Pagan roots of the abrahamic traditions

[Nungali]

3 hours ago, Maddie said:

 

Several times after reading about Christian mystics I have tried to be gracious with Christianity and see what cultivation gems there might be within it. It was like looking for water in a desert in my opinion. Every now and then you might find a puddle here and there but that's about it. Just based on my experience. 

 

You have to wait until the period they started copying other traditions , like  Neoplatonists     

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, Maddie said:

 

Well one modern nation that did remain polytheistic to this day is India if you want a reference point. 

 

And Australia , our national religion acknowledges  SEVERAL   .... football teams  .     

[Zhongyongdaoist]

 

On 11/26/2023 at 1:02 PM, Nungali said:

On 11/26/2023 at 9:29 AM, Maddie said:

 

Several times after reading about Christian mystics I have tried to be gracious with Christianity and see what cultivation gems there might be within it. It was like looking for water in a desert in my opinion. Every now and then you might find a puddle here and there but that's about it. Just based on my experience. 

 

You have to wait until the period they started copying other traditions , like  Neoplatonists     

 

You don't have to wait until the Late Platonists to see Christianity using Platonic sources, Jesus himself does it in Mathew as I noted in a post some time back:

 

On 9/7/2013 at 6:05 AM, Zhongyongdaoist said:

One of the conclusions that I that I came to after decades of study was that in the general population, Platonism was one of the single most under appreciated influences in the formation of Hermeticism, Christianity, Esoteric Judaism and other movements that developed during the Hellenistic period. Granted that this position is more or less scholarly orthodoxy it is generally dismissed by people who don't know enough about Plato to see the influence of his Gorgias in the "Sermon on the Mount" ...

 

Later in the thread I post an example of this which is too long to quote:

 

Plato's Gorgias in Mathew 5

 

Earlier in the same thread I had posted about my earliest experiences with Plato and my first negative impression him and how I worked past it here:

 

Early experience with Plato and moving past it

(note that the post which it says "45 years ago" was posted in 2013, the actual time was about 1968, 55 years ago now.)

 

I had started the topic from which these are taken with the intent of developing it to a larger extant, but for  variety of reasons it never got further than a beginning.

 

I hope that the above posts are interesting and informative.

 

ZYD

[SirPalomides]

On 11/26/2023 at 4:02 PM, Nungali said:

 

You have to wait until the period they started copying other traditions , like  Neoplatonists     

 

I would say it's more that people steeped in platonist tradition became Christians. I don't think you could say people like Clement, Origen, or Marius Victorinus (or their Jewish predecessor Philo) were copying a tradition foreign to them, that was the tradition they were educated in and by which they made sense of the world in general and their Christian faith. They were hellenes and Christians. In some cases it might even be argued that neoplatonists actually infiltrated the church- whoever wrote the Dionysian corpus, for instance, or Synesius, disciple of Hypatia, who was made bishop despite explicitly saying to Pope Theophilus, "You can make me bishop but don't expect me to actually believe all this stuff." 

 

As was pointed out earlier, "pagan" is just a pejorative with no real content. The sharp distinction between Christians and "pagans" served polemicists of both parties but with the passing of the ages and the subsiding of polemics, it's easy to see how Christianity emerged out of the "late antique" religious milieu where various Hellenic, semitic, Persian, etc. currents were all mixing together. 

Edited November 28, 2023 by SirPalomides

[Daniel]

On 11/26/2023 at 2:35 AM, NaturaNaturans said:

So, we know both jews were polythesitic until about 300bx and 650

 

Some were.  Some weren't.  There's good archeological evidence, Temple-Tel-Arad, showing strict monotheism matching the biblical narrative going back to 900BCE.  Monotheism would have predated this.  In order to have a massive temple and the infrastructure supporting it, monotheism was popular at that time.  It's origin would be much much earlier.

 

On 11/26/2023 at 2:35 AM, NaturaNaturans said:

please correct men If im wrong

 

You're wrong.    People simply don't have the complete picture.  Having a PHD does not convey perfection nor lack of bias.  For you, you seem to be polytheistic, and you seem to be looking for ways to somehow escape the simple truth that the abrahamic religions of your heritage are not in anyway polytheistic.  It's not true.  Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all monotheistic religions.  If you don't like it, if you think it's wrong, if you prefer the others... great.  But that doesn't permit rewriting the other religions so that you can be both abrahamic and polytheistic.

 

On 11/26/2023 at 2:35 AM, NaturaNaturans said:

Question is, what influence did the pagan traditions of these regions has on the religions as we know them today?

 

Hasn't this been asked and answered before?  The influence is polemic.  In other words, paganism is rejected.  That's the influence.  

 

[Zhongyongdaoist]

The following is from a site called Vridar and is a part of a response by Russell Gmirkin to a review of his book Plato and Creation of the Hebrew Bible, published by Routledge Taylor & Francis:

 

Quote

Anyway, Russell Gmirkin in his response does remind us of one piece of evidence that deserves not to slip from memory or oversight, and that is certainly a strong support for his own view that the Hebrew Bible was the product of the Hellenistic era, that is after the conquests of Alexander around 300 BCE. The emphasis in the following is my own:

In my view, it is methodologically improper to attempt to gain a picture of Judaism in the monarchic (Iron II), Babylonian or Persian eras on the basis of the Pentateuch, since there is no objective external evidence for Pentateuchal writings in pre-Hellenistic times. Quite the contrary, the Elephantine papyri of ca. 450-400 bce give provide strong contemporary evidence for the character of Judaism as practiced late into the Persian Era. These archives of letters (and ostraca) from the Jewish military colony of Elephantine, an Egyptian southern border fortress located just below the First Cataract of the Nile, attest to a thriving Judaism in Egypt with their own temple but no Aaronic priesthood, a Judaism without scriptures, a Judaism which accommodated polytheism, a Judaism with no knowledge of Abraham, Moses, or any other figure known from the Pentateuch or Hebrew Bible (as shown by the absence of these famous figures from the many Jewish names found in the archives). The Jews of Elephantine celebrated a purely agricultural Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread (TAD A4.1) with no associated traditions regarding Moses or Exodus. They possessed a seven day week, but no sabbath of rest, as shown by one ostraca that enjoined an employee to offload a boat full of vegetables on the sabbath on pain of death (TAD D7.16.1-5). These Jews deferred to the authority of Jewish priests from Jerusalem, with whom they consulted on religious matters, but biblical writings never come into play: only what Wellhausen called Oral Torah, authoritative priestly rulings that did not involve written legal codes. The Samarian papyri of Wadi Daliyeh, dating from ca. 375 to 335 bce, at the dawn of the Hellenistic Era, give a similar, though more limited picture: famous names from the Pentateuch are similarly absent. Contrast with the heavy representation of Pentateuchal names in the second century inscriptions from Mount Gerizim or the book of 1 Maccabees, during later times when the biblical text was mined for children’s names. It seems apparent that Judaism prior to the Hellenistic Era, what I would describe as pre-biblical Judaism, was unacquainted with authoritative Mosaic writings or written laws.

Judaism underwent a bold transformation ca. 270 bce, when the Jewish nation reinvented itself with a new theocratic government modeled on the one described in Plato’s Laws; new divine laws ascribed to Moses; new foundation traditions; an approved national literature (Plato, Laws 7.802b-c, 811c-d); and a new cosmic monotheism patterned on that of the Greek philosophers, notably Plato. Judaism as we are accustomed to thinking of it was a product of the Hellenistic Era and Greek learning. The Books of Moses were not so much a product of Judaism as Hellenistic Judaism was a product of the Books of Moses.

That is not to say that there are no traces of pre-biblical Judaism in the biblical Judaism established by the Jewish senate of ca. 270 bce. Plato’s Laws advocated promoting local temples (Plato, Laws 5.738c-d), priesthoods (Plato, Laws 6.759a-b) and traditional religious customs (Plato, Laws 6.759c-d; 8.828a-c) in order to promote the illusion of an ancient and divine authority for their laws (Plato, Laws 7.798a-b), and it was especially in the cultic sphere that we see continuity with older traditions and institutions in the Pentateuch. Although there is no evidence for the body of cultic regulations having existed in written form prior to ca. 270 bce, it probably reflects practices at the temples at Jerusalem and Mount Gerizim in earlier times.

Personally I can’t help feeling that the terms “Judaism” and “Jews” are anachronistic when applied to this time period. I prefer Steve Mason’s preference for the term “Judeans” and wonder if it might be more appropriate to refer to the religion of the Judeans as Yahweh worship or simply the Judean religious practices.

 

The emphasis is in the original.  As can be seen this is about a large gap in the history of the Bible, one for which there seems to be no satisfactory explanation.  I will post more about this later and about the Vridar site which I discovered about 2015 and how I believe this fits into the bigger picture in the next day or two, right now I just don't have time for more details.

 

ZYD

[SirPalomides]

25 minutes ago, Zhongyongdaoist said:

The following is from a site called Vridar and is a part of a response by Russell Gmirkin to a review of his book Plato and Creation of the Hebrew Bible, published by Routledge Taylor & Francis:

 

 

The emphasis is in the original.  As can be seen this is about a large gap in the history of the Bible, one for which there seems to be no satisfactory explanation.  I will post more about this later and about the Vridar site which I discovered about 2015 and how I believe this fits into the bigger picture in the next day or two, right now I just don't have time for more details.

 

ZYD

 

Thanks for sharing this ZYD! This is actually blowing my mind. I had not heard of Gmirkin's work before and, if I had heard about it in passing, I would have assumed this theory was the work of a crank, but then I see that Routledge published him and his books seem to get receptive reviews in academic publications, even if not entirely in agreement, so there must be something to what he's saying. If he's even partially right then the hellenized character of Second Temple Judaism is a lot deeper than I suspected. 

[NaturaNaturans]

30 minutes ago, Zhongyongdaoist said:

The following is from a site called Vridar and is a part of a response by Russell Gmirkin to a review of his book Plato and Creation of the Hebrew Bible, published by Routledge Taylor & Francis:

Thank you, very interresting. It makes me wonder… that it kind of looks like a conciouss hoax/social engineering and a tool for control. What do you think?

[Zhongyongdaoist]

8 minutes ago, NaturaNaturans said:

39 minutes ago, Zhongyongdaoist said:

The following is from a site called Vridar and is a part of a response by Russell Gmirkin to a review of his book Plato and Creation of the Hebrew Bible, published by Routledge Taylor & Francis:

Thank you, very interresting. It makes me wonder… that it kind of looks like a conciouss hoax/social engineering and a tool for control. What do you think?

 

Just as a quick note, my take is that it was created as a defense against the type of libel and slander that emerged after the appearance of Manetho's attack on the Jews in about 300 BCE this attack is seen as a root of Antisemitism.  I will say more soon.

 

ZYD

[Daniel]

2 hours ago, Zhongyongdaoist said:

there is no objective external evidence for Pentateuchal writings in pre-Hellenistic times.

 

Whatever I bring will likely be denied...

 

But here is something from 600BCE.  That's 300 years prior to hellenstic times.  Something like this doesn't magically poof into existence.  These scriptures would greatly predate 600BCE.  And if the words were not considered of divine origin, they would have not have been fashioned into an amulet.

 

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

 

1 hour ago, NaturaNaturans said:

it kind of looks like a conciouss hoax/social engineering and a tool for control. What do you think?

 

If that's the filter you're using, then facts are irrelevant.

[NaturaNaturans]

1 minute ago, Daniel said:

If that's the filter you're using, then facts are irrelevant.

That was based on the excerpt exclusivley. But that religions have been used as a tool for controll is not a revolutionary concept, is it?

[Daniel]

2 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

he's even partially right then the hellenized character of Second Temple Judaism is a lot deeper than I suspected. 

 

Let's look at what was posted.

 

2 hours ago, Zhongyongdaoist said:

Plato’s Laws advocated promoting local temples (Plato, Laws 5.738c-d), priesthoods (Plato, Laws 6.759a-b) and traditional religious customs (Plato, Laws 6.759c-d; 8.828a-c) in order to promote the illusion of an ancient and divine authority for their laws (Plato, Laws 7.798a-b), and it was especially in the cultic sphere that we see continuity with older traditions and institutions in the Pentateuch. Although there is no evidence for the body of cultic regulations having existed in written form prior to ca. 270 bce, it probably reflects practices at the temples at Jerusalem and Mount Gerizim in earlier times.

 

If there was not a written torah prior to 2nd temple era, then, Jesus would have had nothing to quote.  So, whatever it is that is beng conjectured, it would have happened prior to 2nd temple era. 

 

Around 270 BCE is a good estimate for when the written torah was stiched up into a scroll, for lack of better words.  Until then, it's very difficult to say what was written.  That's fair.  But.  It cannot be anything drastically different, otherwise the population would not accept it.  There's no way to change the paradigm and get everyone to agree on tribes and a lineage from abraham, if, everyone has a pre-existing lineage from canaanites.  

 

When it comes to law, OK.  That makes sense to say to a population:  "Hear-ye, Hear-ye, you didn't know it, but God has decreed from sinai no mixing wool and linen!".  OK.  The population may accept that.  But they would never accept, en mass, "You're Levi.  You're Benjamin.  You're Asher.  No... don't argue.  You're Asher..."  like some sort of harry-potter sorting ceremony.  People know their lineage. 

 

From there, the question becomes, who is the abraham person, what made him significant... and the story flows from there.

 

Did abraham come from polytheism ( pagan )? absolutely!  But he rejected it.

 

ויאמר יהושע אל־כל־העם כה־אמר יהוה אלהי ישראל בעבר הנהר ישבו אבותיכם מעולם תרח אבי אברהם ואבי נחור ויעבדו אלהים אחרים׃
And Joshua said to all the people, Thus said the Lord God of Israel, Your fathers lived on the other side of the river in old time, Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nahor; and they served other gods.
 

Edited November 29, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

16 minutes ago, NaturaNaturans said:

That was based on the excerpt exclusivley. But that religions have been used as a tool for controll is not a revolutionary concept, is it?

 

No.  But if you read the prophets you'll see that institutional power structures always-always fail.

 

1 Samuel:

8:1
ויהי כאשר זקן שמואל וישם את־בניו שפטים לישראל׃
And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.

8:2
ויהי שם־בנו הבכור יואל ושם משנהו אביה שפטים בבאר שבע׃
And the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba.

8:3
ולא־הלכו בניו בדרכו ויטו אחרי הבצע ויקחו־שחד ויטו משפט׃
And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after unjust gain, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.

 

This is a complete departure from what the other nations ( all of them ) were doing by setting up genetic dynasties.  Then what happens?

8:4
ויתקבצו כל זקני ישראל ויבאו אל־שמואל הרמתה׃
Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel to Ramah,

8:5
ויאמרו אליו הנה אתה זקנת ובניך לא הלכו בדרכיך עתה שימה־לנו מלך לשפטנו ככל־הגוים׃
And said to him, Behold, you are old, and your sons walk not in your ways; now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

8:6
וירע הדבר בעיני שמואל כאשר אמרו תנה־לנו מלך לשפטנו ויתפלל שמואל אל־יהוה׃
But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed to the Lord.

8:7
ויאמר יהוה אל־שמואל שמע בקול העם לכל אשר־יאמרו אליך כי לא אתך מאסו כי־אתי מאסו ממלך עליהם׃
And the Lord said to Samuel, Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

8:8
ככל־המעשים אשר־עשו מיום העלתי אתם ממצרים ועד־היום הזה ויעזבני ויעבדו אלהים אחרים כן המה עשים גם־לך׃
According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, how they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also to you.

 

They wanted to setup an instituion like all the other nations.  Not good... not good at all.  

[SirPalomides]

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Whatever I bring will likely be denied...

 

But here is something from 600BCE.  That's 300 years prior to hellenstic times.  Something like this doesn't magically poof into existence.  These scriptures would greatly predate 600BCE.  And if the words were not considered of divine origin, they would have not have been fashioned into an amulet.

 

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

 

 

If that's the filter you're using, then facts are irrelevant.

Gmirkin is not saying the Pentateuch was a total fabrication. He explicitly states it would have incorporated many prior traditions. This priestly blessing would evidently be one of them. 

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, SirPalomides said:

Gmirkin is not saying the Pentateuch was a total fabrication. He explicitly states it would have incorporated many prior traditions. This priestly blessing would evidently be one of them. 

 

It seems as if the notion is "they didn't have it in writing."  Plato wrote about creating an illusion of ancient divine authority over the law.

 

Having the blessing on an amulet shows that there was a divine authority in writting PRIOR to the hellenist era, prior to being iinfluenced by the greeks.  The dating is off.  Gmirkin doesn't know about the archeology, probably.

 

OK.  It looks like I'm not the only one who is noticing some major problems in this idea:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_Torah#Criticism_of_Hellenistic_origin_theories

 

It doesn't look like he has any real credentials.  It doesn't matter too much to me.  Anyone can come up with good ideas.  But he's not a "scholar" so the appeal to authority doesn't work here at all.

 

http://russellgmirkin.com/biography-and-publications

 

 

Edited November 30, 2023 by Daniel

[SirPalomides]

Some snippets of negative theology, and its relationship to divine names/ attributes, through the ages

 

From Plotinus' Enneads:

 

Quote

 

 

What we know as Being, the first sequent upon The One, advanced a little outward, so to speak, then chose to go no further, turned inward again and comes to rest and is now the reality and hearth [ousia and hestia] of the universe. Pressing [with the rough breathing] on the word for Being [on] we have the word "hen" [one], an indication that in our very form of speech we tell, as far as may be, that Being [the weaker] is that which proceeds from [the stronger] The One. Thus both the thing that comes to be and Being itself are carriers of a copy, since they are outflows from the power of The primal One: this power sees and in its emotion tries to represent what it sees and breaks into speech "On"; "einai"; "ousia," "hestia" [Existent: Existence: Essence: Hestia or Hearth], sounds which labour to express the essential nature of the universe produced by the travail of the utterer and so to represent, as far as sounds may, the origin of reality.

 

All this, however, we may leave to individual judgement: to proceed:

 

This produced reality is an Ideal form- for certainly nothing springing from the Supreme can be less- and it is not a particular form but the form of all, beside which there is no other; it follows that The First must be without form, and, if without form, then it is no Being; Being must have some definition and therefore be limited; but the First cannot be thought of as having definition and limit, for thus it would be not the Source but the particular item indicated by the definition assigned to it. If all things belong to the produced, which of them can be thought of as the Supreme? Not included among them, this can be described only as transcending them: but they are Being and the Beings; it therefore transcends Being.

 

Note that the phrase transcending Being assigns no character, makes no assertion, allots no name, carries only the denial of particular being; and in this there is no attempt to circumscribe it: to seek to throw a line about that illimitable Nature would be folly, and anyone thinking to do so cuts himself off from any slightest and most momentary approach to its least vestige.

 

As one wishing to contemplate the Intellectual Nature will lay aside all the representations of sense and so may see what transcends the sense-realm, in the same way one wishing to contemplate what transcends the Intellectual attains by putting away all that is of the intellect, taught by the intellect, no doubt, that the Transcendent exists but never seeking to define it.

 

Its definition, in fact, could be only "the indefinable": what is not a thing is not some definite thing. We are in agony for a true expression; we are talking of the untellable; we name, only to indicate for our own use as best we may. And this name, The One, contains really no more than the negation of plurality: under the same pressure the Pythagoreans found their indication in the symbol "Apollo" [a= not; pollon= of many] with its repudiation of the multiple. If we are led to think positively of The One, name and thing, there would be more truth in silence: the designation, a mere aid to enquiry, was never intended for more than a preliminary affirmation of absolute simplicity to be followed by the rejection of even that statement: it was the best that offered, but remains inadequate to express the Nature indicated. For this is a principle not to be conveyed by any sound; it cannot be known on any hearing but, if at all, by vision; and to hope in that vision to see a form is to fail of even that.

 

From Proclus' Elements of Theology (this book was translated into Arabic as The Book of Causes and attributed to Aristotle, since Aristotle was regarded as the only "orthodox" philosopher in the Islamicate world; in that way Proclus influenced Islamic and Jewish philosophy; this book in turn was translated to Latin and influenced the scholastics): 

Quote   Every divine nature is itself, by reason of its superessential union, ineffable and unknown to all secondary natures; but it is comprehended and known by its participants. Hence that which is First is alone entirely unknown, be­cause it is imparticipable.   For all knowledge which arises through reasoning deals with beings, and in beings possesses the appre­hension of truth, since it comes into contact with con­ceptions, and subsists in intellections. But the Gods are beyond all beings. Neither, therefore, is that which is divine the object of opinion, nor can it be appre­hended by the dianoetic power, or by intellection. For every being is either sensible, and therefore the object of opinion; or truly existing being, and therefore the object of intellect, or it is between these, existing as be­ing and at the same time as generated, and therefore the object of the dianoetic power (discursive reason). If, therefore, the Gods are superessential, and subsist prior to beings, they cannot be apprehended by either opinion, or by science and discursive reason, or by in­telligence. But the nature of their peculiarities is known by the beings which depend on them: and this by a necessary consequence. For the differences of participants are co-divided conformably to the peculiari­ties of the participated natures. And neither does ev­ery thing participate of every thing: for there is no co­ordination of things perfectly dissimilar. Nor does any casual thing participate of that which is casual. But that which is kindred is conjoined to that which is kin­dred, and proceeds from that to which it is allied.

 

From the Pseudo-Dionysian The Divine Names: 

Quote

 

To none, indeed, who are lovers of the Truth above all Truth, is it permitted to celebrate |9 the supremely-Divine Essentiality----that which is the super-subsistence of the super-goodness,----neither as word or power, neither as mind or life or essence, but as pre-eminently separated from every condition, movement, life, imagination, surmise, name, word, thought, conception, essence, position, stability, union, boundary, infinitude, all things whatever. But since, as sustaining source of goodness, by the very fact of Its being, It is cause of all things that be, from all created things must we celebrate the benevolent Providence of the Godhead; for all things are both around It and for It, and It is before all things, and all things in It consist, and by Its being is the production and sustenance of the whole, and all things aspire to It----the intellectual and rational, by means of knowledge----things inferior to these, through the senses, and other things by living movement, or substantial and habitual aptitude.

...

Thus, then, the "Nameless "befits the cause of all, which is also above all, as do all the names of things existing, in order that there may be strictly a kingly rule over the whole; and that all things may be around It and dependent upon It, as cause, as beginning, as end. And Itself, according to the Divine saying, may be the "all in all," and truly sung as of all, producing, directing and perfecting and sustaining guard, and shrine, and turning towards Itself, and that uniformly, irresistibly and pre-eminently. For It is not only cause of sustenance, or life, or perfection,----so that from this or that forethought alone the Goodness above Name should be named, but It previously embraced in Itself all things existing, absolutely and without limit, by the complete benefactions of His one and all-creating forethought, and by all created things in joint accord It is celebrated and named.

...

And it is necessary also, that we being turned from the many to the One, by the power of the Divine Oneness, should celebrate as One the whole and one Deity----the one Cause of all----which is before every one and multitude, and part and whole, and limit and illimitability, and term and infinity, which bounds all things that be, even the Being Itself, and is  uniquely Cause of all, individually and collectively, and at the same time before all, and above all, and above the One existing Itself, and bounding the One existing Itself; since the One existing----that in things being----is numbered, and number participates in essence; but the superessential One bounds both the One existing, and every number, and Itself is, of both one and number, and every being, Source and Cause, and Number and. Order. Wherefore also, whilst celebrated as Unit and Triad, the Deity above all is neither Unit nor Triad, as understood by us or by any other sort of being, but, in order that we may celebrate truly. Its super-oneness, and Divine generation, by the threefold and single name of God, we name the Deity, Which is inexpressible to things that be, the Superessential. But no Unit nor Triad, nor number nor unity, nor productiveness, nor any other existing thing, or thing known to any existing thing, brings forth the hiddenness, above every expression and every mind, of the Super-Deity Which is above all superessentially. Nor has It a Name, or expression, but is elevated above in the inaccessible. And neither do we apply the very Name of Goodness, as making it adequate to It, but through a desire of understanding and saying something concerning that inexpressible nature, we consecrate the most august of Names to It, in the first degree, and although we should be in accord in this matter with the theologians, yet we shall fall short of the truth of the facts. Wherefore, even they have given the preference to the ascent through negations, as lifting the soul out of things kindred to itself, and conducting it through all the Divine conceptions, above which towers that which is above every name, and every expression and knowledge, and at the furthest extremity attaching it to Him, as far indeed as is possible for us to be attached to that Being.

 

From the Zohar:

Quote

 

But the Cause of Causes, NAMELY THE ENDLESS LIGHT, BLESSED BE HE, who is over everything, who is called Yud Hei Vav Hei, THAT IS, ITS LIGHT IS ATTIRED IN THE YUD HEI VAV HEI, about Him it is said: "To whom then will you liken Me, that I should be equal? says the Holy One" (Yeshayah 40:25). "To whom then will you liken El, or what likeness will you compare to Him?" (Ibid. 18) "For I am Hashem, I do not change" (Malachi 3:6). The sins of the creatures BELOW do not touch Him, nor separate in Him the letter Yud from the letter Hei, nor the Vav from the Hei. For there is no separation in Him and it is said about Him, "nor shall evil dwell with You" (Tehilim 5:5). He rules over all and there is none who rules over Him. He comprehends all and there is none who comprehends Him. And He is not called by Yud Hei Vav Hei, nor by all the other names, but is known by His light that spreads over them, OVER THE LEVELS THAT ARE IN THE FOUR WORLDS, ATZILUT, BRIYAH, YETZIRAH AND ASIYAH. And when He departs from them, He has, of Himself, no name at all. "exceeding deep, who can find it?" (Kohelet 7:24).

 

...

And it should be known that THE ENDLESS LIGHT is called 'Wise One in all sorts of wisdom', and 'Understanding One in all sorts of understanding', and 'Pious One in all sorts of piety', and 'Mighty One in all sorts of might', and 'Counselor in all sorts of counsel', and 'Righteous in all sorts of righteousness', and 'King in all sorts of kingship', to infinity and immeasurably. And in all these grades, in one He is called 'Merciful One' and in another He is called 'Judge', and so on in a number of grades until infinity. HE ASKS, if so, it implies that there is a difference between Merciful One and Judge. AND HE ANSWERS, yet before He created the world, He was called by all these grades after the names of the creatures of the world, that were destined to be created. And if not AFTER the creatures of the world, why should He have been called 'Merciful One', 'Judge', FOR THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NONE FOR HIM TO SHOW MERCY TO. Thus HE WAS INDEED SO CALLED only after the creatures that were in the future to be created, BUT THERE IS NOT, HEAVEN FORBID, ANY CHANGE IN HIM HIMSELF.

And for this reason, all the Names are appellatives of Him, after His deeds. 

 

 

Azriel of Gerona, cited here:

Quote

That which is not limited is called Ein-Sof and it is completely undifferentiated in the perfect and changeless unity (hashwa'ah gemtirah be-'ahdut ha-shelemah she-'ein bo shinnuy). If it is without limit, then there is nothing outside it, and if it is exalted and hidden, then it is the essence of all that is hidden and revealed. Since it is hidden it is the root of faith and the root of rebelliousness... And the philosophers (hakhme ha-mehqar) admit to those who say that our comprehension [of Him] is only through the negative way ('ein hassagatenu ki 'im 'alderekh 10'), and the things that emanate from the Ein-Sof are the ten seflrot.

 

 

Edited December 1, 2023 by SirPalomides

[Daniel]

35 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

But the Cause of Causes, NAMELY THE ENDLESS LIGHT, BLESSED BE HE, who is over everything, who is called Yud Hei Vav Hei, THAT IS, ITS LIGHT IS ATTIRED IN THE YUD HEI VAV HEI, about Him it is said: "To whom then will you liken Me, that I should be equal? says the Holy One" (Yeshayah 40:25). "To whom then will you liken El, or what likeness will you compare to Him?" (Ibid. 18) "For I am Hashem, I do not change" (Malachi 3:6). The sins of the creatures BELOW do not touch Him, nor separate in Him the letter Yud from the letter Hei, nor the Vav from the Hei. For there is no separation in Him and it is said about Him, "nor shall evil dwell with You" (Tehilim 5:5). He rules over all and there is none who rules over Him. He comprehends all and there is none who comprehends Him. And He is not called by Yud Hei Vav Hei, nor by all the other names, but is known by His light that spreads over them, OVER THE LEVELS THAT ARE IN THE FOUR WORLDS, ATZILUT, BRIYAH, YETZIRAH AND ASIYAH. And when He departs from them, He has, of Himself, no name at all. "exceeding deep, who can find it?" (Kohelet 7:24).

 

...

And it should be known that THE ENDLESS LIGHT is called 'Wise One in all sorts of wisdom', and 'Understanding One in all sorts of understanding', and 'Pious One in all sorts of piety', and 'Mighty One in all sorts of might', and 'Counselor in all sorts of counsel', and 'Righteous in all sorts of righteousness', and 'King in all sorts of kingship', to infinity and immeasurably. And in all these grades, in one He is called 'Merciful One' and in another He is called 'Judge', and so on in a number of grades until infinity. HE ASKS, if so, it implies that there is a difference between Merciful One and Judge. AND HE ANSWERS, yet before He created the world, He was called by all these grades after the names of the creatures of the world, that were destined to be created. And if not AFTER the creatures of the world, why should He have been called 'Merciful One', 'Judge', FOR THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NONE FOR HIM TO SHOW MERCY TO. Thus HE WAS INDEED SO CALLED only after the creatures that were in the future to be created, BUT THERE IS NOT, HEAVEN FORBID, ANY CHANGE IN HIM HIMSELF.

And for this reason, all the Names are appellatives of Him, after His deeds. 

 

Nothing pagan here... Not quite sure what you're imagining.

 

Although it is useful to note that all the words in caps are added.  They are the commentary of the Baal HaSulam.

 

Edited December 1, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

Here is the actual link to the Zohar citation above.  The link that was provided is to the Zohar.com main page.

 

https://www.zohar.com/zohar/Pinchas/chapters/40

 

The actual quote comes from Raaya Mehemna.  It is a somewhat controversial author which is added, ammended to the Zohar.  The Zohar of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai comes first, then the Raaya Mehemna ammends to it.  Since no one knows who this Raya Mehemna is ( it means "faithful shepard" ) Most scholars give it a very late dating.  It is omitted from the Stanford University ( Pritzker Edition ) because its content is often so divergent from the original material it is considered a forgery.

 

I don't have a problem with it, but, @SirPalomides has not seemed to be very careful with knowing what is being posted, its actual dating, nor its actual meaning.  

 

Providing an actual link to the actual source is important for knowing actually what is being quoted.

 

Edited December 1, 2023 by Daniel

[SirPalomides]

More Neoplatonism from the Zohar: 

 

Quote

 

 

Bo: Verse 217
Therefore THE HOLY ONE, BLESSED BE HE, says to them, 'Even though I am like you in your forms,' MEANING IN VISION AND LIKENESS, 'still in all: "To whom then will you liken Me, that I should be his equal." Before the Holy One, blessed be He, created an image in the world and BEFORE He formed a form, the Holy One, blessed be He, was alone in the world, without a form or likeness. For one who conceives Him before the grade of Briyah, WHICH IS BINAH when He is without any form, must not make any form or image in the world - neither with the letter Hei nor with the letter Yud, or even to call Him by the Holy Name or any letter or dot. This is why the Torah says, "For you saw no manner of form," MEANING you did not see anything with a form or likeness.

 

Bo: Verse 218
After He made that image of the Chariot of supernal man, He descended AND WAS ATTIRED there. In him, He is named by the form of THE FOUR LETTERS Yud Hei Vav Hei, NAMELY THE TEN SFIROT - KETER, CHOCHMAH, BINAH, TIFERET AND MALCHUT-so people could grasp Him by way of His attributes, WHICH ARE THE SFIROT in each and every attribute. He was called El, Elohim, Shadai, Tzva'ot, Eheyeh, in order that they could recognize Him in each and every attribute, and how He rules the world with Chesed and Judgment according to the actions of the people. If His Light had not spread over all the creatures, how would they recognize Him and how would this be fulfilled, "The whole earth is full of His glory" (Yeshayah 6:3)?

 

Bo: Verse 219
Woe to anyone who compares Him to any attribute, even to one of His own attributes, and certainly not to humans "whose foundation is in the dust" (Iyov 4:19), who are perishable and worthless. But the likening THAT WE EMPLOY is only according to His power over that aspect, or even ACCORDING TO HIS DOMINATION over all the creatures. There is no LIKENING above that attribute, and when HIS POWER goes up from THAT ATTRIBUTE, there is no attribute, likeness or form to Him.

 

 

[SirPalomides]

Also worth investigating the provenance and history of the term "Cause of Causes." 

[thelerner]

Like a wedding, everything's old, everything is borrowed, everything's blue.

 

I like the story of a rabbi, going to a meeting in Phoenix who went to the top of the roof to say his morning prayers.  There was another man up there, a native American.  The Jew got out his Tefillin and intricately wrapped the leather around his wrist and arm ending with the leather box between his eyes.  The Indian got out a medicine bag opened its contents and both prayed, chanted, bowed towards the East.

 

Afterward they talked together.  Learning about the medicine bag and tefillin.  The nature of the others prayers and both saw much similarities.

 

Judaism being so old, you can find shamanism, you can find mysticism, meditation.  One mistake I think Christians make is they don't realize the depth and length of Judaism, instead they picture it frozen in biblical times.  Whereas Judaism shifted from temple oriented to rabbinic oriented nearly 2,000 years ago.  You had greats like Rabbi Akiva in the first century re-defining Judaism and our practices, prayers and relation to God.  Stuff like if the Sanhedrin rule the death penalty once in 7 (some say 70) years, they should be considered blood thirsty.  

 

I've always found the writings of wise rabbis over the millenia a better source to learn about Judaism than the bible/ torah, which always struck me as amalgamation.  

[Daniel]

 

1 hour ago, SirPalomides said:

More Neoplatonism from the Zohar: 

 

The Torah references are there in the text you've posted... Not sure what you're expecting to accomplish here.  

 

1 hour ago, SirPalomides said:

Also worth investigating the provenance and history of the term "Cause of Causes

 

Lol.  Try Genesis 1:1. 

 

בראשית ברא

 

ברא שית ברא

 

Edited December 1, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, SirPalomides said:

This is why the Torah says, "For you saw no manner of form," MEANING you did not see anything with a form or likeness.

 

Um... from Deuteronomy?  yup.

 

ונשמרתם מאד לנפשתיכם כי לא ראיתם כל־תמונה ביום דבר יהוה אליכם בחרב מתוך האש׃
Take therefore good heed to yourselves; for you saw no manner of form on the day when the Lord spoke to you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire;
 

and how is this pagan, again?

 

Edited December 1, 2023 by Daniel

[SirPalomides]

One of the Neoplatonists’ favorite tools (pioneered by Stoics) is the esoteric reading of older myths to find their philosophical/ theological principles hidden there. This had the dual benefit of projecting one’s point of view into distant antiquity, and rescuing traditional myths from surface readings that seemed impious by the current understanding. Maybe the most famous such exercise was Porphyry’s Odyssey commentary On the Cave of the Nymphs. Christian and Jewish neoplatonists applied this method with gusto to their own scriptures. The literature of Kabbalah is full of such wonderful and creative readings which find Neoplatonism in the Torah just like Porphyry found it in Homer.

[Daniel]

22 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

The literature of Kabbalah is full of such wonderful and creative readings which find Neoplatonism

 

... but the concepts of kabalah are coming from the torah and tanach.  If the concepts originate in the torah, which predates neoplatonism by at least hundreds of years, and none of it is pagan, then, what is your point?

 

1 hour ago, thelerner said:

Afterward they talked together.  Learning about the medicine bag and tefillin.  The nature of the others prayers and both saw much similarities.

 

If the story is going to be adapted to this thread, then, the native turned to the rabbi and says:  "I saw you copying from me when you were facing east."  The Rabbi says, "I always face east, my mother faced east, my father faced east, we've been facing east for generations."  The native replies, "Nope you're practicing my religion."  And the Rabbi says, "Um, OK, do have shatnez?  shabbos?  arba minim?"  The native says:  "whatever those are, you're copying."  The Rabbi says:  "You're rude and ignorant" and walks away.

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by Daniel