Timeline for The Origins of the Zohar - Why is it accepted as being true?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
41 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 30, 2022 at 4:06 | comment | added | ShipBuilding | @DoubleAA That comment above was to you, sorry I didnt tag you. But continuing, I also have questions/doubts about this answer I repeated, but I am just mentioning it for discussion. Don't think I am sure of it myself either. I believe I read that in an article of the Ari's teachings on chabad.org, but I cant find it in the usual sections, I think it was in a sub menu somewhere from an author with just a couple Ari articles. But I could be wrong about that. | |
| Sep 30, 2022 at 4:02 | comment | added | ShipBuilding | "There were also "huge Tzaddik"s on the other side too though. One group of them was mistaken." Maybe they were both right even tho they contradict each other. 2 times 2 is 4 but negative 2 times negative 2 is also 4. There was another question here with sources about how there is no belief in objective truth in Judaism, therefore conflicting answers can both be true even though logically it is impossible. Maybe Judaism transcends logical truths. I recall a teaching that for the sake of Israel, Hashem even transcended or subverted truth itself (maybe when Sarah laughed I dont remember) | |
| Sep 11, 2016 at 11:23 | history | edited | ray | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 190 characters in body
|
| Jul 10, 2015 at 4:13 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | @ray Not everything is meant to be taken literally... He might endorse it because of its content instead of its mesorah. That's actually what this question is asking for, and what you keep not getting. Nu nu you don't like thinking about this. Fine. | |
| Jul 9, 2015 at 18:14 | comment | added | ray | @user6591 what's the alternative, santa claus? the zohar quotes R.Shimon many times. would he endorse it if it was made up lies in the name of R.Shimon | |
| Jul 9, 2015 at 16:53 | comment | added | user6591 | By quoting the Zohar, one does not automatically admit acceptance of it being Tanaic. Perhaps anyone quoting it thought it was a meritorious work written by a knowledgeable modern rabbi, albeit written as if from ancient times, even if not. Kind of like letting a mashal from the Dubna Magid change your life, even though you know the story is fictitious. Did the Beis Yosef ever say 'well since Zohar was written by a Tanna etc'? | |
| Jul 9, 2015 at 16:53 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | You really don't seem to understand the question. Sigh... | |
| Jul 9, 2015 at 16:33 | history | edited | ray | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 427 characters in body
|
| Jan 12, 2015 at 7:00 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | Are you claiming that the Zohar was accepted by many because the Vilna Gaon checked it out with his superpowers? That is a bizarre claim as the Zohar was pretty widespread well before the VG's time. | |
| Jan 12, 2015 at 6:44 | history | edited | ray | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 216 characters in body
|
| Jan 12, 2015 at 6:41 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | You're aware that this footnote you cite does not say that the Zohar was accepted because the Ari checked it out with his superpowers, right? Hence, it doesn't support your claim. The footnote does not say why it was accepted then. Maybe the Ari just had a good publicist or something. | |
| Jan 12, 2015 at 6:39 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | I don't know why you are quoting the Vilna Gaon. Did he also have magic powers to figure out where the text came from? If not then he must be basing his belief on someone else, so how is he relevant? You make your opening paragraph sound like there were other rabbis who were quasi prophets. Can you name them? | |
| Jan 12, 2015 at 6:08 | history | edited | ray | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 53 characters in body
|
| Jan 11, 2015 at 7:03 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | @ray What are you disagreeing with? Your answer is that the Zohar was accepted because the Ari verified it (as you explain in your first paragraph), yet you haven't brought any source to back this up. Hence, your answer remains unsourced. I don't know what is confusing. You can go source that the Ari was greater than Moshe for all I care and that still wouldn't make your answer sourced. | |
| Jan 11, 2015 at 7:02 | comment | added | ray | @DoubleAA i disagree with you. my point is that it had the backing of the arizal. | |
| Jan 11, 2015 at 0:34 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | @ray Ya, but still no sources for your answer (which remains sourceless) | |
| Jan 10, 2015 at 18:57 | comment | added | ray | @DoubleAA added some sources | |
| Jan 9, 2015 at 13:44 | history | edited | ray | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 558 characters in body
|
| Jan 9, 2015 at 8:26 | history | edited | ray | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 394 characters in body
|
| Jan 9, 2015 at 6:18 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | @ShmuelBrin There were also "huge Tzaddik"s on the other side too though. One group of them was mistaken. I understood the whole premise here to be that the Ari's powers were somehow unique in their ability to verify the origin of the text in a uniquely (relatively) error-free way. | |
| Jan 9, 2015 at 6:15 | comment | added | ertert3terte | @DoubleAA He could (note, I don't have any evidence off the top of my head that he did) have said that he's a huge Tzaddik, לא יאונה לצדיק כל און, etc. | |
| Jan 9, 2015 at 4:50 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | @ShmuelBrin If the Beit Yosef (or anyone) independently verified the Arizal's powers of ancient-text-authoriship-verification without just relying on the Arizal's renown as a formidable master of Kabbala, then that would no longer be circular. If you can source such an event occurring AND that it is the cause of why the Zohar was accepted, that would be an answer to this question. The fact remains that this answer is quite poor and sourceless. | |
| Jan 9, 2015 at 0:36 | comment | added | ertert3terte | @DoubleAA It could be verified by the Arizal who was verified by the Beis Yosef. | |
| Jan 9, 2015 at 0:22 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | @ShmuelBrin Yes necessarily. However, if you want to post a different answer that the Zohar was accepted because it's authenticity was verified by the Beit Yosef, you may do so (sourced, if possible). Please be sure to include how the Beit Yosef verified it. The fact remains that this answer is quite poor and sourceless. | |
| Jan 8, 2015 at 23:48 | comment | added | ertert3terte | @DoubleAA not necessarily. If the Arizal was backed up by people not known (exclusively) for their kabbalah (say the Beis Yosef), it wouldn't be circular reasoning anymore | |
| Jan 8, 2015 at 21:48 | comment | added | MoriDowidhYa3aqov | @ray yea...no there is no such thing. anyone claiming such thing are in it for something other than torah and those who believe in such thing are delusional | |
| Jan 8, 2015 at 21:45 | comment | added | ray | @MoriDoweedhYaa3qob I said almost prophecy. and believe it not these shadows of prophecy exists even today among the gedolei hador, especially in israel | |
| Jan 8, 2015 at 21:30 | comment | added | MoriDowidhYa3aqov | -1 because this is silly and not a real answer. prophecy ended long ago. anyone who claims to have any kind of prophecy is truly a liar and a deceiver. if the sanhadreen would be around they would surely execute this person for blasphemy and treason. | |
| Jan 8, 2015 at 21:13 | history | edited | ray | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 43 characters in body
|
| Jan 8, 2015 at 7:09 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | Please edit in a source for your answer if you can. | |
| Jan 8, 2015 at 7:08 | history | edited | Double AA♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
organization
|
| Jan 8, 2015 at 7:03 | history | edited | ray | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 52 characters in body
|
| Jan 8, 2015 at 6:55 | history | edited | ray | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 85 characters in body
|
| Jan 8, 2015 at 6:30 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | I agree! Of course He doesn't! The question is did the Ari really have any Torah knowledge or was it just knowledge of nonsense? (See how it's circular?) | |
| Jan 8, 2015 at 6:02 | comment | added | ray | the arizal was accepted as the gadol hador. that's enough proof of his authenticity. God doesnt grant that level of torah knowledge to liars | |
| Jan 7, 2015 at 19:01 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | But how do you know it was Torah wisdom or even wisdom at all? (See how it's circular?) | |
| Jan 7, 2015 at 18:59 | comment | added | ray | @DoubleAA well, you dont get the kind of wisdom he got without divine help. Gd does not give this kind of torah wisdom to liars. | |
| Jan 7, 2015 at 18:57 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | How do you know that? (See how it's circular?) | |
| Jan 7, 2015 at 18:55 | comment | added | ray | the ari had revelations from eliyahu hanavi. likewise his talmid rav chaim vital claims he personally had these revelations in shaarei kedusha intro | |
| Jan 7, 2015 at 18:52 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | I'm surprised by your answer for it seems circular: imagine the Ari saying "I am the greatest master of this field of study which is true because I said so." Shouldn't we be looking for independent verification? I mean, no one who thinks the Zohar is false will believe the "prophecy" of the man they think is a charlatan. You should try and find a prophet who's prophecy isn't solely dependent on the truth of the Zohar. (As a parallel consider John Smith's being a prophet is dependent solely on the truth of the Book of Mormon. See how it's circular?) | |
| Jan 7, 2015 at 18:20 | history | answered | ray | CC BY-SA 3.0 |