... and yet as we are material beings with form and time, we use metaphors and symbolism to help us know the unknowable... we understand it's semblance and not reality.
-
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 about Judaism
- Thread starter sunsplash
- Start date
Levite
Higher and Higher
OK, so what this is really referring to is a long-standing dispute during Medieval times concerning the rise of Kabbalistic mysticism on the one side and the rise of neo-Aristotelian philosophy on the other, as tools for interpreting and thinking about the Jewish tradition. The debate between Maimonidean Rationalism and Kabbalistic Mysticism defined a large part of the philosophical corpus of Jewish literature between 1200 and 1600.
Rambam (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, also called Maimonides) was a neo-Aristotelian. His theology was deeply influenced by the highly organized nature of Aristotle's logic, especially as understood through the lens of prominent Muslim philosophers of the period, such as al-Farabi, al-Ghazali, Ibn Sina, and Ibn Bajja. His theology, theodicy, and his attitudes towards both praxis and metaphysics are all relatively austere, and extremely intellectualized. He had a peculiar mysticism of his own to his philosophy, but his dislike for the Jewish mysticism of the Kabbalists of his day is unmistakable, and he makes little secret of it. While he has always been best known for his commentaries, legal code, and rabbinic responsa, he felt that it was the true goal of his life's work to fuse Judaism with Aristotelian philosophy, and that is what his philosophical magnum opus, Moreh Nevukhim (The Guide of the Perplexed) seeks to do, though his attitudes come out in some of his other works, from time to time. And his rabbinic responsa make it clear how he felt about Kabbalah.
The opposition faction, if you will, was initially led by the great Kabbalist and halakhist Rabbi Avraham ben David (Ravad) of Posquieres, France. Though all professed respect for Rambam-- the man's commentary on the Mishnah was brilliant, and well-liked in his lifetime, and he was recognized as a great posek (halakhic jurist) and wielder of his influence in the court of Sallah-ed-Din for the benefit of the Jewish people-- nonetheless, Rambam had made adversaries by the bold move of inventing the concept of the legal code, and producing one (Mishneh Torah) that contained only synthesis, and no citations or references. Ravad, who produced a commentary on Rambam's Mishneh Torah that not only supplied all the citatations and references, but also critiqued some of the halakhic synthesis, felt that Rambam was too egocentrically high-handed, too involved with non-Jewish philosophy, and too blind to greater mystical truths.
It was not so much about anthropomorphisms, per se, so much as the difference between an extremely intellectualized conception of God and the soul, and a very esoteric, elaborate, and quasi-animistic conception of God and the soul. Neither party would have ever approved of icons, statues, or the representing of God by any kind of physical portrayal. But rather, for Rambam, God is the prima causa (the original first cause of all things), and the summum bonum (the essence of the good), and most importantly, the source of all intelligible concepts. For Ravad, God is the Infinite, the Indwelling, and the source of both wisdom and power, as well as the instigator of law, of language, of life, through the mystical complexity that is spirit, and thought, and the Hebrew letters.
In short, it is not so much about which metaphors to use in the literary portrayal of God as the aspects of God's truth that philosophy or mysticism are able to capture.
Today, Jewish mysticism remains esoteric, though widely studied. And Aristotelian thought has, for the most part, not survived the ages particularly well. Very few Jews at all could be called strict Maimonidean Rationalists, though many schools of thought have been influenced by Rambam, and of course all still study his non-philosophical works, and venerate him for the Mishneh Torah, especially. The truth is that the conflict was over a long time ago. People read Rambam and use of his philosophy what they feel works for them; and they also read Ravad, and venerate him for his halakhic commentaries, though his Kabbalistic commentaries are also read, and they use of his work what is needful.
Personally, I have never liked Aristotelian philosophy. It doesn't speak to me at all. I love reading Rambam's halakhic works, but I would choose Ravad's commentary on the Kabbalistic masterwork Sefer Yetzirah (The Book of Formation) over Rambam's Moreh Nevukhim any day.
sunsplash
Freckled
Levite said:
You explained this in another thread and I have a question about it. Why do you believe God can't manifest into a physical form? It was my understanding that God being...God, could do anything being without limitation. I can understand Him choosing not to, but what keeps Him from being able to? I wholeheartedly and from the depths of my soul do not believe Jesus was in any way, shape or form God - but I'm thinking in a more general sense, why is this belief held? I don't disagree or agree...I'm just confused on the concept either way.
Added questions:
Are Jews allowed to celebrate secular and/or national holidays? I'm sure the secular Santa aspect of Christmas doesn't make it any more acceptable but what about Halloween, St. Patty's Day, 4th of July, etc, even if the roots are of another religion and culture but that isn't the intent or focus of the practitioner?
Last edited:
David_2010
Member
You explained this in another thread and I have a question about it. Why do you believe God can't manifest into a physical form? It was my understanding that God being...God, could do anything being without limitation. I can understand Him choosing not to, but what keeps Him from being able to? I wholeheartedly and from the depths of my soul do not believe Jesus was in any way, shape or form God - but I'm thinking in a more general sense, why is this belief held? I don't disagree or agree...I'm just confused on the concept either way.
Added questions:
Are Jews allowed to celebrate secular and/or national holidays? I'm sure the secular Santa aspect of Christmas doesn't make it any more acceptable but what about Halloween, St. Patty's Day, 4th of July, etc, even if the roots are of another religion and culture but that isn't the intent or focus of the practitioner?
I can't answer those, as I'm a seeker myself, but, those are some questions I was wondering as well
.
xkatz
Well-Known Member
Most holidays are acceptable to celebrate. However, I personally find non-Messianic Jews celebrating Christmas (and perhaps St. Patrick's Day) as somewhat distasteful and insulting. But TBH, that wouldn't make you any less of Jew.
sunsplash
Freckled
I can understand Christmas - even if the focus is more of a Santa Day. St. Patrick's Day is more of a cultural holiday IMO though...I have some Irish ancestory but have never been Catholic and always have celebrated with shamrocks and green beer, lol. Just because a holiday "originated" from one thing doesn't mean that it means the same today or to the person celebrating. I see how from an outsiders POV it would look strange or inappropriate to the Jewish community, since you can't see from the on the surface why one tradition may be kept.
Since there is so much intermarriage, these issues are seldom clear-cut. 'Celebrate' is vague, many Jews I know exchange gifts and have dinner with non-Jewish relatives, that's a bit different than attending Church services or having a tree (even those silly 'bushes') in their home. I also have relatives that are now Christian. It's just being sociable with one's relatives, and preserving peace. Personally I don't mind those holidays, as they're just about secular. Only Easter is where I draw the line, with my own relatives and for all Jews, IMHO.
Levite
Higher and Higher
We believe that God cannot manifest into that kind of a physical form because the Infinite cannot be contained by the finite. When God's presence is made manifest in the world, it is usually not visible, nor is it truly a manifestation of the completeness of God, but only a strengthening of the thread of Divine Presence that runs throughout the universe, to the point where it is more sensible to human beings. In the Tanakh, sometimes God would highlight the place where such a manifestation occurred with some sort of illustrative natural miracle, such as a cloud or a flame or so forth, but those were only like landing lights on an airstrip, to show you where the runway is, but they are not themselves the airport.
The problem with the concept of an avatar is that some measure of the totality of the truth of the deity's existence is supposed to be made manifest within it. But God cannot be contained in something so limited. To use a very rough and incomplete analogy, it's like suggesting that one could stuff an elephant into a teacup. You can squeeze any way you like, but there will just never be enough room. And I am not talking (vis-a-vis God and a human form) merely about physical size, but that the human brain is simply not designed to be able to grasp Infinity, nor is human flesh designed to contain that kind of power. It's like asking why you can't store the energy of a nuclear blast inside a size AA battery, or the agglomerated data of every single piece of information of any kind ever generated on earth on a single CD.
Jews do celebrate the 4th of July, Labor Day, New Year's, and Thanksgiving, and other such secular holidays (and their secular equivalents in other countries), and it is not at all problematic, in that those holidays are not religious, and they do celebrate the history and ideals of one's country, and Jews are encouraged to follow the laws of the country they live in, and respect the authority of the civil government, so long as we are not required to do anything that violates the commandments.
Christmas, no matter how commercialized it may be, is a Christian holiday. The add-ons to it are largely drawn from pagan traditions. There is nothing secular about Christmas. Therefore, Jews are prohibited from observing it, including having a tree, decorations, taking kids to Santa, going caroling, or attending Christmas feasts. Going to Christmas mass is permitted if for aesthetic or educational reasons, but not permitted if for reasons of worship. The same goes for Easter (although I confess a certain weakness for Cadbury's Cream Eggs). I would imagine the same would go for St. Patrick's Day, because whatever secular traditions have grown up around it, it is at heart the celebration of the Christianization of Ireland.
Though, that said, I don't think most non-Orthodox Jews are particularly careful to avoid any observance of St. Patrick's Day, deeming it merely an Irish pride holiday, and they are simply pleased to go drinking with their Irish friends. Similarly, with Halloween, it is essentially a pagan holiday, and should really not be observed by Jews. However, many if not most non-Orthodox Jews in America are ignorant of the holiday's roots, and only know it in terms of costumes and candy, and so permit their children to go trick-or-treating.
Personally, even aside from the proscription of other religions' observances, I would never permit my kids to observe Halloween in any way, nor St. Patrick's Day: I minored in Celtic Studies in college, and I think Christianity really ruined the cultures of the Celts. I would never want my children to celebrate the demise of the culture of bards, druidry, Brehon laws, beautiful myths, and gorgeous artisanship.
sunsplash
Freckled
This makes perfect sense, thank you.
The coming Messiah then, is he to be prophet of sorts with a relationship to God like Moses with direct communication and instructions?
I can understand that. What about Thanksgiving, though? If you think about it, that is essentially celebrating the invasion of the Natives by European settlers - not exactly something to be proud of as an American. Couldn't that be looked upon similarily as St. Patrick's Day or Halloween, the corruption of an original culture? Or is Thanksgiving more forgivable because it's roots are less religious (even though it actually was a huge part of the founding of this country)?
Levite
Higher and Higher
Well, there's not really a universal consensus about that. Some say he will be. Some say he will not be a prophet himself, but a prophet will appear (possibly Elijah coming back) who will advise him, like the prophet Natan did for David the King. Others say that moshiach will inaugurate an age when we are all more able to hear God, and thus prophecy itself will become obsolete. And some say that moshiach will not necessarily be a prophet, nor will a prophet accompany him, but he will reinaugurate the Temple and the priesthood, and the High Priest in his time will once again know how to use the Urim ve-Tumim (a kind of sacred method of divining once used by the High Priests in the mishkan and the Temple, via something kept in the High Priest's ritual breastplate) to clarify what is the will of God in unclear situations. And various other ideas have been put forth, also....
So, it's funny that you say this, because initially, I was quite opposed to Thanksgiving for these exact reasons. But I did a little research, and I found out that the whole Pilgrims and Indians sitting down to dinner thing was essentially a myth. I mean, it's possible some sort of similar thing may have happened at some point, but certainly not in November, nor instituted as a custom to be passed down. Thanksgiving as we know it was actually instituted in 1863, by President Lincoln (a copy of the text of the proclamation can be found here). The Pilgrims and Indians thing seems to have been introduced, if not invented outright, in the early 20th century, and pushed hard by greeting-card companies and other purveyors of holiday schlock.
So, at least in my house, we have a Lincoln Thanksgiving. We read the proclamation, we thank God for what we are grateful for, and we have a big communal meal. Which, to my mind, seems perfectly compatible with Jewish tradition.
sunsplash
Freckled
I found information on a letter that was written by Edward Winslow in 1691, the supposed year of the first Thanksgiving, which seems to indicate that there was a feast that took place between the Pilgrims and Natives. That led me to an account of Myles Standish where it was insinuated that the tribal Chief (Massasoit - sp?) had been invited to the feast after enormous food handouts from the natives that basically was the sole reason the pilgrims were able to survive. The chief then invited 90+ other natives to the feast and the pilgrims were unhappy about that thinking it was an imposition, even after all of the help they'd received over the course of the year. Standish later beheaded a local native later for an unrelated matter, the Eurpoeans wanted more and more and the natives felt taken advantage of, and the "white vs. red" issue began. I also came across mention of a "Puritan Holocaust." Apparently, the first feast was the baseline for the Founder's Day/Thanksgiving that was established by Lincoln, embellished of course.
Now, I don't know how accurate this information is (a few websites were geared towards a sort of racial admonishment towards whites) so maybe you can share what you've heard about those names in particular, since the authors may have had a bias when recording their version of history.
There are quite a few Noachides on RF, and both Jews and Noachides acknowledge a strong bond between us. All people, Jews as well as Non-Jews should build common ground and partnership based on this common heritage. It is not at all a 'lazy Judaism' or inferior faith, as some have portrayed it. Rather, it is a serious obligation for all people. It is an Abrahamic Faith, and though many of us wish that there was a separate DIR for Noachides under our common Abrahamic DIR it may take a while, and a lot more people pushing for it. to become reality.
In the other two Abrahamic faiths, there is a view that their faith replaces and supersedes Judaism, but Noachideism is different in that it does not seek to usurp the Covenant of the Jew but rather focus on the earlier Covenant of Noah, which is itself a rich and deep faith.
When Jacob fled the wrath of his brother Esau for taking his blessing, he left home and joined the Yeshiva of Eber, a Noachide school, for seven years. Those who belittle Noachideism should note that Jacob studies it for seven whole years... so much for it being 'lazy' or 'inferior'.
Levite
Higher and Higher
Yeah, it's not like there were never thanksgiving feasts where the Pilgrims had some Native Americans over for dinner, celebrate a harvest, make it through the winter, whatever happened to be. Having a big communal dinner to give thanks to God for some piece of good fortune or other was a thing in Puritan commnunities, and there were some occasions where even the Pilgrims had to admit the Native Americans saved their butts. But as far as I know there was no happy friendship feast where everybody had a big lovefest and decreed it become an institution forevermore.
It did occur on a couple of occasions that, in the time after the Revolutionary War, the early Americans did mark certain pieces of good fortune with a thanksgiving day. But there had never been a direct linking of that idea to an early Pilgrim feast. And as far as I know, such an idea was not in Lincoln's mind when he decreed an annual national Thanksgiving Day in November. The linking of our Thanksgiving Day in November with an early Pilgrim feast was something brought in much later, long after Lincoln instituted it.
As with always, there is surely no one single, monolithic way that Jews think of anything, much less Noahidism.
What's important to understand is that the idea of the Noahide Laws, and the idea that everyone non-Jewish was "supposed" to follow them, were invented by the Rabbis of the Talmud. And it was not an idea known to all of them, nor was it particularly early, nor is there anything to suggest that the Rabbis actually believed such things had ever existed prior to their own invention of them, much less that they believed that any non-Jews had ever actually followed such laws. For most of the history of Rabbinic Judaism, Noahide laws have been viewed, at best, wistfully, as something Jews wished non-Jews followed, particularly in moments when non-Jews were actually treating Jews very poorly; or at worst, as just another midrash, another piece of aggadah (Rabbinic legend).
It has only been in the last fifteen or twenty years, give or take, that the Chabad movement, along with some support from various other Haredi groups and individuals, has actually begun actively preaching and instructing "Noahidism" to certain groups of non-Jews and non-Jewish individuals, especially disaffected Christians, some of whom early on had glommed onto this legend of Noahide laws that all people should be following, as a way to grow closer to the Jewish roots of Christianity. But practically speaking, Noahidism as a movement is really a Chabad invention.
Look, is there anything wrong with non-Jews wanting to observe those seven laws? Not really, no. And I suppose if that gets them where they need to go, spiritually, good on 'em. But I have to say that I have always thought the midrash of Noahide laws was kind of silly: other religions teach non-Jews how to behave and to interact with God. Even the Rabbis of the Talmud acknowledged that. The idea that non-Jews should all follow these laws that Jews came up with, that are phrased and based in Jewish modes of thinking, that are gleaned from Jewish law and theology...if one takes it literally, and not just as a midrashic story...it's silly. And so I think the idea of a Noahide movement is also a little silly. I mean, you can find pretty much the same basic practice and ethical teachings in a Unitarian Universalist church, and to me, if you're not Jewish, find your answers in your own, non-Jewish traditions. And if you really feel your answers aren't there, and they can be found in Judaism, then convert. But to me it just seems like either indecisiveness or fear of commitment to hover in the doorway, so to speak, and to try to live both inside and outside the Jewish tradition at the same time.
In the world, there are plenty of things far worse to do than decide to be a Noahide observer. It's not bad. But I just don't recommend it as a way of entering Judaism. Just start learning about Judaism and start practicing what you can, if you're really interested in converting. And if not, then I am a big fan of seeking in one's own tradition for answers.
Those last two paragraphs are my own personal opinion. I'm sure others have far different things to say about Noahidism.
Yes, Noachidism is a reconstructed religion, but the Covenant that G-d made with Noah is pure Torah, even if the other six laws are derived by logical deductions on what G-d is seen punishing people for, before the giving of Torah.
One has to wonder what kind of religion Abraham, Issac and Jacob followed... and while it's true that we are in the age of branches while they lived in the age of roots; we often tell the Non-Jew they are not required to abstain from pork etc. etc. and when they ask us what IS applicable to them if we don't have something like the Noachide laws to point to... then they can rightly say that our G-d is not their G-d.
Levite
Higher and Higher
With all respect, I just can't find it within myself to believe that it is a reconstructed religion, and not simply a constructed one. I am not even 100% certain that I believe there was a literal, historical Noah, let alone that the story in Bere**** (Genesis) wasn't entirely metaphorical or allegorical as it is; much less that there was a covenant of expressed laws, intended for all non-Jews, for all time, that the Rabbanim (Rabbis of the Talmud) were somehow able to re-deduce millennia later.
To be honest, I think that the religion of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob not only didn't look anything like Torah, it probably would have been dangerously close to what we today would consider avodah zarah (idolatry). My guess is that if there were historical patriarchs, they were probably either entirely monolatrous, or at least their monotheism was barely distinguishable from a weak henotheism. I think that their genius wasn't suddenly working out that there is only Hashem, and there are no other gods, but that Hashem is the Source, the original Creator of everything else...including, from their perspective, other gods. For any one of us, that would be kefirah (utter heresy), but for them, it was such a gigantic, towering chiddush (novellum) that they may be remembered forever for the glory of setting us all on the right path.
By the same token, I think anything before them is so lost in the mists of aggadic legend and midrashic mythos, that we cannot count on any of it being literal or historical. And while I am willing to believe that some of what the Rabbanim innovated and created in making Mishnah and Gemara was legitimately derived from some kind of oral tradition, I think that much of what we consider oral tradition was created by the Rabbanim. Which doesn't make it less holy or true: they saved the Jewish people, they saved Judaism, and they also made an enormous chiddush that set us all on the right path.
I just can't believe that Noahidism is really Noachic. I have enough trouble making sure that all of the paradoxes, crossed textual lines, historical lacunae, and wholesale blending of midrash with halakhah with history with theology with ritual in Judaism itself can actually be set out into a reasonably workable religious and cultural tradition. I can't manage to do it for something that was made entirely from all of those problem areas.
I'm not saying this to cut at Noahide practitioners. Honestly, I'm not gonna be the guy who dissuades people from worshipping Hashem. And Lord knows I don't want to offend anyone personally. But I think we call a spade a spade. The conceptual idea of Noahidism may be Talmudic-- though I personally doubt how much the Rabbanim believed it had ever been or would ever be practiced-- but the actual practice and organized existence of Noahidism is something created very recently, by disaffected Christians and Chabadniks as a kind of meta-Jewish replacement for classical Christianity amongst non-Jews. Now, if that's something that works for folks, great. More power to 'em. But it is a new thing. It is essentially a new Abrahamic religion, a daughter religion of Judaism. And it is, until such time as it becomes better defined by its adherents, something nisht a hier, nisht a hein (not quite this, but not quite that). And my personal opinion is that if someone really settles on this as the way they feel comfortable expressing spirituality in life, okay, great, you do what works. But if one is making choices, I think it is better to either commit to Judaism, or to find answers in one's own non-Jewish traditions.
Because when it comes down to it, I think that other religions are for non-Jews. Those are how they are supposed to relate to God. And there are truths in other religions: truths not meant for Jews, but still truths. Just as the truths in Judaism are not necessarily meant for non-Jews. Davka, we can say that none of the mitzvot in the Torah are applicable to or meant for non-Jews, and that doesn't at all mean that their god is not our god. There is only one God. And because He is Infinite, He can show different facets of Himself to different peoples, each facet containing particles of the truth of the entirety of God's existence, but none containing all that entirety. And He can do so with different agendas for different peoples. Our God is their God, their God is our God, but our words are not for them, our covenants are not for them, and their words are not for us, nor their covenants ours.
That is my personal opinion on the subject, and I hope it has not been found offensive, as it was not intended so.
I always value your opinion brother, and what you say makes sense and I doubt can be seen as offensive. Much of what you say I agree with, especially the part of the faiths of others being paths given to them by HaShem for their good, I have always maintained this so especially for Abrahamic faiths. Mostly of course because of familiarity with these faiths, I'd probably see it in other faiths as well if I knew more about them.
However, I think some people become disillusioned with 'organized religion' and the faiths of their culture or background, and to them maybe Noachideism is the 'right' faith. It's certainly true that some people praise Noachideism as something they've always been looking for, and if it works for them then it's a valuable alternative.
Personally, I've always seen it as a possible talking point with people of other Abrahamic faiths, a common ground where we can find agreement (or at least similarity)
Levite
Higher and Higher
Thanks, man; I really appreciate that, coming from you. And I think that what you say sounds like a very productive way to look at it.