith that God knows all man's deeds and thoughts, as it is thus written in Psalm 33:15. "He has molded every heart together, as He understands what each one does." God indeed does know all, but it is as if He doesn't, considering His policy, so to speak, of non-interference with man's free will.

11- I believe with perfect faith that God rewards those who keep His commandments, and punishes those who transgress them. That's absolutely false and unacceptable for being part of a Hellenistic doctrine inherited by Christianity. I won't dig further but I wonder how the great Rambam, so adverse to anthropomorphism would speak of God in such terms as to bring Him down to the level of the Greek gods.

you are stuck on the hellenist thingy, huh?
one word - Karma...( but not in the form you think I mean...) even the Zohar speaks of reincarnation... it was not some foreign idea.... it was one of the major differences between the schools of thought from the beginning... and obviously he was further on that end than the end you are presently comfortable with...

12- I believe with perfect faith in the coming of the Messiah. How long it takes, I will await his coming every day. The reason why Maimonides is not here talking about an individual Messiah is the fact that this principle comes just prior to the principle about resurrection. The point is that Messiah means anointed of the Lord in Hebrew, and Israel is mentioned so in Habakkuk 3:13. Now, according to Isaiah 53:8,9 when the Jewish People are forced into exile, it is as if we have been cut off from the land of the living, which is Israel, and graves are assigned to us in the Diaspora among the Gentiles. Then, at the end of the exile, the Lord opens up those graves and brings us back to the Land of Israel, according to Ezekiel 37:12. And now for the 13th principle...

13- I believe with perfect faith that the dead will be brought back to life when God wills it to happen. There is nothing in this principle to imply bodily resurrection. Therefore, resurrection here is metaphorical for the return of the Messiah from the graves of exile and back to the Land of Israel.

Ben

12 and 13 are, in my opinion, in reference to the Law BEFORE the dispensation of Jesus... ( but that results from my own research.. ). and are represented that way because of the texts he had available, again IMO....
It directly relates to the Jewish idea of the afterlife...

 

[bananabrain]

it should be pointed out that there were an awfully large number of candidates for the fundamentals - there were a lot of different authorities with their own schemes, including duran, hasdai crescas, sa'adia gaon and so on; maimonides is not the only game in town, although he is probably correct:

Jewish principles of faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

however, i am not convinced that people really understand him.

1- I believe with perfect faith that God is the Creator and Ruler of all things. Since there is nothing perfect about man, IMHO, Maimonides must have meant, I trust, I admit, or I agree.

it should be pointed out that the formulation is ani ma'amin be-emunah sheleimah; "emunah" is in my opinion closest to "trust" - belief THAT, rather than belief IN. this is a particularly important point for these two profoundly excellent books which you must read if you are to really dig into what is going on here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Believe-Anything-Edition-Littman-Civilization/dp/1904113389/
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Limits-Orthodox-Theology-Reappraised/dp/1906764239

as you know, my position is that "emunah" is fundamental - these 13 points are things which can ONLY be based on emunah; they cannot be logically deduced; they are axiomatic. if you like, this is like him saying "i take it completely on faith that..."

Since God is eternal, and there is no time in eternity, the affirmation that God was, is and will be is unnecessary. That God is, surfices.

i always prefer to express this in terms of the dimensionality arguments found in sefer yetzirah. for G!D, the fourth dimension of time is as flexible as the three dimensions of space are for us. however, this principle is really about unity as opposed to trinity, for instance, or sefirotic decile.

IMHO, since God is Spirit, that would also be sufficient.

yes, but that doesn't really mean anything, does it? i mean, what is "spirit", then?

This principle is by itself meaningless, for the idea of being the First implies second or more.

he's really getting at the idea of the "first cause" and aristotle's "unmoved mover", here.

And the idea of being the Last, implies temporality. Therefore, no reason for this concept to figure here as a principle of faith. I wonder what was going on in the Rambam's mind.

he's really talking about the inapplicability of time concepts to G!D.

Given the nature of prayer, whose aim is to change God's mind, it subjects God to anthropomorphism.

you're begging the question here; it's a lot more complicated than that and there's plenty of places where the sages pour scorn on this concept. however, it also seems pretty clear that any anthropomorphism is very much in our minds, rather than G!D's.

Since there were false prophets, and they are not mentioned in this principle, the concept is discredited by default.

what curious logic you have. clearly this by definition doesn't refer to false prophets.

This principle is valid if Moses' role to mediate between God and man is here considered;

that's not his role, to "mediate" - only to convey.

because, to speak as the spokesman between God and man, is the main characteristic of being a prophet.

which is not the same thing at all. and there's also more to it; just ask hosea!

Scholars and some Philosophers, especially Spinoza, assert that only fragments were extant from the time of Moses, and much change to almost all of it was written by Ezra during the Second Jewish Commowhealth after the return of the Jewish People from exile in Babylon. I wonder that Maimonides was not aware of that strong probability, especially because Moses was spoken of in the 3rd person all throughout the Torah.

why is it that you think that everyone in the world is stupider than you? do you really think the sages didn't notice this? look - the Torah is the Word of G!D, not of moses, even though moses is speaking it. as for the rest, nobody has ever produced any of these so-called sources or fragments. it's fundamentally all conjecture, but in any case it has to be a matter of trust that Torah is from G!D; you may also be interested to know that not all formulations of this principle are to be translated as you have done. in fact, this is drafted extremely carefully.

I won't bet on being changed, but that God will never give another, that's for sure.

the point here is that there will not be another Revelation from G!D abrogating the Torah we have from sinai - this, if you like, is quite the contemporary dig at the claims of both the new testament and the Qur'an - you dislike supercessionary theology; well this is its refutation par excellence.

God indeed does know all, but it is as if He doesn't, considering His policy, so to speak, of non-interference with man's free will.

finally we are getting somewhere. this is also affected by G!D's Transcendence of time; if all times are One to G!D, then everything that has happened, is happening and will happen at Once, which means that all possibilities are also One, which means that everything that possibly can happen, has already happened and at the same time has not happened, as have all the consequences thereof of all permutations of causality. from our point of view in linear time, however, this cannot be perceived, so from our point of view free will exists, whereas if there is no time, there can be no free will, because there's no time in which choice can exist; this is very relevant to shabbat and the garden of eden.

That's absolutely false and unacceptable for being part of a Hellenistic doctrine inherited by Christianity.

not at all - the point is that you have to base it on faith, because it's impossible to base it on evidence.

I won't dig further but I wonder how the great Rambam, so adverse to anthropomorphism would speak of God in such terms as to bring Him down to the level of the Greek gods.

your hostility to hellenistic thought is blinding you to the influence of aristotle on judaism until the enlightenment. you just have a really weird idea about what judaism is and isn't... it frankly does my head in.

The reason why Maimonides is not here talking about an individual Messiah is the fact that this principle comes just prior to the principle about resurrection.

nonsense - the hebrew mentions "melekh ha-mashiah"; this is clearly an individual. the wiggle room comes in via the fact that messiahship is something you *qualify* for, as per hilkhoth melakhim in the yad.

The point is that Messiah means anointed of the Lord in Hebrew, and Israel is mentioned so in Habakkuk 3:13. Now, according to Isaiah 53:8,9 when the Jewish People are forced into exile, it is as if we have been cut off from the land of the living, which is Israel, and graves are assigned to us in the Diaspora among the Gentiles. Then, at the end of the exile, the Lord opens up those graves and brings us back to the Land of Israel, according to Ezekiel 37:12.

that's very patriotic of you, but not at all what rambam had in mind.

There is nothing in this principle to imply bodily resurrection. Therefore, resurrection here is metaphorical for the return of the Messiah from the graves of exile and back to the Land of Israel.

it's amazing how something is allowed to be metaphorical when it suits your particular prejudices.

How can divinity be indwelling in man, if it cannot be divided...

because All Is One and we are all part of that. it isn't "divided" - that's just our perception that it is.

somehow these fellows from back ago never saw the discrepancies between 8 & 9

which discrepancies are these?

12 and 13 are, in my opinion, in reference to the Law BEFORE the dispensation of Jesus... ( but that results from my own research.. ). and are represented that way because of the texts he had available, again IMO....

well, we don't recognise the dispensation, or the texts concerned, so that, yes, is your opinion, but i hardly think you can claim that maimonides was unaware of these claims as made by christianity.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Ben Masada]

How can divinity be indwelling in man, if it cannot be divided...where does the idea of changing God's mind come from?

According to Jesus himself, Divinity or, the Kingdom of God is esoteric. He meant, within ourselves. That's in Luke 17:21.

there is no Book of False Prophets...sideways argument.

True that there is no specific book of false prophets, but the Tanach does speak about them. Elijah slit the throats of 450 of them.(I Kings 18:19,40)

i'm not so sure of that... to be a prophet is to "open" to receiving the Word of God... I would like you to show me where a prophets job is to "mediate"... i have missed this idea...

The main function of the prophet is to serve as spokesman between God and the people. (Exo. 4:16; Isa. 6:8)

I have read where prophets were told to suffer in plain view, speak loudly of Israel's neglect of it's job, and generally be abused - but mediate? Moses is not simply a prophet - he was the most actual founder of Israel...maybe that was why he was so important...

Moses, founder of Israel!!! When Moses was born, Israel existed for almost
a thousand years within the Tribal system. Moses' importance is based on the fact that he organized Israel as a community under the Law.

Just goes to show you how easy it is to make assumptions based on how clever one considers themselves.

Assumptions, any one can make. The point is to refute those assumptions.

you are stuck on the hellenist thingy, huh? one word - Karma...( but not in the form you think I mean...) even the Zohar speaks of reincarnation... it was not some foreign idea.... it was one of the major differences between the schools of thought from the beginning... and obviously he was further on that end than the end you are presently comfortable with...

One thing is to state that the Zohar speaks about reincarnation; another is to understand "how." Tell me about the text and I will tell you the metaphorical meaning of it.

12 and 13 are, in my opinion, in reference to the Law BEFORE the dispensation of Jesus... ( but that results from my own research.. ). and are represented that way because of the texts he had available, again IMO....It directly relates to the Jewish idea of the afterlife...

The literal Jewish ideas end with the end of life. Any thing about the afterlife is metaphorical.

Ben

 

[radarmark]

Oh, ooo, oooooooo! Is anyone else sporting wood over this thread? I have learned so much in this discussion (even we who were raised "jewish" did not get this kind of in-depth analysis (at least I did not before I went off to Southeast Asia to fight and die for G!d and country). I really really appreciate this (especially the refs, BB)!

 

[BrotherMichaelSky]

According to Jesus himself, Divinity or, the Kingdom of God is esoteric. He meant, within ourselves. That's in Luke 17:21.



True that there is no specific book of false prophets, but the Tanach does speak about them. Elijah slit the throats of 450 of them.(I Kings 18:19,40)



The main function of the prophet is to serve as spokesman between God and the people. (Exo. 4:16; Isa. 6:8)



Moses, founder of Israel!!! When Moses was born, Israel existed for almost
a thousand years within the Tribal system. Moses' importance is based on the fact that he organized Israel as a community under the Law.

Israel the nation is what i meant....

Assumptions, any one can make. The point is to refute those assumptions.

or just point out that we all make them...

One thing is to state that the Zohar speaks about reincarnation; another is to understand "how." Tell me about the text and I will tell you the metaphorical meaning of it.

that most definitely be another thread i think.... and i am not the best school teacher...
best if you do a little reading... i can be patient - no hurry

The literal Jewish ideas end with the end of life. Any thing about the afterlife is metaphorical.

Ben

for the current majority...

 

[Ben Masada]

i

as you know, my position is that "emunah" is fundamental - these 13 points are things which can ONLY be based on emunah.

Perhaps "emunah" in terms of trust. When Hosea said that people perish for lack of knowledge, he was equating faith with ignorance. (Hos. 4:6)

yes, but that doesn't really mean anything, does it? i mean, what is "spirit", then?

It does mean that we cannot define God beyond that He is a Spiritual Being.

It also seems pretty clear that any anthropomorphism is very much in our minds, rather than G!D's.

Yes, but in the mind of those who are unable to see the truth in the metaphorical realm of reality.

that's not his role, to "mediate" - only to convey.

IMHO, the one who conveys does the job of mediation.

which is not the same thing at all. and there's also more to it; just ask hosea!

Believe me, you don't wana talk to Hosea about faith. He implies that one does not die for lack of faith but of knowledge. (Hosea 4:6) Evidence? The faithfuls of Jim Jones. If they had known a little better about their insane leader, they would have escaped death then.

why is it that you think that everyone in the world is stupider than you?

That's an ad hominem disguised as a question.

The Torah is the Word of G!D, not of moses, even though moses is speaking it. as for the rest, nobody has ever produced any of these so-called sources or fragments.

I hope you are not being literal here. It is according to our culture to attribute to God Divine inspiration on Literature for the good of the People. Literally, the Torah and the whole of the Tanach is the word of Israel, the Jewish People.

the point here is that there will not be another Revelation from G!D abrogating the Torah we have from sinai - this, if you like, is quite the contemporary dig at the claims of both the new testament and the Qur'an - you dislike supercessionary theology; well this is its refutation par excellence.

Does it mean you agree with my struggle against the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology? Not that he succeeded but for his arrogance to even try.

So from our point of view free will exists, whereas if there is no time, there can be no free will, because there's no time in which choice can exist; this is very relevant to shabbat and the garden of eden.

Time is relevant about any thing we do. It is with reference to God that there is no time. God is always. But I am glad we are of the same mind with reference to free will. I hope you are with me that it does in absolute
terms.

not at all - the point is that you have to base it on faith, because it's impossible to base it on evidence.

Evidences do not justify faith, or vice-versa; as they don't go together.

Your hostility to hellenistic thought is blinding you to the influence of aristotle on judaism until the enlightenment. you just have a really weird idea about what judaism is and isn't... it frankly does my head in.

Hellenistic influence in Judaism is only in the fleshy eyes of the beholder who can't see with the eyes of his mind.

nonsense - the hebrew mentions "melekh ha-mashiah"; this is clearly an individual. the wiggle room comes in via the fact that messiahship is something you *qualify* for, as per hilkhoth melakhim in the yad.

It evades commonsense to think of "Melech ha-Mashiach" as an individual. The individual is born, lives his span of life, and eventually dies. Are we to expect an individual Melech ha-Mashiach in every generation? Obviously not. "Melech ha-Mashiach" is not supposed to die but to remain as a PEOPLE before the Lord forever. Read Jeremiah 31:35-37. And for being Melech ha-Mashiach, one needs to qualify, no problem; read Exodus 19:6. "You shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and kings." Behold, Meleckh ha-Mashiach!

it's amazing how something is allowed to be metaphorical when it suits your particular prejudices.

Not my particular prejudices but rader Logic.

Ben

 

[BrotherMichaelSky]

it should be pointed out that there were an awfully large number of candidates for the fundamentals - there were a lot of different authorities with their own schemes, including duran, hasdai crescas, sa'adia gaon and so on; maimonides is not the only game in town, although he is probably correct:

Jewish principles of faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

however, i am not convinced that people really understand him.


it should be pointed out that the formulation is ani ma'amin be-emunah sheleimah; "emunah" is in my opinion closest to "trust" - belief THAT, rather than belief IN. this is a particularly important point for these two profoundly excellent books which you must read if you are to really dig into what is going on here:

Must a Jew Believe Anything? Second Edition Littman Library of Jewish Civilization: Amazon.co.uk: Menachem Kellner: Books
The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides' Thirteen Principles Reappraised: Amazon.co.uk: Marc B. Shapiro: Books

as you know, my position is that "emunah" is fundamental - these 13 points are things which can ONLY be based on emunah; they cannot be logically deduced; they are axiomatic. if you like, this is like him saying "i take it completely on faith that..."


i always prefer to express this in terms of the dimensionality arguments found in sefer yetzirah. for G!D, the fourth dimension of time is as flexible as the three dimensions of space are for us. however, this principle is really about unity as opposed to trinity, for instance, or sefirotic decile.


yes, but that doesn't really mean anything, does it? i mean, what is "spirit", then?


he's really getting at the idea of the "first cause" and aristotle's "unmoved mover", here.


he's really talking about the inapplicability of time concepts to G!D.


you're begging the question here; it's a lot more complicated than that and there's plenty of places where the sages pour scorn on this concept. however, it also seems pretty clear that any anthropomorphism is very much in our minds, rather than G!D's.


what curious logic you have. clearly this by definition doesn't refer to false prophets.


that's not his role, to "mediate" - only to convey.


which is not the same thing at all. and there's also more to it; just ask hosea!


why is it that you think that everyone in the world is stupider than you? do you really think the sages didn't notice this? look - the Torah is the Word of G!D, not of moses, even though moses is speaking it. as for the rest, nobody has ever produced any of these so-called sources or fragments. it's fundamentally all conjecture, but in any case it has to be a matter of trust that Torah is from G!D; you may also be interested to know that not all formulations of this principle are to be translated as you have done. in fact, this is drafted extremely carefully.


the point here is that there will not be another Revelation from G!D abrogating the Torah we have from sinai - this, if you like, is quite the contemporary dig at the claims of both the new testament and the Qur'an - you dislike supercessionary theology; well this is its refutation par excellence.


finally we are getting somewhere. this is also affected by G!D's Transcendence of time; if all times are One to G!D, then everything that has happened, is happening and will happen at Once, which means that all possibilities are also One, which means that everything that possibly can happen, has already happened and at the same time has not happened, as have all the consequences thereof of all permutations of causality. from our point of view in linear time, however, this cannot be perceived, so from our point of view free will exists, whereas if there is no time, there can be no free will, because there's no time in which choice can exist; this is very relevant to shabbat and the garden of eden.


not at all - the point is that you have to base it on faith, because it's impossible to base it on evidence.


your hostility to hellenistic thought is blinding you to the influence of aristotle on judaism until the enlightenment. you just have a really weird idea about what judaism is and isn't... it frankly does my head in.


nonsense - the hebrew mentions "melekh ha-mashiah"; this is clearly an individual. the wiggle room comes in via the fact that messiahship is something you *qualify* for, as per hilkhoth melakhim in the yad.


that's very patriotic of you, but not at all what rambam had in mind.


it's amazing how something is allowed to be metaphorical when it suits your particular prejudices.


because All Is One and we are all part of that. it isn't "divided" - that's just our perception that it is.


which discrepancies are these?

That the Word of God is OF God, and as such MUST be constantly in fluid motion... God is Life - Life is Motion To Be is to Change. But the Lord stands outside of time - and the changes come as He wills....

well, we don't recognise the dispensation, or the texts concerned, so that, yes, is your opinion, but i hardly think you can claim that maimonides was unaware of these claims as made by christianity.

said that poorly - because of the time period he was living in, too much destruction had taken place previously for him to have complete RECORDED examples of the interpretation of the ELECT.... It looks to me like the same concepts had to be reborn over and over... and when they were placed within the texts, it was in the same nature as a parable; it had to be understandable as the result of foundational knowledge which made the words have multiple meaning... each according to his or her knowledge -( which by the way, is the very best proof that i can see of a guiding hand within the text.... it's depth of meaning, and multiple meanings which fit like interlocking puzzle pieces... I could never ever accomplish such a feat... )

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[bananabrain]

One thing is to state that the Zohar speaks about reincarnation; another is to understand "how." Tell me about the text and I will tell you the metaphorical meaning of it.

sorry, are you saying that the zohar does or doesn't assume that reincarnation is a fact? i'm not clear what you mean. my understanding is this: reincarnation, within kabbalistic thought, is generally considered to be a standard; it is referred to as "gilgul ha-neshamot". now, depending on what precisely your opinions are on the structure of souls - is it simply split-nefesh, or the three-tier model, or the five-tier model, your notions of reincarnation will therefore vary. as this is aggadah, any reasonable position with some grounding in the tradition is sustainable, as is dismissing it entirely. i will confine myself to saying that if energy is conserved and is essentially eternally recycled as per the relevant laws of physics, if spiritual energy exists (i.e. if we are more than our consciousness) it makes sense that this type of energy also gets recycled; however, i would postulate that different bits get recycled in different places, just as our individual atoms and components get broken down and recycled at a more granular level when we die or, frankly, throughout our existence. i don't see why it has to be metaphorical, necessarily.

The literal Jewish ideas end with the end of life. Any thing about the afterlife is metaphorical.

again, you're right, everyone else is wrong. end of discussion. just ignore the fact that there are other opinions, why don't you.

Perhaps "emunah" in terms of trust.

i'd agree with that.

When Hosea said that people perish for lack of knowledge, he was equating faith with ignorance. (Hos. 4:6)

er... no he doesn't. he equates lack of knowledge with a prevalence of violence, deception, murder, stealing and adultery in verse 2. knowledge, here, is the knowledge of right ACTION. i don't see what it has to do with emunah, as the word isn't mentioned.

It does mean that we cannot define God beyond that He is a Spiritual Being.

which i've already said is meaningless. what is a "spiritual being"? a non-physical one? one made of energy? isn't a ghost or a demon or an angel a "spiritual being"? assertions about G!D's nature are inherently inadequate.

Yes, but in the mind of those who are unable to see the truth in the metaphorical realm of reality.

what "metaphorical realm of reality"? surely if something is metaphorical, it is not real, wouldn't you say? seems somewhat oxymoronic.

IMHO, the one who conveys does the job of mediation.

so for you, that's a semantic difference? for me, "mediate" implies that he has some sort of intermediary power, which for me is highly problematic. prophets have no power other than that of channelling the Divine; for a prophet to be truly effective, they have to engage in "bittul ha-yesh"; look at what poor bloody hosea went through!

He implies that one does not die for lack of faith but of knowledge. (Hosea 4:6)

he doesn't mention faith in that pasuk! the criticism is of those who forsake the Torah; that is not forsaking *faith* but forsaking *morality*, as evidenced by the actions (see verse 2) and, moreover, in verse 9, "I will Punish them for their WAYS (derakhaw, ie behaviour) and repay them for their DEEDS ('allelaw)" - they're not being punished over faith, but over ACTION. and i don't see how jim jones is evidence of anything here.

That's an ad hominem disguised as a question.

it's an expression of exasperation with your apparent inability to see validity in anyone else's point of view!

I hope you are not being literal here.

what, that the Torah is the Word of G!D? of course i am! however, that doesn't imply literalness of understanding or interpretation as per, say, your average protestant evangelical.

It is according to our culture to attribute to God Divine inspiration on Literature for the good of the People.

and it is according to our Torah to attribute to G!D Divine Authorship - for the good of the people.

Literally, the Torah and the whole of the Tanach is the word of Israel, the Jewish People.

this is a statement of modern ideology, not of religious principle.

Does it mean you agree with my struggle against the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology?

that's not quite how i'd put it. to the extent that i see replacement theology propounded, i oppose it. what i do not do is see replacement theology everywhere that you do, nor do i take the most unforgiving, unpleasant and tendentious tendencies of supercessionism as representing the "real truth"; that is highly selective, ahistorical, biased and can be compared to, say, picking meir kahane as representing the "real truth" about judaism. he comes from judaism, but he's highly unpleasant, extreme, violent and one-sided and represents, ultimately, a distortion of our core values and message. you're picking the worst and trying to make out that it is the most real and true and therefore the most authentic expression. the vast majority of your interlocutors here are not trying to convert you or convince you of the truth of replacement theology, yet you insist that they are and that this straw man of yours is the fundamental bedrock of all christian argument - to the extent that there is any good in christianity, it is "stolen" from judaism and anything unpleasant can be safely attributed to "hellenistic tendencies" and the like. i find this self-serving, narcissistic, intolerant and extraordinarily out of tune with the message of Torah, Tanakh and jewish history as i see it. in short, if i believed that judaism and christianity were the way that you present them, i would become a strident atheist. i particularly took exception to the time that you implied that i ought to support your argument "in front of the goyim", as it were. i'm sorry if this seems harsh, but i think judaism is quite a complex structure and for me, simplification and reductionism are anathema.

But I am glad we are of the same mind with reference to free will. I hope you are with me that it does in absolute terms.

i am, despite the fact that free will is dependent on the reality of time; to the extent that time is real, so is choice. from G!D's Perspective, neither are real.

Hellenistic influence in Judaism is only in the fleshy eyes of the beholder who can't see with the eyes of his mind.

eh? what on earth is this supposed to mean? are you seriously doubting the influence of, say, aristotle on jewish thought?

It evades commonsense to think of "Melech ha-Mashiach" as an individual. The individual is born, lives his span of life, and eventually dies.

er.. if it's in the "principles", then this is a faith-based position in any case. here are the sources: yad, melakhim 11:3-4 - he will be a non-supernatural mortal human being, as per rambam on sanhedrin 10:1 and yad, teshuvah 9:2:

"If there arises a ruler from the family of David, immersed in the Torah and its commandments like David his ancestor, following both the Written and Oral Torah, who leads Israel back to the Torah, strengthening the observance of its laws and fighting G!D's battles, then we may assume that he is the Messiah. If he is further successful in rebuilding the Temple on its original site and gathering the dispersed of Israel, then his identity as Messiah is a certainty."

Are we to expect an individual Melech ha-Mashiach in every generation? Obviously not.

it depends whether the conditions are right for him or not.

"Melech ha-Mashiach" is not supposed to die but to remain as a PEOPLE before the Lord forever. Read Jeremiah 31:35-37.

eh? how do you get that from there? remaining as a people is an RESULT, not a cause!

Exodus 19:6. "You shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and kings." Behold, Melekh ha-Mashiach!

that's "mamlekheth kohanim we-goy qadosh"; that is *no way* to be understood as you have translated it. it does *not* say "mamlekheth qohanim oo-melakhim".

Not my particular prejudices but rader Logic.

hard to see from my PoV how logic enters into it.

Israel the nation is what i meant....

by which you refer to what? the first, second or third jewish commonwealths? the modern nation-state? the ethno-religious community? the mystical keneseth yisrael? what exactly?

too much destruction had taken place previously for him to have complete RECORDED examples of the interpretation of the ELECT...

so you're basically saying, ah, well if maimonides had only had access to these "recorded examples of the interpretation of the elect", whoever they may be, he would have had a very different opinion of jesus? well, you can believe what you like, but i don't see any basis for you holding that particular belief. you might as well had said, ah, well, if maimonides had only had access to the records held at area 51, he would have talked about aliens a lot more than he does. well, perhaps, but it is a teensy bit beside the point and not particularly germane.

It looks to me like the same concepts had to be reborn over and over... and when they were placed within the texts, it was in the same nature as a parable; it had to be understandable as the result of foundational knowledge which made the words have multiple meaning... each according to his or her knowledge -( which by the way, is the very best proof that i can see of a guiding hand within the text.... it's depth of meaning, and multiple meanings which fit like interlocking puzzle pieces... I could never ever accomplish such a feat...)

this makes slightly more sense to me, but it still doesn't mean we need to consider jesus as someone of particular and universal significance, although of course he is an interesting and insightful, even outstanding individual.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Ben Masada]

sorry, are you saying that the zohar does or doesn't assume that reincarnation is a fact? i'm not clear what you mean.

Reincarnation is a contradiction with resurrection. Think it through.

depending on what precisely your opinions are on the structure of souls - is it simply split-nefesh, or the three-tier model, or the five-tier model

Nothing of the sort. My opinion of soul is the same of Genesis 2:7. We have in there that (metaphorically) man was formed of the dust of the earth, the Lord breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul. To become means to be. If we are living souls, as we die, the soul is non-existent. It is just the condition of being alive.

again, you're right, everyone else is wrong. end of discussion. just ignore the fact that there are other opinions, why don't you.

You are exaggerating. I check other people's opinion, and give mine. What am I to do, to accept?

er... no he doesn't. he equates lack of knowledge with a prevalence of violence, deception, murder, stealing and adultery in verse 2. knowledge, here, is the knowledge of right ACTION. i don't see what it has to do with emunah, as the word isn't mentioned.

The bottom line is that there is no knowledge in faith.

which i've already said is meaningless. what is a "spiritual being"? a non-physical one? one made of energy? isn't a ghost or a demon or an angel a "spiritual being"? assertions about G!D's nature are inherently inadequate.

No, ghosts or demons or angels are simply emanations. They do not exist as beings.

what "metaphorical realm of reality"? surely if something is metaphorical, it is not real, wouldn't you say? seems somewhat oxymoronic.

As I can see, you need "The Guide for the Perplexed" by Maimonides to understand the meaning of metaphorical language.

they're not being punished over faith, but over ACTION. and i don't see how jim jones is evidence of anything here.

The evidence of what happened to the faithfuls of Jim Jones represents the result of faith. If those almost a thousand faithfuls had some knowledge of their insane leader, they would have lived a little longer.

this is a statement of modern ideology, not of religious principle.

I would say, rather a statement of Reason.

eh? what on earth is this supposed to mean? are you seriously doubting the influence of, say, aristotle on jewish thought?

As I can see, you don't question authorities. This attitude is simply fallacious.

Ben

 

[BrotherMichaelSky]

sorry, are you saying that the zohar does or doesn't assume that reincarnation is a fact? i'm not clear what you mean. my understanding is this: reincarnation, within kabbalistic thought, is generally considered to be a standard; it is referred to as "gilgul ha-neshamot". now, depending on what precisely your opinions are on the structure of souls - is it simply split-nefesh, or the three-tier model, or the five-tier model, your notions of reincarnation will therefore vary. as this is aggadah, any reasonable position with some grounding in the tradition is sustainable, as is dismissing it entirely. i will confine myself to saying that if energy is conserved and is essentially eternally recycled as per the relevant laws of physics, if spiritual energy exists (i.e. if we are more than our consciousness) it makes sense that this type of energy also gets recycled; however, i would postulate that different bits get recycled in different places, just as our individual atoms and components get broken down and recycled at a more granular level when we die or, frankly, throughout our existence. i don't see why it has to be metaphorical, necessarily.


again, you're right, everyone else is wrong. end of discussion. just ignore the fact that there are other opinions, why don't you.


i'd agree with that.


er... no he doesn't. he equates lack of knowledge with a prevalence of violence, deception, murder, stealing and adultery in verse 2. knowledge, here, is the knowledge of right ACTION. i don't see what it has to do with emunah, as the word isn't mentioned.


which i've already said is meaningless. what is a "spiritual being"? a non-physical one? one made of energy? isn't a ghost or a demon or an angel a "spiritual being"? assertions about G!D's nature are inherently inadequate.


what "metaphorical realm of reality"? surely if something is metaphorical, it is not real, wouldn't you say? seems somewhat oxymoronic.


so for you, that's a semantic difference? for me, "mediate" implies that he has some sort of intermediary power, which for me is highly problematic. prophets have no power other than that of channelling the Divine; for a prophet to be truly effective, they have to engage in "bittul ha-yesh"; look at what poor bloody hosea went through!


he doesn't mention faith in that pasuk! the criticism is of those who forsake the Torah; that is not forsaking *faith* but forsaking *morality*, as evidenced by the actions (see verse 2) and, moreover, in verse 9, "I will Punish them for their WAYS (derakhaw, ie behaviour) and repay them for their DEEDS ('allelaw)" - they're not being punished over faith, but over ACTION. and i don't see how jim jones is evidence of anything here.


it's an expression of exasperation with your apparent inability to see validity in anyone else's point of view!


what, that the Torah is the Word of G!D? of course i am! however, that doesn't imply literalness of understanding or interpretation as per, say, your average protestant evangelical.


and it is according to our Torah to attribute to G!D Divine Authorship - for the good of the people.


this is a statement of modern ideology, not of religious principle.


that's not quite how i'd put it. to the extent that i see replacement theology propounded, i oppose it. what i do not do is see replacement theology everywhere that you do, nor do i take the most unforgiving, unpleasant and tendentious tendencies of supercessionism as representing the "real truth"; that is highly selective, ahistorical, biased and can be compared to, say, picking meir kahane as representing the "real truth" about judaism. he comes from judaism, but he's highly unpleasant, extreme, violent and one-sided and represents, ultimately, a distortion of our core values and message. you're picking the worst and trying to make out that it is the most real and true and therefore the most authentic expression. the vast majority of your interlocutors here are not trying to convert you or convince you of the truth of replacement theology, yet you insist that they are and that this straw man of yours is the fundamental bedrock of all christian argument - to the extent that there is any good in christianity, it is "stolen" from judaism and anything unpleasant can be safely attributed to "hellenistic tendencies" and the like. i find this self-serving, narcissistic, intolerant and extraordinarily out of tune with the message of Torah, Tanakh and jewish history as i see it. in short, if i believed that judaism and christianity were the way that you present them, i would become a strident atheist. i particularly took exception to the time that you implied that i ought to support your argument "in front of the goyim", as it were. i'm sorry if this seems harsh, but i think judaism is quite a complex structure and for me, simplification and reductionism are anathema.


i am, despite the fact that free will is dependent on the reality of time; to the extent that time is real, so is choice. from G!D's Perspective, neither are real.


eh? what on earth is this supposed to mean? are you seriously doubting the influence of, say, aristotle on jewish thought?


er.. if it's in the "principles", then this is a faith-based position in any case. here are the sources: yad, melakhim 11:3-4 - he will be a non-supernatural mortal human being, as per rambam on sanhedrin 10:1 and yad, teshuvah 9:2:




it depends whether the conditions are right for him or not.


eh? how do you get that from there? remaining as a people is an RESULT, not a cause!


that's "mamlekheth kohanim we-goy qadosh"; that is *no way* to be understood as you have translated it. it does *not* say "mamlekheth qohanim oo-melakhim".


hard to see from my PoV how logic enters into it.



by which you refer to what? the first, second or third jewish commonwealths? the modern nation-state? the ethno-religious community? the mystical keneseth yisrael? what exactly?

which one did Moses have a direct hand in ?
Ben, this habit of ignoring everything but what you have a snappy answer for is rather tiring.... when you cannot be seen as OBVIOUSLY right, you seem to have the tendency to get a little "smart" - i warn you, i am the youngest of seven - i have wit enough to have you pulling chunks of hair out.....

so you're basically saying, ah, well if maimonides had only had access to these "recorded examples of the interpretation of the elect", whoever they may be, he would have had a very different opinion of jesus? well, you can believe what you like, but i don't see any basis for you holding that particular belief. you might as well had said, ah, well, if maimonides had only had access to the records held at area 51, he would have talked about aliens a lot more than he does. well, perhaps, but it is a teensy bit beside the point and not particularly germane.

your wit is misplaced - and a lil sad....
what i mean is that I see within what i read, various understandings that interpret directly to what i experience in deeper meditations - i see where there are "levels" of understanding which rise and fall over the course of the years, and i personally believe that your buddy just happened to fall at a low point in understanding - he could very well have written other points if he had encountered a few other concepts that WERE around in his time.....

this makes slightly more sense to me, but it still doesn't mean we need to consider jesus as someone of particular and universal significance, although of course he is an interesting and insightful, even outstanding individual.

b'shalom

bananabrain

my particular experiences tell me that Jesus is INDEED a VERY special character ( for lack of a better term at the moment ) as relates to EVERY soul... the fact that His incarnation has been hijacked means nothing in the face of Reality...
I do not believe that ANY soul is Christian, Jew, Hindu, or anything else resembling a religion - souls are above religion in my view....

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben, this habit of ignoring everything but what you have a snappy answer for is rather tiring.... when you cannot be seen as OBVIOUSLY right, you seem to have the tendency to get a little "smart" - i warn you, i am the youngest of seven - i have wit enough to have you pulling chunks of hair out.....

Nothing special. I just pass over comments that I have answered before. Kind of a timesaving method. Many do this here.
Ben