Skip to main content
Mi Yodeya

Timeline for Looking for rabbinic exponents of cataphatic theology

Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0

11 events
when toggle format what by license comment
May 10, 2021 at 18:46 comment added N.T. The outrageous part is that you presented R' Kreskas as being cataphatic, which is heretical, instead of apophatic, which he is.
May 10, 2021 at 13:21 comment added tcdw I see, so it's outrageous that I presented R' Kreskas's depiction of the dispute, as being significant, rather than your own, as being a subtle one. Well most of my one sentence answer was quoting a source, so I'll leave it up to readers to decide who is being outrageous here.
May 10, 2021 at 7:13 comment added N.T. Which is why it is outrageous that you present something as cataphatic when it is a subtle dispute within the apophatic tradition. In fact, R' Kreskas is more apophatic than Rambam, since he defines terms like G-d's strength as apophatically negating weakness from G-d, whereas Rambam (and Chovos HaLevavos) say the term would describe the way G-d chooses to run the world. The Kabbalists say there is a metaphysical creation called "strength" that is not G-d but a creation of His. Perhaps the sharpness of R' Kreskas is that in his view, Rambam is not apophatic enough.
May 10, 2021 at 5:54 comment added tcdw I think that the difference between your position and mine is indeed very subtle, despite the sharpness of your words.
May 9, 2021 at 4:35 comment added N.T. While the term apophatic might not be mentioned (I hadn't heard of it prior to seeing this question), all Rishonim are very clear in saying that there are absolutely no valid terms we could use to refer to G-d in and of Himself. This is part of the Rambam's third principle of faith, summarized as ואין לו דמיון כלל, which is based on Isaiah 40:25. As for how sharp R' Kreskas was in his attack on Rambam, that has no bearing on how subtle the difference was.
May 8, 2021 at 17:49 comment added tcdw I disagree. The apophatic description is not a fundamental principle of faith according to anyone, and the question wasn't asking about fundamental disagreements explicitly. The request was for sources, which I duly provided. In addition, R' Chisdai Kreskas did not see it as a subtle difference, and was noticeably sharp in his attack on the Rambam.
May 6, 2021 at 20:29 comment added N.T. To put it in perspective: It's like someone asked, "Do any Orthodox opinions say one does not have to keep the Sabbath?" And you responded, "There is a disagreement if lighting a fire is chayav misah or just a lav", but you did not explain, you just pointed to a source the OP could not understand, so he thought you were saying such an opinion exists, when in reality it means nothing of the sort. It is horrifically misleading.
May 6, 2021 at 19:57 comment added N.T. It is a very subtle disagreement about what the descriptors of G-d are referring to. The attitude of Rabbi Kreskas is entirely in line with the Orthodox position.
May 6, 2021 at 12:19 comment added tcdw I agree that the disagreement is more to do with the definition of positive and negative, and other semantics, rather than the nature of G-d. However, it does represent a different attitude towards the limited understanding we can have of Hashem. I don't accept that understanding R' Chisdai Kreskas is contingent on understanding the Chovos HaLevavos.
May 5, 2021 at 9:07 comment added N.T. He does not disagree about the nature or knowability of G-d, but rather in how the terms used to refer to G-d are to be understood. His point is that since a term referring to G-d's wisdom really means to say G-d does not have the deficit of foolishness, it is in a way referring to G-d Himself being perfect, despite the nature of the perfection being completely unknowable. You really need to study the Sha'ar HaYichud of Chovos HaLevavos thoroughly to understand the basic idea underlying his point.
May 4, 2021 at 19:55 history answered tcdw CC BY-SA 4.0