Posted on 05/08/2003 9:44:29 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
The similarities between the Hebrew and Greek conclusions are astonishing to me also. I particularly note the excerpt from Timeaus:
I could see the Greeks thinking ‘boys will be boys” when they misbehave whereas the Hebrews would think “the boy has sinned and now must atone.”
Both see man’s essential existence in the “in-between” and both see that he can become more. Evidently, the Greek sees the ‘becoming more’ an opportunity for the self whereas the Hebrew sees it as a possible consequence of duty.
Interestingly, Christianity covers both the duty of the law (Hebrew view) and presents the ultimate divine opportunity (Greek view) - namely oneness via the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Notably, the opportunity is one of divine grace and is accessible by faith. IOW - as the Messiah, Jesus Christ is at the level of Yehidah according to the above excerpts. Keeping that in mind leads to deeper understanding of these passages:
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. – Romans 8:14-15
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. – John 17:21-23
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. – Romans 8:38-39
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. – I Cor 2:11-12
Thanks so much for your kind words, Alamo-Girl. It is amazing to me that the great Greeks got as far as they did, just going by way of Reason -- that is, without the benefit of the explicit type of divine revelation that we find in the Holy Scriptures (e.g., the revelation to Moses and the revelation to man of Christ Incarnate). Also I find it fascinating that the Gospel of John in particular seems to have a very strong Greek "flavor" to it. (Thank you for your citations of John and Paul!)
It seems that Greek thought has slipped into the traditions, not only of the Jews and the Christians, but also of Islam. These Kabbalist sources you cited, A-G -- what are their dates? I said that there had been litte if any cultural contact between Hellas and Israel. What I meant was there apparently was a dearth of contact at the time that Plato and Aristotle were active. Perhaps the contact came later, however -- with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam "discovering" the Greeks long after the 5th century B.C., at the time that their Scriptures were being compiled? What do you think?
In any case, it seems to me that Christ perfected their efforts...He who came, not to abolish (e.g., the Law), but to fulfill....
I don't think either Plato or Aristotle would say "well, just let boys be boys." Both were great moral philosophers. Plato, also a great political philosopher, especially stressed that disordered souls make for disordered society (i.e, the polis, political society). In other words, there can be no good society if it is composed of bad men. In Republic, he famously devised ways to make the "bad boys" atone -- upon conviction for crimes, they had five years to "get themselves straight." Failing that, the polis could put them to death. Of course, Plato never thought that his Republic could ever be reified -- mainly because it is inconceivable that there could ever be a political system governed by a wise and loving Philosopher-King.
Plato knew that, realistically, politics just doesn't produce that kind of outcome. For one thing, philosophers generally lack the type of ambition that could ensure political success: They are thinkers, not doers. For another thing, the "common man" tends not to value philosophers. But I'm sure Plato had a lot of fun developing his myth of the "good polis" -- in Republic, Statesman, Laws: It was a labor of love conducted over a lifetime.
What I discovered looking for an answer to your question is quite fascinating indeed:
kabbalah or cabala [Heb.,=reception], esoteric system of interpretation of the Scriptures based upon a tradition claimed to have been handed down orally from Abraham. Despite that claimed antiquity, the system appears to have been given its earliest formulation in the 11th cent. in France, and from there spread most notably to Spain. There were undoubtedly precedents, however; kabbalistic elements are discernible in the literature of earlier Merkavah mysticism (fl. after c.A.D. 100) inspired by the vision of the chariot-throne (“merkavah”) in the Book of Ezekiel. Beyond the specifically Jewish notions contained within the kabbalah, some scholars believe that it reflects a strong Neoplatonic influence, especially in its doctrines of emanation and the transmigration of souls (see Neoplatonism).
In the late 15th and 16th cent., Christian thinkers found support in the kabbalah for their own doctrines, out of which they developed a Christian version. Kabbalistic interpretation of Scripture was based on the belief that every word, letter, number, and even accent contained mysteries interpretable by those who knew the secret. The names for God were believed to contain miraculous power and each letter of the divine name was considered potent; kabbalistic signs and writings were used as amulets and in magical practices.
The two principal sources of the kabbalists are the Sefer Yezirah (tr. Book of Creation, 1894) and the Zohar (tr. 1949). The first develops, in a series of monologues supposedly delivered by Abraham, the doctrine of the Sefirot (the powers emanating from God, through which the world is created and its order sustained), using the primordial numbers of the later Pythagoreans in a system of numerical interpretation. It was probably written in the 3d cent. The Zohar is a mystical commentary on the Pentateuch. It was written by Moses de León (13th cent.) but attributed by him to Simon ben Yohai, the great scholar of the 2d cent. A.D.
Following the expulsion (1492) of the Jews from Spain, kabbalah became more messianic in its emphasis, as developed by the Lurianic school of mystics at Safed, Palestine. Kabbalah in this form was widely adopted and created fertile gound for the movement of the pseudo-Messiah Sabbatai Zevi. It was also a major influence in the development of Hasidism. Kabbalah still has adherents, especially among Hasidic Jews.
As to the dates of compilation, the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the antiquity and reliability of the underlying Hebrew manuscripts by dating their having been copied as far back as 300 BC. The date of the manuscripts from which they were copied remains unknown (at least to me.)
The dating of the Gospels is much disputed, especially with new manuscripts and evidence being discovered even at this late date. Some experts put them in the first century AD – others up to the mid or late second century AD.
I believe the oldest Koran is 750 AD.
WRT to the “boys will be boys” statement, I obviously over-reached. This original discussion on the Objectivism threads had the argument of moral law from a materialist philosophy at odds with the revealed moral law from God. I do have a tendency to demean such equivalencies. Sorry about that!
The excerpt would put the primary influence on Kabbalah from Plotinus' thought, but I’ve discovered older linkages with Plato himself. The following article strangely asserts that some believe it was Plato who was influenced and not the other way around:
The influence of Greek philosophical thought, particularly that of Plato and Neoplatonism, upon the development in the Kabbalah has long been recognized. A number of Kabbalists took note of a close relationship between the Kabbalah and Platonic philosophy, and some went so far as to suggest that the Kabbalah itself was a source for Platonic and Neoplatonic ideas.
Probably the most important Platonic notion to find its way into Kabbalistic thought is the doctrine of forms or ideas. Even prior to the advent of the Kabbalah, Platonic Idealism had infiltrated Jewish speculation regarding the creation of the world. In the Midrash Genesis Rabbah, we find the declaration that God looked into the Torah and created the world, as if the language of the Torah consisted of a set of forms or templates for creation. Further, thr Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, Philo, understood an isomorphism between the laws of the Torah and the ideal (Platonic) structure of the natural world.
Here, then, was the principle of a twofold interpretation of the Word of God - the literal and the allegorical. The letter of the text must be held fast; and Biblical personages and histories were real. But only narrow-minded slaves of the letter would stop here; the more so, as sometimes the literal meaning alone would be tame, even absurd; while the allegorical interpretation gave the true sense, even though it might occassionally run counter to the letter. Thus, the patriarchs represented states of the soul; and, whatever the letter might bear, Joseph represented one given to the fleshly, whom his brothers rightly hated; Simeon the soul aiming after the higher; the killing of the Egyptian by Moses, the subjugation of passion, and so on. But this allegorical interpretation - by the side of the literal (the Peshat of the Palestinians) - though only for the few, was not arbitrary. It had its 'laws,' and 'canons' - some of which excluded the literal interpretation, while others admitted it by the side of the higher meaning. …
2. Intermediary Beings. - Potencies (dun_meiv, l_goi). If, in what has preceded, we have once and again noticed a remarkable similarity between Philo and the Rabbis, there is a still more curious analogy between his teaching and that of Jewish Mysticism, as ultimately fully developed in the 'Kabbalah.' The very term Kabbalah (from qibbel, to hand down) seems to point out not only its descent by oral tradition, but also its ascent to ancient sources. Its existence is presupposed, and its leading ideas are sketched in the Mishnah. The Targums also bear at least one remarkable trace of it. May it not be, that as Philo frequently refers to ancient tradition, so both Eastern and Western Judaism may here have drawn from one and the same source - we will not venture to suggest, how high up - while each made such use of it as suited their distinctive tendencies? At any rate the Kabbalah also, likening Scripture to a person, compares those who study merely the letter, to them who attend only to the dress; those who consider the moral of a fact, to them who attend to the body; while the initiated alone, who regard the hidden meaning, are those who attend to the soul. Again, as Philo, so the oldest part of the Mishnah designates God as Maqom - 'the place' - the t_pov, the all-comprehending, what the Kabbalists called the EnSoph, 'the boundless,' that God, without any quality, Who becomes cognisable only by His manifestations. …
And make me two! Thank you so much, Alamo-Girl, for the fascinating information WRT the Cabala. Neoplatonist, eh? WRT the divine emanation, Plato held that every being thing is ensouled at least to some degree, and most eminently man -- whose own nous is a participation (at least potentially) in the Mind of God. Clearly the Unknown God of the Beyond of the cosmos (akin to the unknown tetragrammatical God of the Jews and Christians) does emanate into the very essence or spirit of man. The revelation of Christ makes this explicit: "I [i.e., the God of the Presence] and My Father [i.e., the Unknown tetragrammatical God] are One." (At least, that's how I "do the math." :^) )
Thanks so much for writing, Alamo-Girl! Hugs!
Thank you for confirming my testimony. Many times in the Scriptures, it reminds us that every word is established on the testimony of two witnesses. Mine carried no particular weight, until you agreed. Hugs!!!
Include me too. It' so nice to read what kindred spirits have to say. At a couple of crucial times in my life I have experienced some things that would make the hair stand on some folks. I share them as they happen with those close to me (family, clergy, and parish friends). They happen without warning or any provocation by myself. The urgings brought on within me cannot be denied and in fact seem to require acknowledgement as well as some kind of resolve to act on my part before they subside.
Anyway out of all the things in my life I have forgotten over time these few incidents remain as fresh as the day they occurred. Thank you both for your insight and candor. It has been the most positive experience I have had on any thread on this forum during my short tenure. Double barrel hugs.
I am thrilled you have had a positive experience on this thread. It has certainly been a pleasure for me to read all your posts.
Warm and lasting hugs back at 'ya!!!
These things take time.
As for you, PatrickHenry, time's up! (wink, nudge...)
`Well, in our country,' said Alice, still panting a little, `you'd generally get to somewhere else -- if you ran very fast for a long time, as we've been doing.'
`A slow sort of country!' said the Queen. `Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.
If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!'
1. Thank God we don't really have to know such detailsBut... don't get me wrong; there are some insights here! Grounds and growth if you will, for practicing the skills involved in the vocational curse of Adam, i.e., cultivation of what is fruitful and weeding out what isn't.
2. Scriptural context, spiritual insight of the Holy Spirit, "common sense," and the practical utility of it all, should be a good tests of veracity. (But look at even those four "factors" and how they intermingle!)
3. There is much in modern (current? - here again, I'm not sure how people are "allowed" to use the word "modern" anymore ;-) psychology that I tend to trust more than much of this, especially the "quaint" and "tidy" labels and explanations.
4. Thank God for what we do have, authoritatively from Him, in which to trust.
And now, I trust I will go back to sleep. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.