Good point.
Just wondering the reasoning behind moving from a non-animate vessel to an animate one. What does it signify?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Questions
- Thread starter Terry Sampson
- Start date
Just wondering the reasoning behind moving from a non-animate vessel to an animate one. What does it signify?
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
Oh, ... okay. Pipes. Ya know? I'm still trying to wrap my head around Tzimtzum.
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the classic trinity model (not the one we're discussing).
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
LOL! Damn if I know, but when I get back to the office in Headquarters I'll ask around and see if I can find out. I'll have to get back to you later.Good point.
Just wondering the reasoning behind moving from a non-animate vessel to an animate one. What does it signify?
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
Give it up. 'Bout the best I can explain it is this: We Gentiles gave "the bush" a promotion. We figured that you can't bow to the Shekinah without bowing to the bush.
Sounds idolatryistic, if you don't mind me saying so.
Did Moses bow to the bush?
And miss out on delightful conversations with trinitarians? Never!
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
If he bowed, did he bow to bush or to the Fire above it? How do you bow to the Fire without bowing to the bush?
Doesn't bother me at all. The Fire will sort it out later, along with Doeg and Ahithophel.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
That's kindergarden stuff.
If you want serious excitement, go dance with the Mormons and ask them to explain how pre-mortal Jesus had a Father God and a Mother God and Grandparents Gods, and how each Mormon hopes to become a married God and how Father God and Jesus God and a nebulous Holy Spirit doesn't make Mormons polytheists.
Then go and ask the Jehovah's Witnesses to explain how the Archangel Michael was a Spirit Being that was incarnated in Jesus, and when Jesus died, his soul went to Sheol but his Spirit Being returned to Heaven; which raises the question: If what died went to Sheol and what didn't die went to Heaven, what got resurrected?
And when you've done all that, then go to the Baha'i and ask them: If Baha'ullah was a Manifestation of Jesus, was he a Manifestation of the standard Trinitarian's Jesus, the Mormon's Jesus, or the Jehovah's Witnesses' Jesus, or the Quran's Jesus?
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
Right.
BTW, if you do talk to the Jehovah's Witnesses, why don't you ask them: Are all angels "gods"? Inquiring minds want to know.
Last edited:
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
What? You forgot already?
Sanhedrin 105a
The ministering Angels exclaimed before the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Sovereign of the Universe! If David comes, who slew the Philistine and gave possession of Gath to thy children. [and complains at Thy giving a share in the world to come to Doeg and Ahitophel], what wilt thou do with him?' He replied, 'It is My duty to make them friends with each other.'
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
Time out while I reroll the tape.
Okay, ... "the bush" is where I went off the rails.
I'll try again and do it the way I came up with once when I was paying closer attention.
Okay, ... "the bush" is where I went off the rails.
I'll try again and do it the way I came up with once when I was paying closer attention.
-
-
- and the fully human Jesus, a second Moses, [not the bush.]
- Is the Shekinah God or not?
- If not, then what is it?
- And why did any Jew ever think it was God?
- If not, then what is it?
- Is the Ruach HaKodesh God or not?
- If not what is it?
- And why did any Jew ever think it was God?
- If each is God, are there three Gods or one?
- Me? I say each is God, the same God. There is only one God: Father, Shekinah, and Ruach haKodesh. But, that said, I'm nobody and certainly not an authority on a speculative Jewish Trinity.
Last edited:
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
Would it be safe to assume that you assume that Jesus himself "had no real idea what the presence of such a force meant, which left everything to [his] imagination?
That seems odd to me. But maybe it shouldn't, given R. Jacob Joseph of Polonoy's comments [see Note below.]
Silly me. My shechinah-bush/shechinah-Jesus analogy was not the appropriate analogy.
The analogy I should have proposed is a shechinah-Moses/shechinah-Jesus analogy.
"Giving 'the bush' a promotion" is nonsense.
[Note. Regarding R. Jacob Joseph's comments:
- Toledot Yaakov Yoseph, p. 67a.
- ... Furthermore, no other pentateuchal portions except this one "va-
Yakhel" [Exod. 35-28, 20] and "Kedoshim Tihyu" [Lev. 19-20] begin
with a request for Moses to gather the entire nation together.21 The
matter has already been explained, for Moses, may he rest in peace, had
said: "Enviest thou for my sake? Would God that all the Lord's people
were prophets" [Num. 11:29], etc. Moses . . . wished the whole of Israel
to attain the rank which he had attained. And this is not impossible. For
man has free choice to purify his corporeality until he reaches the rank
of Moses, may he rest in peace. And Moses was distinguished from all other
prophets by one other quality, namely... that the Shechina (immanence
of God) itself spoke through his throat. This rank also may be reached by
every Israelite after he had sanctified himself with God's holiness."
- ... Furthermore, no other pentateuchal portions except this one "va-
Last edited:
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
I could well have misunderstood him, but it seems to me that R. Jacob Joseph of Polonoy, quoted in my last post, sure seems to have thought so.
I'll get to that later today.
I didn't forget (okay, it took me a few moments to remember), but I wonder at the insistence that "Eh, I could be totally wrong about this but we'll leave the holy flames of Jewish hell to pass proper judgement".
Excuse me? As of now you're the only authority on this hypothesis.
I've been pondering this all morning. Man, is this trudging into deep kabbalah territory (of which I know nothing of).
Okay, here's what I know (hopefully I won't botch this up too much):
The shechinah is God - it's a term to signify His presence in this world.
At the same time, you have a concept which you've mentioned already - tzimtzum - how does that fit into all of this? It's very complicated. One thing's clear: God in His infinity can't be contained in one physical object/place.
Now, to Ruach Hakodesh:
That's definitely not God. Ruach Hakodesh is a term that denotes that "tube" thing I mentioned - usually used to define a weaker level connection than that of nevuah (again, badly translated into prophecy in English. Nevuah means 'clear sight' and defines the highest level of connection a person can have with God).
Moses wasn't a walking, talking, piece of Ruach Hakodesh. He had Ruach Hakodesh in that he had the highest sort of nevuah capabilities of any man. "And He said: 'Hear now My words: if there be a prophet among you, I the LORD do make Myself known unto him in a vision, I do speak with him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so; he is trusted in all My house; with him do I speak mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD doth he behold..." (Num. 12:6-8)
To tie this all together, I think the early Christians' mistake was so:
They were somewhat foolish or ignorant in their understanding of these concepts. It's clear that these concepts are very abstract, I mean just try to figure out how Shechinah and Tzimtzum go together, and you see that it's completely mind-boggling. Even to attempt to explain a bit of these concepts demands usage of various parables and metaphors, which already diminishes the deepness of these concepts.
Recall that Jesus came from the Galilee which was rampant with Hellenistic Jews. Those Jews may have held beliefs that these various concepts can really be described in physical terms, that is - that these divine concepts are really physical in some sense, same as Jupiter and Mercury are physical divine entities. Remember those "tubes"? Those aren't really tubes. The term is used for lack of a better way to explain the idea. But Galilean Hellenistic Jews may have thought those are really invisible tubes that come down from God. Much like the childish view that if the Tanach describes God's anger with His "nose smoking", then God must really have s nose that smokes when He's angry! Which is ridiculous. The term is used so that humans can have some semblance of understanding God's ways in this world.
We have no clear proof (to my knowledge) that any of the disciples had real scholarly background. All they may have known about kabbalistic concepts were fragments they heard here and there, and decided they were good enough to be able to piece them together into a seemingly coherent theology.
To their credit, they weren't entirely at fault: a. Hellenism had been rampant in Israel since the time of the Greeks. b. They (the disciples) were probably part of the caste of Jews known in Halacha as "Amei Ha'aretz" - people of the land/earth - boorish, unlearned, commoners (not necessarily in a royal/not royal sort of way). One of the most famous faults of the people in the time of the Second Temple was that the scholars looked down at the amei ha'aretz in a very disrespectful manner. Therefore, it would make sense that there may never have been a scholar around who was willing to take the time to properly explain the concepts. c. No Shechinah in Israel since centuries earlier means they had no idea what that even felt like. Really, anybody could have come up to them and said: "I'm a walking manifestation of the Shechinah", and they wouldn't have been wiser.
And then? And then came Jesus. A seemingly smart, seemingly learned, charismatic individual who was willing to take up these people as students. Did he have real knowledge of these concepts? I have absolutely no idea. Did he teach these things to his students? Again, I don't know. But hey, he gave them some attention. That would've been enough to spark in them the thought that they could piece together all of these concepts, all f these teachings, into a new theology.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
Ha! Did my use of the word "Fire" lead you to think that I was referring to hell fire? If so, m sorry about that. I was referring to the Fire above the burning bush, ... to the Holy One Himself.