Author Topic: The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi  (Read 24222 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Kahane-Was-Right BT

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Re: The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi
« Reply #25 on: December 02, 2008, 02:46:58 PM »

The way you write, it's as if anybody that accepts the Zohar will believe any claim for its truth.. And thus, you are suggesting that the Arizal is a fool.. or Rav Yosef Kairo is a fool. You would be studying Rav Yosef Kairo's Shulchan Aruch.. in yeshiva, since it's a major work. I don't think you are writing under the understanding that when you attack the zohar you are attacking alot more than that..  And the way you put it, was like anybody that accepts that the zohar was written by Rashbi, is a fool. (because as you said, they would believe any claim that says it is by him)

These are YOUR words.   Do not ascribe to me your words and your own projections.    A person is not a fool for making a mistake if a mistake was made (and I as an honest human being, acknowledge that a mistake was possible to be made by any human, no matter how learned.  I also believe it is heresy to think otherwise).   

A person would be a fool to expect a kabbalist to admit that the Zohar was not written by Rashbi.   Perhaps you and SP fall into this category?

Your words were

""anyone who believes that the Zohar was written by Rashbi (most certainly including anyone who considers themself a "kabbalist") is going to use any possible claim to support this belief and would never say otherwise.  ""

Anybody that fits the description you give there is a fool!!!!


No it doesn't.  Not necessarily.  I'm not sure why you say so.   What is so foolish about believing in the 'Rasbhi authorship' and then using any arguments that could fit with it to support that belief?   That's not foolish at all.   It's a conviction and it will be defended by its believers.  Naturally.

Offline Kahane-Was-Right BT

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Re: The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi
« Reply #26 on: December 02, 2008, 02:50:26 PM »
I would advise caution for anyone who thinks they know better than all the great Hakamim and Rabbis who said the Zohar was written by Rashbi!!!

In that case,
I would advise caution for anyone who thinks they know better than all the great Hakamim and Rabbis who said the Zohar was NOT written by Rashbi!!!!

And this whole line of reasoning adds to this issue, how?   Now that it is turned onto you, do you see how this kind of "scare tactic" is completely baseless and emotionally-driven bullying of those who offer a contrary view?   

Offline q_q_

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 3819
Re: The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi
« Reply #27 on: December 02, 2008, 03:28:30 PM »

The way you write, it's as if anybody that accepts the Zohar will believe any claim for its truth.. And thus, you are suggesting that the Arizal is a fool.. or Rav Yosef Kairo is a fool. You would be studying Rav Yosef Kairo's Shulchan Aruch.. in yeshiva, since it's a major work. I don't think you are writing under the understanding that when you attack the zohar you are attacking alot more than that..  And the way you put it, was like anybody that accepts that the zohar was written by Rashbi, is a fool. (because as you said, they would believe any claim that says it is by him)

These are YOUR words.   Do not ascribe to me your words and your own projections.    A person is not a fool for making a mistake if a mistake was made (and I as an honest human being, acknowledge that a mistake was possible to be made by any human, no matter how learned.  I also believe it is heresy to think otherwise).   

A person would be a fool to expect a kabbalist to admit that the Zohar was not written by Rashbi.   Perhaps you and SP fall into this category?

Your words were

""anyone who believes that the Zohar was written by Rashbi (most certainly including anyone who considers themself a "kabbalist") is going to use any possible claim to support this belief and would never say otherwise.  ""

Anybody that fits the description you give there is a fool!!!!


No it doesn't.  Not necessarily.  I'm not sure why you say so.   What is so foolish about believing in the 'Rasbhi authorship' and then using any arguments that could fit with it to support that belief?   That's not foolish at all.   It's a conviction and it will be defended by its believers.  Naturally.

Natural!!!

Do you think it's logical?

It's fundamentally illogical and inconsistent.

Suppose a person, believes X , and they give a reason R.
The critic may find that by that reasoning(R), a person should believe Y.   Here's the issue though. Y contradicts X.     

Is the person then correct in accepting X and rejecting Y , holding reason R?

If they honestly believe X, it cannot be for reason R. 

Offline Tzvi Ben Roshel1

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 3006
Re: The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi
« Reply #28 on: December 02, 2008, 04:01:23 PM »
Vilna Gaon- was first and foremost a Talmudist, then a Kabbalist (He knew both).
The Academy of Elijah taught, whoever studies the laws (of the Torah) every day, (he) is guaranteed to have a share in the World to Come.

‏119:139 צִמְּתַתְנִי קִנְאָתִי כִּישָׁכְחוּ דְבָרֶיךָ צָרָי
My zeal incenses me, for my adversaries have forgotten Your words.
‏119:141 צָעִיר אָנֹכִי וְנִבְזֶה פִּקֻּדֶיךָ, לֹא שָׁכָחְתִּי.
 I am young and despised; I have not forgotten Your precepts.

" A fool does not realize, and an unwise person does not understand this (i.e. the following:) When the wicked bloom like grass, and the evildoers blossom (i.e. when they seem extremly successful), it is to destroy them forever (i.e. they are rewarded for their few good deeds in this World, and they will have no portion in the World to Come!)

Please visit: (The Greatest lectures on Earth).
http://torahanytime.com/
http://www.torahanytime.com/Rabbi/Yossi_Mizrachi/
http://www.torahanytime.com/Rabbi/Zecharia_Wallerstein/

Offline judeanoncapta

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2080
  • Rebuild it now!!!!
Re: The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi
« Reply #29 on: December 02, 2008, 04:22:19 PM »
In q_q_’s first reply “one also needs to be fluent in hebrew to study the zohar”. The Aramaic that was used is infact similar to the Aramaic used in Rashbi’s time. The style of writing in the Zohar is unlike Moshe De Leon’s original books.


Anyone who know any Aramaic at all knows that the Aramaic used in the land of Israel is very different than other dialects, such as Babylonian Aramaic.

The Aramaic that appears in Eretz Yisrael sources like the Talmudh Yerushalmi and Midrash Rabbah, sifre and pesiqtah rabathi are very different than that of the zohar.

The Zohar is a babylonian style aramaic with a few changes to word endings like lon instead of leho in babylonian and other minor examples. These superficial changes are obviously meant to disguise the writers lack of fluency in "Palestinian" Aramaic.

I have studied aramaic for many years and I can tell the difference in Aramaic styles between Babyonian and "Palestinian" Aramaic.

This in and of itself is proof this was not written by a jew in the 2nd century.
Post questions here for the ASK JUDEA TORAH SHOW


my blog: Yehudi-Nation






Who is truly wise? He who can see the future. I see tommorow today and I want to end it - Rabbi Meir Daweedh Kahana

Offline judeanoncapta

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2080
  • Rebuild it now!!!!
Re: The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi
« Reply #30 on: December 02, 2008, 04:26:04 PM »
Although since you have already rationalized the use of spanish words in the Zohar, I'm sure you can find some way out of this.

With all due respect, sir, you are advertising your willingness to beleive absolutely anything.
Post questions here for the ASK JUDEA TORAH SHOW


my blog: Yehudi-Nation






Who is truly wise? He who can see the future. I see tommorow today and I want to end it - Rabbi Meir Daweedh Kahana

Offline judeanoncapta

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2080
  • Rebuild it now!!!!
Re: The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi
« Reply #31 on: December 02, 2008, 04:36:55 PM »
Would they want to dispute the Zohar before a Kosher Beit Din in Yerushalayim?


Yes, I will happily dispute the Zohar in front of the Beth Din of Machon Shilo composed of the Dayanim Rabbi Chaim Wasser, Rabbi Yehoshua Buch and the inimitable Mori W'Rabbi David Bar Hayim.
Post questions here for the ASK JUDEA TORAH SHOW


my blog: Yehudi-Nation






Who is truly wise? He who can see the future. I see tommorow today and I want to end it - Rabbi Meir Daweedh Kahana

Offline judeanoncapta

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2080
  • Rebuild it now!!!!
Re: The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi
« Reply #32 on: December 02, 2008, 04:38:51 PM »

There are some Spanish words in the Zohar because the Zohar was finally redacted in the Amoraim times when Spain and Spanish was known.


It was written by Rashbi but only redacted in the times of the Amoraim?   Since when is this what kabbalists believe?  And even if that was the case, that contradicts what Moshe  De Leon claimed and what even you and the kabbalist here claim.   That means it was NOT written by Shimon Bar Yochai, if it was REDACTED IN A LATER PERIOD BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE!

Is he claiming that Spanish was spoken in Iraq by Jewish Rabbis in the 5th century?

Does he really beleive that?

I am beside myself.
Post questions here for the ASK JUDEA TORAH SHOW


my blog: Yehudi-Nation






Who is truly wise? He who can see the future. I see tommorow today and I want to end it - Rabbi Meir Daweedh Kahana

Offline Sefardic Panther

  • Full JTFer
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
Re: The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi
« Reply #33 on: December 02, 2008, 05:54:24 PM »
The Rabbis who said the Zohar was not written by Rashbi are a minority. Quite a few Taymani Yehudim reject the Zohar but the best of them (Rabbi Shalom Shabazi and Rabbi Shalom Sharabi) accept it. I think the people who reject the Zohar take it too literal and forget that its allagorical. Most Rabbis say it was written by Rashbi and many of their rulings came from the Zohar. The Zohar is so ingrained in Judaism that to reject it would risk rejecting too much else. Even Ramban’s commentaries on the Torah look like they came from the Zohar and they were written before Moshe De Leon revealed it!

As far as I know many words in the Talmud Yerushalmi and the Targum by Onkelos are also in the Zohar. Anyway the Zohar has more in common with those Aramaic books than it does with the original books by Moshe De Leon.

The one and only thing I believe is the Torah and what the Hakamim have said. If most of the Hakamim said the Zohar was a forgery by Moshe De Leon then I would believe it was a forgery by Moshe De Leon.

Does Machon Shilo reject all mysticism?

As far as I know there are only a few Spanish words in the Zohar. I doubt that the school of the Rashbi spoke Spanish all the time although they certainly were familiar with foreign languages.

"Let there be a holocaust on the anti-semites!!!" - Rabbi Mordechai Friedman Shlita

http://www.youtube.com/user/SefardicPanther

Offline judeanoncapta

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2080
  • Rebuild it now!!!!
Re: The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi
« Reply #34 on: December 03, 2008, 05:26:28 AM »
The Rabbis who said the Zohar was not written by Rashbi are a minority.


"If we judge truth by how many people beleive it, Every Jew ought to become a Christian or a Muslim" - Rabbi Meir Kahane



Quite a few Taymani Yehudim reject the Zohar but the best of them (Rabbi Shalom Shabazi and Rabbi Shalom Sharabi) accept it.

And what makes you think that Rabbis Shabazi and Sharabi were greater than Rabbi Yihyah Gafekh?

And by what basis do you determine that these two Rabbis were the BEST of the Temanim?

What is Rabbi Yihyah Gafekh? Chopped Liver?

I think the people who reject the Zohar take it too literal and forget that its allagorical.

Kabbalists take plenty of it literally and also their idea of separate parts ie sefiroth within G-d himself is a form of Shituf(assigning partners to G-d) at best and idolatry at worst.

Please read this article. http://www.mesora.org/ToharHayihud.pdf

It is worth every word.

Most Rabbis say it was written by Rashbi and many of their rulings came from the Zohar.

This is very true. An absolute tragedy. Any Jew faithful to the Torah should cry over this fact and certainly ignore such rulings that contradict the Halakha.

The Zohar is so ingrained in Judaism that to reject it would risk rejecting too much else.

No, rejecting an untrue doctrine does not mean that you will necessarily reject true things as well.

Even Ramban’s commentaries on the Torah look like they came from the Zohar and they were written before Moshe De Leon revealed it!

True, and the R''an (Rabbenu Nissim) one of the greatest of the Rishonim criticizes him for relying too much on "This Kabbalah".


As far as I know many words in the Talmud Yerushalmi and the Targum by Onkelos are also in the Zohar. Anyway the Zohar has more in common with those Aramaic books than it does with the original books by Moshe De Leon.

I haven't read any other books by Moshe De Leon. But I know that the Zohar's aramaic is wildly different from the Talmud Yerushalmi and Targumim. The Aramaic in the Zohar is a different dialect. This is incontravertable fact.

The one and only thing I believe is the Torah and what the Hakamim have said.

I agree with you.

If most of the Hakamim said the Zohar was a forgery by Moshe De Leon then I would believe it was a forgery by Moshe De Leon.

When it first came out, most of the Hakhamim said it was a forgery. The Zohar was directly responsible for the Shabbetai Zvi Heresy. They based everything that they did on the Zohar.

Does Machon Shilo reject all mysticism?

Machon Shilo bases itself on Torah, Logic and Reason.

As far as I know there are only a few Spanish words in the Zohar. I doubt that the school of the Rashbi spoke Spanish all the time although they certainly were familiar with foreign languages.

Why is there no French or German in the Zohar? Only the language spoken in Moshe De Leon's country?

Don't you think that is a little too much of a coincidence?
Post questions here for the ASK JUDEA TORAH SHOW


my blog: Yehudi-Nation






Who is truly wise? He who can see the future. I see tommorow today and I want to end it - Rabbi Meir Daweedh Kahana

Offline Sefardic Panther

  • Full JTFer
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
Re: The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi
« Reply #35 on: December 03, 2008, 11:55:15 AM »
The fact that billions of goyim fallow christianity and islam is irrelevant. I don’t care what goyim think.

Rabbi Shalom Shabazi was one of the best poets ever. His poetry (Diwan) helped the Temanim to survive their most merciless oppression when they were banished to the desert. His Diwan became ingrained in the culture of the Temanim.

Rabbi Shalom Sharabi (the Rashash) was a world famous Mekubal gadol and miracle worker. He is revered by the Shami and all great Kabbalists.

Most Temanim are Shami not Dor Dai. These 2 Rabbis have had a bigger influence on Temani Yehudi culture and Judaism in general than Rabbi Yihyah Gafekh. Thats why I say they are the best Temanim.

The Sefiroth are not “partners to G-d” they are channels which enable the one infinite G-d to interact with finite reality. The Kabbalah’s teaching of the Sephiroth was the origin of the base 10 numeric system everyone uses and has infact foreshadowed string theory 2000 years ago! String theory is physicists latest explanation of the universe which proposes that the universe has 10 dimensions. Even Rabbi Yihyah Gafekh accepted the Sefer Yetzirah which discusses the Sefiroth.

“Any Jew faithful to the Torah should cry over this fact and certainly ignore such rulings that contradict the Halakha."
Are you saying that Yehudim should reject the rulings of the great Torah giants, Arizal, Hakam Abuhatzera, Ben Ish Hai etc? And that their rulings contradict the Halakha?! How can anyone say this?

"True, and the R''an (Rabbenu Nissim) one of the greatest of the Rishonim criticizes him for relying too much on "This Kabbalah"."
So you admit that the Zohar existed before Moshe De Leon revealed it?

Just like the opposite extreme of people taking the Zohar to literally and rejecting it, Shabbetai Zvi accepted it and took it to literally. Remember the Zohar itself warns people not to take it literally. So Shabbetai Zvi done the opposite of what the Zohar says.

What do you define as “logic” and “reason”? What the greeks said?

In ancient times there was a lot of contact between the Holy Land and Spain. The Phoenicians had trading colonies in Spain and there are actually many Spanish words with Semitic origin!

"Let there be a holocaust on the anti-semites!!!" - Rabbi Mordechai Friedman Shlita

http://www.youtube.com/user/SefardicPanther

Offline judeanoncapta

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2080
  • Rebuild it now!!!!
Re: The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi
« Reply #36 on: December 03, 2008, 03:32:50 PM »
The fact that billions of goyim fallow christianity and islam is irrelevant. I don’t care what goyim think.

My point was that one cannot simply say "the majority of Rabbis think like me", perhaps the minority is correct and the majority is incorrect

Rabbi Shalom Shabazi was one of the best poets ever. His poetry (Diwan) helped the Temanim to survive their most merciless oppression when they were banished to the desert. His Diwan became ingrained in the culture of the Temanim.

Thank you for informing me. I did not know that.

Rabbi Shalom Sharabi (the Rashash) was a world famous Mekubal gadol and miracle worker. He is revered by the Shami and all great Kabbalists.

That I knew.

Most Temanim are Shami not Dor Dai. These 2 Rabbis have had a bigger influence on Temani Yehudi culture and Judaism in general than Rabbi Yihyah Gafekh. Thats why I say they are the best Temanim.

Right. But you're talking about greater influence. So say "most influential"!!!! Saying they are "the best" is a moral judgement on Rabbi Yihya Gafekh that you cannot back up.

The Sefiroth are not “partners to G-d” they are channels which enable the one infinite G-d to interact with finite reality. The Kabbalah’s teaching of the Sephiroth was the origin of the base 10 numeric system everyone uses and has infact foreshadowed string theory 2000 years ago! String theory is physicists latest explanation of the universe which proposes that the universe has 10 dimensions. Even Rabbi Yihyah Gafekh accepted the Sefer Yetzirah which discusses the Sefiroth.

Excuse me, in his writing he condemns the beleif in the sefiroth in a way that I myself found shocking. I will post some of what he wrote in the next post.

“Any Jew faithful to the Torah should cry over this fact and certainly ignore such rulings that contradict the Halakha."
Are you saying that Yehudim should reject the rulings of the great Torah giants, Arizal, Hakam Abuhatzera, Ben Ish Hai etc? And that their rulings contradict the Halakha?! How can anyone say this?

Halakha is only valid when based on the following sources: Sifre, Sifra, Mechilta, Pesikta Rabati, Mishna, Tosefta, Talmudh Yerushalmi and Talmudh Bavli.

The Rambam says this. And he was as great as all of the Torah giants you listed put together.

The idea that Rashbi wrote the Zohar is ludicrous. There isn't the slightest proof that this is so. It contradicts reason and is practically impossible.

But even if he did write the Zohar. He is just ONE Tanna and his opinion is not supreme over all other Tannaim. In fact, in most cases the Halakha is not like Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai in the Talmudh.

"True, and the R''an (Rabbenu Nissim) one of the greatest of the Rishonim criticizes him for relying too much on "This Kabbalah"."
So you admit that the Zohar existed before Moshe De Leon revealed it?

No, he said Kabbalah not Zohar. The Kabbalah definitely existed before the Zohar.

Just like the opposite extreme of people taking the Zohar to literally and rejecting it, Shabbetai Zvi accepted it and took it to literally. Remember the Zohar itself warns people not to take it literally. So Shabbetai Zvi done the opposite of what the Zohar says.

Please remind me where the Zohar says, "Don't take it literally." Cite your source.

What do you define as “logic” and “reason”? What the greeks said?

Logic and reason, meaning things that make sense. Not things that make no sense like Kabbalah. Everything in the Kabbalah cannot be demonstrated to be true. It is all just taken on faith.

In ancient times there was a lot of contact between the Holy Land and Spain. The Phoenicians had trading colonies in Spain and there are actually many Spanish words with Semitic origin!

The Spanish words with Semitic origin come from arabic. The Arabs ruled them for quite a while.

It says in the Zohar that we call Synagogues "Eshnoga". If you can find me one Spanish word in the Talmudh or mishna or sifre or mechilta, then you might have a point. But none exist.

You are grasping at straws, prepared to say anything, no matter how ridiculous, to defend a belief that somewhere deep in your mind, you know is not true.

Free your mind, Sefardic Panther and follow in the footsteps of great sefardic rabbis like the Rambam and Rav saadya Gaon and Rabbenu Nissim.

Or, alternatively, you could go get your palm read by a kabbalistic charlatan and stay tuned for a bunch of messianic predictions by Mekubalim that never come true. They are always wrong in all of their arrogant predictions. There is not one word of truth in anything they say. They are liars and frauds giving false hope to credulous people all the while lining their pocketbooks.

"al Tivtehu binidiveem b'ben adam she'ein lo theshua''

If you want examples of incorrect messianic predictions by Kabbalists, tell me. I have a list a mile long.
Post questions here for the ASK JUDEA TORAH SHOW


my blog: Yehudi-Nation






Who is truly wise? He who can see the future. I see tommorow today and I want to end it - Rabbi Meir Daweedh Kahana

Offline muman613

  • Platinum JTF Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 29958
  • All souls praise Hashem, Hallelukah!
    • muman613 Torah Wisdom
Re: The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi
« Reply #37 on: December 03, 2008, 03:40:44 PM »
I am one who supports the Zohar, from my understanding of Chassidus.

The entire Torah must be accepted only on faith. We don't know anyone who actually stood at Sinai. We must accept everything based on what we believe and what we experience. There is nothing Proveable about Torah via scientific method {ie. is there evidence that the Sea of Reeds really split? Any evidence of ten plagues?}.

The other question I have is why would anyone write anything like Zohar if it would cause a schism in Judaism? I doubt anyone would even attempt such a forgery. I believe that there were ancient texts which were found and they were compiled in this Zohar. It is possible that there were errors in the publication and those errors are the reason for the misunderstanding.

I find this argument very disheartening. If indeed it is not authentic it is a very bad sign for Judaism as a whole. I truly want to believe that the Zohar is authentic Kabbalah.

PS: The sfierot are not idolatry in the least. In basic Judaism we call Hashem by a number of names. The sfirot are just various names we apply to our relationship with Hashem, they are not divisible forces. Just as I am a man, a husband, an employee, and a son depending on your relationship with me... For example we call Hashem Elokim when he is dealing with us with gevurah, and we call him Ad-nai when we relate to him via Chesed. Hashem is called by these two names in the book of Beresheit.


You shall make yourself the Festival of Sukkoth for seven days, when you gather in [the produce] from your threshing floor and your vat.And you shall rejoice in your Festival-you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the orphan, and the widow, who are within your cities
Duet 16:13-14

Offline q_q_

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 3819
Re: The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi
« Reply #38 on: December 03, 2008, 04:26:17 PM »
Muman, the  arguments for the torah's truth are another issue, I suggest you familiarise yourself with them. Maybe make a separate thread for it.  But it's not just something we "take on faith".

By the way, since you mention there is no evidence for the 10 plagues. I should point out there is actually some incredible evidence for the 10 plagues, striking parallels recorded by egyptians, but a question regarding the dating of it. You can start another thread about it if you want about evidence of the torah's truth, but that's a completely different subject, and a large one in itself.  This is about the Zohar and Kabbalah.

Offline Sefardic Panther

  • Full JTFer
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
Re: The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi
« Reply #39 on: December 04, 2008, 07:23:09 PM »
Like it or not Judeanoncapta the Zohar and all the teachings and rulings derived from it as well as similar teachings outside Zohar are an integral part of the Judaic heritage. Kabbalah is the very essence and meaning of Judaism. So many Hakamim much much smarter than me accepted the Zohar. There is not one doubt in my mind about Kabbalah!

“follow in the footsteps of great sefardic rabbis like the Rambam and Rav saadya Gaon”
Yes indeed! And those 2 did not reject Kabbalah! In Moreh Nevuchim Rambam discusses Maseh Bereshith and Maseh Merqavah, older terms for Kabbalah. Rav Saadya Gaon wrote an exquisite translation and commentary of the Sefer Yetzirah another core Kabbalistic text.

You mention Shabbetai Zvi and kabbalistic charlatans. But note there have been plenty of the opposite extreme. Heretic rationalists such as Baruch Spinoza and Solomon Ben Joshua who was big into the Moreh Nevuchim and even called himself “Maimon”.

“Please remind me where the Zohar says, "Don't take it literally”.”
I think it was Tikkunei Zohar or Zohar Parashat Bereshith was the origin of PaRDeS, the 4 levels of understanding Torah – Pshat (literal meaning) Remez (allegorical meaning) Drash (implied meaning) Sod (secret meaning). Rashbi said anyone who takes Torah literally is a fool.   

“The Spanish words with Semitic origin come from arabic”
I think the Spanish word “noche” derived from the Hebrew “neshef” predates the Arabs.

Tell me what is there in Kabbalah that “cannot be demonstrated to be true” and “makes no sense”? On the contrary what about the fact that –

The Zohar says the earth is a rotating sphere and people in different places experience day and night at the same time?

The base 10 numeric system which can depict any number and enables complex mathematics originated from the Kabbalistic concept of the 10 Sefiroth?

Kabbalist gadol and proponent of the Zohar’s authenticity Hakam Yitzhak of Akko said that the universe is 15 billion years old? (this is the exact age of the universe most scientists estimate today!)

Kabbalist gadol Ramban said that the universe was initially as small as a mustard seed until it expanded and became tangible? (compare this with the present big bang model all scientists accept).

Rather than reject Kabbalah you should take pride in the fact that at a time when the goyim (who all constantly ridicule us and think they are better than us) thought the world was flat and only a few thousand years old or eternal, your ancient tradition knew the truth which the goy’s science is only now catching up with!

Anyway since when did Judaism become only believing the “things that make sense” and can “be demonstrated to be true”? If we think like that we will become like Richard Dawkins.   

"Let there be a holocaust on the anti-semites!!!" - Rabbi Mordechai Friedman Shlita

http://www.youtube.com/user/SefardicPanther

Offline q_q_

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 3819
Re: The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi
« Reply #40 on: December 04, 2008, 08:51:12 PM »
I will deal with your points about miracles and maths..  I will leave out the spanish!

<snip>
those 2 [saadya and rambam] did not reject Kabbalah! In Moreh Nevuchim Rambam discusses Maseh Bereshith and Maseh Merqavah, older terms for Kabbalah. Rav Saadya Gaon wrote an exquisite translation and commentary of the Sefer Yetzirah another core Kabbalistic text.

I don't think it's very logical to just say follow those 2 for the sake of it, or to follow everybody else for the sake of it. But anyway.

"Those 2" don't mention any kabbalah post talmud.

Maaseh Beraishit and Maaseh Merkava are referred to in the Talmud.

Sefer Yetzirah is referred to in the talmud.
<snip>

Tell me what is there in Kabbalah that “cannot be demonstrated to be true” and “makes no sense”? On the contrary what about the fact that –

I wouldn't have said what judea said there.. Certainly the written and oral Torah have the stronger foundation of national revelation.


regarding scientific facts.. there was an interesting debate between nadir ahmed and dennis giron about scientific "miracles" in the quran.
Ahmed (the muslim) suggested a procedure to test if they are valid or not.
Giron(atheist) then showed all of Ahmed's claims failed his criteria.
Ahmed said that the sum of them made it true.
Giron failed to reply that 0*0*0=0 (AND=*).
And Giron failed to state that certain errors were copied , and invalidated the muslim religious book completely. (he seemed nervous and -very- respectful! and just making the claim that the scientific miracles were false, not touching on whether the muslim book was true or false!)


Here are some of the criteria Ahmed mentioned. they are relevant here too.

It doesn't count if,

-  if it's 50/50
- if it's something that man can see/test for himself..(e.g. a curious person without deep scientific knowledge could observe or test it quite easily)
- if it was already known at the time

I would also add, science is a big field, and it's rather unfair to bring up many many claims that just don't hold up to reason.  Fortunately, the jewish claims are not ridiculous at all,  and not too numerous..    (in contrast, the muslims pump huge amounts of money into inventing thousands of the most ridiculous stupid so-called miracles to fool people.. but let's not go there, i've mentioned that story in another thread)

And, I would add that non scientists, and non mathematicians, can't readily criticise these things, and usually these facts are just put out there but not in an honest way.. Nobody actually takes these facts to scientists for an answer.  They are usually answered by *honest* orthodox jews themselves, that have run into these facts and have the background or knowledge see if they are valid.


The Zohar says the earth is a rotating sphere and people in different places experience day and night at the same time?

Google tells us "Around 350 B.C.E., the great Aristotle declared that the Earth was a sphere"

Still, some jewish sources said flat, some round. But there was disagreement amongst the nations at the time anyway. It was a 50/50 really too.

this site mentions that the bavli said flat. The jerusalem talmud may have suggested round. the Zohar and midrash beraishit rabba said round.
http://seforim.blogspot.com/2006/07/flat-or-round-earth-and-zohar.html


As far as day and night.. Well, I think that if you see the sun moving around the earth, you might think ,Ah, it was day over there, and night here, now the sun is moving over here.  So it will be day here and night there.   

So it is observable.

Now regarding rotating.
Are you sure that the Zohar says the earth is rotating ?

The rotation and orbit are different by the way, but either would be impressive.

People thought that the sun had an orbit around the earth. 

It would be good to see te exact quote where you get the rotating aspect from.

By the way.. The RAMBAM said in "the guide" that we don't know, and for calculating the calendar we use the greek hypothesis , science of the time, because the calculations work, so the hypothesis is fine for that purpose.



The base 10 numeric system which can depict any number and enables complex mathematics originated from the Kabbalistic concept of the 10 Sefiroth?


One would be hard placed to say what is special about base 10.

Infact, one can represent all those numbers in any base.  And if base 8 or base 16 was used, we could even convert between bases quite easily.

Say we used base 10.  We could have words for one 16, 2 16s e.t.c. and digits for all 16 hex digits and it would all seem perfectly natural! Some people do that, just without the words!

Most mathematicians or computer scientists might suggest that we use base 10 because we have 10 fingers.  There is no obvious reason why we use it.

A jewish answer I once considered was that Hebrew - the original - Lashon HaKodesh, always had numbers, and it -almost- uses base 10!  It's a bit like roman numerals, but the only -consecutive- digits it has are  One to Ten. (I know, it skips 0. Base 10 would use 0-9, no letter for ten. And It has other letters like kaf lamed e.t.c. hebrew isn't really base 10, not at all really!)





Kabbalist gadol and proponent of the Zohar’s authenticity Hakam Yitzhak of Akko said that the universe is 15 billion years old? (this is the exact age of the universe most scientists estimate today!)

There was a recent thread I posted in on this subject. A post about the 6000 year issue in the subject..

The ~15 billion figure is 42,000*365.25*1000

He wouldn't have said 42,000 though.
Another source suggests it.

He says, quoting the talmud, that the world goes through 7* 7000 year cycles.

Apparently, he put us in the 2nd cycle.

But if you put us in the 7th.

So we had 6 before it, and those 6 were divine years..

We get 42,000 by doing 6*7000

http://www.jewishmag.com/8MAG/WORLDS/worlds1.htm

this skeptic one  (I notice this skeptical article doesn't make sense in describing rabbi aryeh kaplan, and it makes a really silly argument that 365.25 is not the jewish year. A year is a natural thing, a solar-earth thing)
http://orthoprax.blogspot.com/2005/01/kaplan-and-ramban.html
It does mean that we should look into it more closely.. What rabbi yitzchak of acco says. And what sources rabbi kaplan uses..

That orthoprax site did a tiny little bit more information.. of a skeptical nature, that I didn't have in the previous thread where I mentioned this.. where I just relied on the jewishmag link..  but the jewishmag link is very very good


And by saying that rabbi yitzchak of acco says 15 billion, hey presto miracle.
That is problematic if science then changes.
You have to realise that  that kind of science is not definite, it's done by extrapolation. True, extrapolation based on various methods.. But it's possible that the earth was different pre flood and this influenced many methods.

Don't twist(/liberally interpet) things into unskeptically saying the torah predicts a big bang and an expanding universe and a universe of 15 billion years. Because then when science changes, you'll lead alot of people to secularism..
It is of course important to put Truth first, and not get too excited by the moment.

Kabbalist gadol Ramban said that the universe was initially as small as a mustard seed until it expanded and became tangible? (compare this with the present big bang model all scientists accept).
<snip>


You are quoting things you haven't read.. You should really quote it here.
I haven't read it either.. But you are making the claim.

Here are 2 criticisms of the claim that the RAMBAN's words go along with the big bang.

Rabbi dovid gottlieb says regarding Gerald Shroeder's book.
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/CommentsGenesisBigBang.htm
"P 65. Ramban's first creation is Aristotelian "prime matter" which is pure potentiality without any positive characteristics at all. There is no evidence in physics for such an entity. Also, much of the description of the big bang in the Ramban is the product of the author's expansion and interpolation. In particular, the Ramban does not say or imply that as the prime matter expanded, the universe expanded with it."

This site says regarding it
http://orthoprax.blogspot.com/2005/01/kaplan-and-ramban.html
"
Ramban's view of creation is not the same as is found in modern cosmology. Ramban's idea of creation is that G-d created a "prime matter" without any characteristics - this a Greek idea - from which all other matter of the universe came from. However, he also asserts the initial creation was actually of two prime matters: one of heaven and one of earth.
"

« Last Edit: December 04, 2008, 09:04:15 PM by q_q_ »

Offline q_q_

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 3819
Re: The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi
« Reply #41 on: December 04, 2008, 10:43:39 PM »
<snip>
Please read this article. http://www.mesora.org/ToharHayihud.pdf

It is worth every word.
<snip>
that is a very interesting article/book..
is there a page that linked you to it?(I don't see it linked to on the mesora.org site)

how did you find it?

Offline Kahane-Was-Right BT

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Re: The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi
« Reply #42 on: December 05, 2008, 08:12:56 AM »
So many Hakamim much much smarter than me accepted the Zohar. There is not one doubt in my mind about Kabbalah! 

So many Hakamim much much smarter than me rejected the Zohar.      However, there is doubt in my mind regarding the subject.   Your statement is rather revealing.

Offline Kahane-Was-Right BT

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Re: The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi
« Reply #43 on: December 05, 2008, 08:33:28 AM »
Relevant to this discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Spanish_language

Forgive me for citing wikipedia as a source, but for general knowledge like this it can be quite useful and generally accurate.

"The standard Spanish language is also called Castilian. In its earliest documented form, and up through approximately the 15th century, the language is customarily called Old Spanish. From approximately the 16th century on, it is called Modern Spanish. Spanish of the 16th and 17th centuries is sometimes called "classical" Spanish, referring to the literary accomplishments of that period. Unlike English and French, it is not customary to speak of a "middle" stage in the development of Spanish. Castilian Spanish originated, after the decline of the Roman Empire, as a continuation of spoken Latin in the Cantabrian Mountains, in northern Spain, in the 8th and 9th centuries AD, according to most authorities; but others claim it came from Franco-Navarrese and Gothic-Castilian dialects in the 11th century AD. "

Of course as a "Romance Language" Spanish certainly developed out of Latin, much like Italian, French, and all the other romance languages did.   It seems safe to say that the Spanish language was not in use, not even in existence, in the Tannaic era.

Offline Kahane-Was-Right BT

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Re: The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi
« Reply #44 on: December 05, 2008, 08:45:33 AM »

Here are 2 criticisms of the claim that the RAMBAN's words go along with the big bang.

Rabbi dovid gottlieb says regarding Gerald Shroeder's book.
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/CommentsGenesisBigBang.htm
"P 65. Ramban's first creation is Aristotelian "prime matter" which is pure potentiality without any positive characteristics at all. There is no evidence in physics for such an entity. Also, much of the description of the big bang in the Ramban is the product of the author's expansion and interpolation. In particular, the Ramban does not say or imply that as the prime matter expanded, the universe expanded with it."


Interesting, but scientists today are searching for the "higgs boson"  which if I understand correctly is believed to be the first initial conversion of energy into matter that set in motion the expansion of the universe in the big bang theory.  Apparently it is one of the keys to the big bang theory.   It seems to me that this concept could fit in with the Ramban as far as "prime matter" is concerned, although the issue of translation simply doesn't hold.  ("Matter" as a scientific concept we know it as today, is not what Ramban refers to in the Hebrew.  It is simply the convenient 'english translation' of his words into concepts we can enunciate in English.   Science did not discover/understand "matter" as we know it today until very recently), but I don't see sufficient reason to rule out the interpretation of Ramban that R. Gottlieb excludes,  based on Rabbi Gottlieb's logic.   I do not altogether understand this issue though.   It could be that he is correct.

Offline Sefardic Panther

  • Full JTFer
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
Re: The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi
« Reply #45 on: December 05, 2008, 10:32:10 AM »
“Maaseh Beraishit and Maaseh Merkava are referred to in the Talmud. Sefer Yetzirah is referred to in the talmud.”
Exactly! And Talmud Bavli and Talmud Yerushalmi are undisputable sources and they don’t reject Kabbalah!

“Are you sure that the Zohar says the earth is rotating?”
Zohar Parashat Wayiqra 10a "The earth is a sphere which revolves on its axis".

“Don't twist(/liberally interpet) things into unskeptically saying the torah predicts a big bang and an expanding universe and a universe of 15 billion years. Because then when science changes, you'll lead alot of people to secularism”
I am not twisting Torah to match present day science. I am disputing the misconception that Kabbalah is just another ancient superstition. Anyway Yehudim should not be fallowing Torah because it matches science they should be fallowing Torah because it is their eternal covenant with G-d, what ever science says is absolutely irrelavent!!! 

Shabat Shalom

"Let there be a holocaust on the anti-semites!!!" - Rabbi Mordechai Friedman Shlita

http://www.youtube.com/user/SefardicPanther

Offline q_q_

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 3819
Re: The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi
« Reply #46 on: December 06, 2008, 07:27:34 PM »

Here are 2 criticisms of the claim that the RAMBAN's words go along with the big bang.

Rabbi dovid gottlieb says regarding Gerald Shroeder's book.
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/CommentsGenesisBigBang.htm
"P 65. Ramban's first creation is Aristotelian "prime matter" which is pure potentiality without any positive characteristics at all. There is no evidence in physics for such an entity. Also, much of the description of the big bang in the Ramban is the product of the author's expansion and interpolation. In particular, the Ramban does not say or imply that as the prime matter expanded, the universe expanded with it."


Interesting, but scientists today are searching for the "higgs boson"  which if I understand correctly is believed to be the first initial conversion of energy into matter that set in motion the expansion of the universe in the big bang theory.  Apparently it is one of the keys to the big bang theory.   It seems to me that this concept could fit in with the Ramban as far as "prime matter" is concerned, although the issue of translation simply doesn't hold.  ("Matter" as a scientific concept we know it as today, is not what Ramban refers to in the Hebrew.  It is simply the convenient 'english translation' of his words into concepts we can enunciate in English.   Science did not discover/understand "matter" as we know it today until very recently), but I don't see sufficient reason to rule out the interpretation of Ramban that R. Gottlieb excludes,  based on Rabbi Gottlieb's logic.   I do not altogether understand this issue though.   It could be that he is correct.

Well, you seem to me to consider it logical and natural for a person that holds a belief, to make up reasons for that belief. It's a terrible shame that you don't just naturally understand the problem with that, but you do still have the ability to go through things logically, so you are not a lost cause like many would be.  You didn't respond to that area of the argument so it's not very logical to discuss other things that relate to this.

Anyhow, the issue you quoted is a bit like this.. (walid shoebat mentions this in his book against scientific miracles in the quran).  If a book says "there is an object, it has wings".    Then somebody looks at it and says "this is a prediction of a UFO, it's a miracle".   The fact is, it clearly isn't.  People claiming that are READING IT IN.
Now, maybe if you had a time machine, the author could explain further in such detail that it's clear that he did mean a UFO! The point though, is that from what he said, we cannot conclude that he did. (to conclude it would involve other premises or other assumptions)

I would add a few points..

There is a difference between.

"I don't believe A" and "I believe not A"

furthermore,

saying that X does not "describe" Y,  does not mean that X "describes" against Y.

also,
If somebody says A implies B, and a critic says A doesn't imply B, that doesn't mean that A implies NOT B.


Offline q_q_

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 3819
Re: The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi
« Reply #47 on: December 06, 2008, 08:01:52 PM »
SP is quoting me when he uses these quotes.

SP, try to learn how to quote people in a way that shows who you are quoting.  The notation is not hard.

<quote author=jo>
....
</quote>
response

change <> to square brackets.

Anyhow.

“Maaseh Beraishit and Maaseh Merkava are referred to in the Talmud. Sefer Yetzirah is referred to in the talmud.”
Exactly! And Talmud Bavli and Talmud Yerushalmi are undisputable sources and they don’t reject Kabbalah!


The next thing you say (with my response) is more important. Your thing above is just sillyness.

If you had read what I wrote in context and thought about what I was saying, it might have helped you.

RAMBAM accepted the Kabbalah that was referred to in the talmud.

That doesn't mean he accepted the Zohar. The Zohar wasn't discovered during his lifetime.

You played a silly game and said he was a kabbalist. As if that makes some kind of general point. Don't throw labels around like that.

There is a distinction between kabbalah referred to in the talmud, and kabbalah not referred to in there.

The thread subject is the Zohar.

I don't think you disagree.. You can't.  Nobody does.

The point I was making that you responded to had nothing to do with whether the zohar was true or not.   Does that confuse you?

“Are you sure that the Zohar says the earth is rotating?”
Zohar Parashat Wayiqra 10a "The earth is a sphere which revolves on its axis".

Even if that is indeed what the Zohar says.. (and according to the site below, it is)

But as I said, -a- criteria to consider is *was it known or believed at the time*  (what is known by scientists or for early times, philosophers, since they took the place of the scientists)

I doubt that you ever really investigated this. You just throw these things at people to win them over by nook or crook.  (though if you knew it was known, then it would be really crooked.. you probably just don't know because you didn't want to know!)

According to this anti-orthodox site

It was "known" at the time.

I did read somewher that - The idea of Earth's daily rotation on its axis was first brought by Heraclides of Pontus and Ecphantus the Pythagorean (in the 4th century B.C.E -     I see the idea that the earth spins on its axis is mentioned in wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentric
if you look for the word axis, you see relevant parts, like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model
". Hicetas and Ecphantus, two Pythagoreans of the 5th century BC, and Heraclides Ponticus in the 4th century BC, believed that the Earth rotated on its axis but remained at the center of the universe. "

If you think about it , then with an earth rotating on its axis.  If you imagine a ball rotating as you shine a torch at it, then you could conclude that it is day on one half and night on the other.
(the reality has some more detail, but generally speaking that's right. But it was a known theory at the time)


It's still not bad that it managed to choose a correct theory(earth rotating on its axis). But there are of course other things in the Zohar about 7 lands and different creatures that are not verified by science / have no scientific basis.

If you consider the seemingly factual statements about the world in the zohar, and say some are scientific, then if it's good enough for that, it should also be good enough to say they that some aren't scientific.. You could say that the ones that aren't scientific are metaphorical or spiritual or science is somehow wrong, but with that kind of standard, you can't take too seriously the significance of things that do match, because with many things in there, you would expect some things to match(in this case anyway, of a theory about the earth that was believed by some at the time).
« Last Edit: December 08, 2008, 01:28:53 PM by q_q_ »

Offline Kahane-Was-Right BT

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Re: The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi
« Reply #48 on: December 06, 2008, 10:07:36 PM »

Here are 2 criticisms of the claim that the RAMBAN's words go along with the big bang.

Rabbi dovid gottlieb says regarding Gerald Shroeder's book.
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/CommentsGenesisBigBang.htm
"P 65. Ramban's first creation is Aristotelian "prime matter" which is pure potentiality without any positive characteristics at all. There is no evidence in physics for such an entity. Also, much of the description of the big bang in the Ramban is the product of the author's expansion and interpolation. In particular, the Ramban does not say or imply that as the prime matter expanded, the universe expanded with it."


Interesting, but scientists today are searching for the "higgs boson"  which if I understand correctly is believed to be the first initial conversion of energy into matter that set in motion the expansion of the universe in the big bang theory.  Apparently it is one of the keys to the big bang theory.   It seems to me that this concept could fit in with the Ramban as far as "prime matter" is concerned, although the issue of translation simply doesn't hold.  ("Matter" as a scientific concept we know it as today, is not what Ramban refers to in the Hebrew.  It is simply the convenient 'english translation' of his words into concepts we can enunciate in English.   Science did not discover/understand "matter" as we know it today until very recently), but I don't see sufficient reason to rule out the interpretation of Ramban that R. Gottlieb excludes,  based on Rabbi Gottlieb's logic.   I do not altogether understand this issue though.   It could be that he is correct.

Well, you seem to me to consider it logical and natural for a person that holds a belief, to make up reasons for that belief. It's a terrible shame that you don't just naturally understand the problem with that,

If you don't see that it is human nature to do so, you are simply delusional.  It's hard to believe you are even serious.   I never said that that was what I was doing or what I am interested in or support.   It's simply a common human behavior that is oft-observed.   To assume otherwise is nothing but delusion.   I'll reiterate.   A person with a belief in a certain thing will find every possible way to justify it in the face of contrary evidence.   In general, the person who can open his mind to contrary evidence/opinions and in the face of overwhelming support and rational appeal (in his own mind) of the contrary view, to reneg his starting opinion and adopt the contrary view- This person is a rarity indeed.  Most people are not generally open to all opinions or viewpoints.   Everyone has prejudices and certain prevailing 'wisdom' that they consider incontravertible fact, in every aspect of life.  And this prevailing wisdom a person believes in serves as the foundational starting points for discussion of a given subject.   
In today's terms, a "Kabbalist" begins with the prerequisite starting principle that the Zohar is true, authentic kaballah, authentic mesorah, written by Rashbi.  Otherwise he could not really call himself a kabbalist.   To expect a kabbalist to renounce this starting point and go from kabbalist to non-kabbalist by a matter of convincing, to me is simply not a rational expectation.  He already thinks it is mesorah, so he will defend it as such.  That jump has been made in anointing oneself as 'kabbalist' (or being anointed as such by followers).  (And I imagine often that the arguments are, gadol x,y, or z says its mesorah, therefore it is). 

Do you really think that every person who became a kabbalist went through and studied all the opinions against the zohar in depth, all the scholarship related to it, and then logically came to a decision one way or another?  They most likely were taught it by someone who was knowledgable and they are aware that most gedolim consider it authentic.   That is enough for most people.   And you could make an argument that that alone should be enough.   But to me this a special case.  For one, the historical context it appeared in.  The questionable circumstances regarding its early history and Moshe De Leon.  And the incredible claims it makes (claiming prior authorship back to ~1200 years before it ever appeared).  You have had gedolim make strong arguments against it.  Even the scholarly opinions were mostly recycled and refined information from the objections of our own rabbis.   The opinions of these rabbis are worth investigation on a very key and very serious hashkafic matter such as this.  Despite what the "majority" says.
 
Only a very rare and unique person would be one who is open to discussion whether or not the arguments are convincing for or against and to choose the stronger side.   Someone already deeply invested emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, and other meaningful ways into the Zohar will not readily concede a point or consider these discussions even worthwhile or with merit.  This type of discussion is not even in the ballpark.  For someone with the starting point that it is true, it's your yetzer hara, that's all.   Or you just don't trust the rabbis.   It's a question that is not legitimate to ask.  Although maybe not quite the same level, I would consider it like expecting a rabbi to acknowledge that heresy is a legitimate opinion.   It simply isn't.   To a person with "conviction" about a certain idea, he will feel similarly about the opinion against his belief (in any sort of area), even if what he believes is some extremely false notion like marxism or what have you.

Here in this very comment, you actually bring proof of my principle.   You describe well the case of Muslims who "believe" that the Koran contains miraculous scientific descriptions hundreds of years ahead of its time, and who proceed to make every possible far-fetched, incorrect, misleading, dishonest, bizarre, and laughable twisting of reality to somehow fit nonexistant facts to this "belief."   The Muslims simply have a conviction that the Koran is divine, and they will do any trick in the book (including bold-faced lies) to "support" their conviction.   And there are a BILLION muslims.    You really think I don't think that's a problem?   Of course it is.   But my eyes are open and I can acknowledge that this most certainly happens and is common human behavior, especially when it comes to 'religious' beliefs/convictions/dogmas!      It surprises me that you could overlook the fact that we have seen much of the same in this very thread!

Granted, most people don't intentionally lie like the Muslims do, so they are an extreme case, but they prove the general point.    In most cases, it will just be a person's desire to find ways to allow his belief to still be true.  So he will find ways to reconcile things that to most rational people will sound incredibly far-fetched, unlikely, or irrational.  Because he is unwilling to accept that it possibly could not be true.   It has to somehow be true.



Furthermore, you haven't shown what it is about Ramban's idea that contradicts the concept of energy turning to matter in the initial phases of creation.   That intial bit of matter (converted from energy) from a volatile gas mixture with high-speed particle collisions is something the scientists are now seeking.   Ramban didn't have that kind of science at his disposal.   Nonetheless, his concept is an ingenious one.  If you have a way to explain how it's wrong, then do so.  Saying x does not equal y or some other abstract irrelevant mathematical equation won't help. 

I will point out that in halacha, something not observed by the naked eye is considered 'not there.'   Ramban saying that the initial matter had pure potentiality and "no positive characteristics" does not necessarily mean it didn't exist or was complete nothingness.    In fact, if it was initially energy that got converted to matter at the start of the creation of the world, I'm not sure what you or Rabbi Gottlieb takes issue with if describing energy as 'pure potentiality with no positive characteristics.'    Up until quite recently that could be an accurate description of a concept of energy, which itself was not described in any meaningful or close to accurate way with any detail until a few hundred years ago and sooner.  I am no way saying Ramban knew modern science or predicted the big bang theory or e=mc squared or anything even close.   That would be ridiculous.  What I am saying is that his general ideas about the creation of the world could be generally correct conceptually when compared to today's science.   I would still hesitate to speculate about how the earth was created, regardless.  But that is a sidenote.

Quote
In 1021 AD, the Arabian physicist, Alhazen, in the Book of Optics, held light rays to be streams of minute energy particles, stating that "the smallest parts of light" retain "only properties that can be treated by geometry and verified by experiment" and that "they lack all sensible qualities except energy." 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy#cite_note-3

An interesting subject.

Offline q_q_

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 3819
Re: The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi
« Reply #49 on: December 06, 2008, 10:21:45 PM »
KahaneBT, you said

"
anyone who believes that the Zohar was written by Rashbi (most certainly including anyone who considers themself a "kabbalist") is going to use any possible claim to support this belief and would never say otherwise. 
"


"
What is so foolish about believing in the 'Rasbhi authorship' and then using any arguments that could fit with it to support that belief?   That's not foolish at all.   It's a conviction and it will be defended by its believers.  Naturally.
"

Well, Natural could mean two opposite things here, so forget that word.

I ask you

Is that logical?

Is that deluded?


Note- I am certainly not saying the following about the Arizal in any of the positions I have suggested.  But from you have said, what I quoted, it looks like you are saying that the Arizal would have used any possible claim to support his belief in the Zohar.