Timeline for Can G-d ever take on a physical form?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 24, 2020 at 23:42 | comment | added | Fred | @yechezkel Even quasi-corporealists like R' Moshe Taku were quite rare (although opponents of the Franco-German rabbis sometimes characterized them as "magshimim", such as R' Sh'mu'el ben Mord'chai of Marseilles). And although many people in recent years have tried to argue that Rashi was a corporealist, their arguments are flawed, and in fact there is ample evidence to the contrary. See, for example, discussion in No, Rashi Was Not a Corporealist by R' Saul Zucker and Chapter 7 of The Intellectual History and Rabbinic Culture of Medieval Ashkenaz by Rabbi Ephraim Kanarfogel. | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:42 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://judaism.stackexchange.com/ with https://judaism.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Oct 17, 2016 at 18:30 | comment | added | yechezkel | "No, no, no. Judaism makes clear that G-d has no physical form, nor does (nor can) He ever take one on." That is a bold lie. Judaism includes also Rishonim such as R. Moshe Taku, and Rashi who believed in a corporeal G-d. It is wrong to portray that there weren't great sages in Judaism who believed that G-d could take on a physical form. | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 14:01 | comment | added | mevaqesh | @Matt I take issue with your implication that this answer proves anything at all! It merely expresses the personal sentiments of an unknown person and his belief that that is the belief of Judaism. | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 7:23 | comment | added | Fred | @HodofHod judaism.stackexchange.com/a/16315. | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 7:21 | comment | added | Fred | @Matt ...See also Tosafos' version (M'nachos 109b, s.v. "נזדמן") of the Yerushalmi, which proposes that it was the Sh'china that Shim'on HaTzadik perceived as a man ("ומשני דשמא שכינה היתה"). See also the version found in Tosafos HaRosh (Yoma 39b, "כבוד הקב"ה היה"), Tosafos Yeshanim (Yoma 19b, id.), and the Or Zaru'a' (I, K'riyas Sh'ma' §8, "אומר אני כבוד הקב"ה היה"), which give the Yerushalmi's answer that Shim'on HaTzadik perceived the "Glory of HaShem" - not HaShem Himself - as a man. | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 6:55 | comment | added | Fred | @Matt Shalom isn't saying God can't allow people to think they see a representation of Himself; he's just rejecting the possibility of incarnation. Y'vamos 49b reconciles the Torah's declaration that "No man can see Me and live" (Ex. 33:20) with Isaiah's vision of God by explaining that all prophets but Moses saw prophetic visions colored by their own minds (hence Isaiah's perception). Moses, with unadulterated prophecy, perceived that God cannot truly be seen. Likewise, Shimon HaTzadik saw a divinely inspired vision (Yoma 5:2), but his mind caused him to perceive a vision of God as a man. | |
| Mar 18, 2015 at 5:31 | comment | added | הנער הזה | I'm surprised that after all of this discussion, nobody downvoted the answer. I did (sorry), because I don't believe that this proves that God cannot take physical form, merely that passages that one might think refer to such things should not be understood as such. Also, there's a Yerushalmi (Yoma 5:2) that strongly indicates that even though God has no body, He can make one to represent Himself if He so wishes, though the Rambam (and others) would almost certainly interpret this Yerushalmi differently. | |
| Apr 11, 2012 at 9:32 | comment | added | user4951 | That's exactly my point HodofHod. God can do anything, including taking humans' form should he like. Whether He ever does that or not is a different story. One billion people believe He had a son outside marriage that's actually himself. I don't know whether that's true or not. Then again, kaballah says that Israel, torah, and God is one, which is even more crazy than Christians. | |
| Nov 25, 2011 at 3:29 | vote | accept | user4951 | ||
| Oct 31, 2011 at 14:19 | comment | added | HodofHod | Shalom, saying G-d "can't" is a fallacy. By definition of omnipotent, you cannot say that G-d is incapable of something. In essence, you've stumbled upon the paradox of attempting to describe the infinite. It cannot be done. Judaism applies adjectives to G-d only insofar as he has applied those same attributes to himself (and us- m'bsari echze Elokai). But those are not limiters on G-d. Describing G-d's essence is a dangerous pursuit, prone to lots of contradictions, mostly because hasagos hamehus is beyond us. Interesting article on this | |
| Oct 2, 2011 at 10:22 | comment | added | Shalom | "Why cannot once in a while"... it's like "why can't G-d make a rock so heavy He can't lift it." Because doing so means being limited, and that's not G-d. | |
| Sep 30, 2011 at 6:17 | comment | added | user4951 | @shalom while God may not incarnate, how come the almighty "cannot" once in a while take a physical form. | |
| Sep 29, 2011 at 4:18 | comment | added | user4951 | Let me try to understand. So God talk to Abraham telepathically? That God is not one of those men? Wow. Saying excuse me to God? Okay we can cross that out. Why would God say to those 3 men "my lord?". Who are those 3 men that outrank Abraham? | |
| Sep 28, 2011 at 14:23 | comment | added | Shalom | @Jim Thio. There are two ways to read "my L/lord" there. Either Abraham is saying to G-d (whose presence he had been experiencing), "excuse me please for a minute while I attend to these guests"; or he is addressing the most prominent of the 3 men (assumed to be their leader), "my lord, please stop here and have something to eat" | |
| Sep 28, 2011 at 8:03 | comment | added | user4951 | And Jehovah appeareth unto him among the oaks of Mamre, and he is sitting at the opening of the tent, about the heat of the day; 2 and he lifteth up his eyes and looketh, and lo, three men standing by him, and he seeth, and runneth to meet them from the opening of the tent, and boweth himself towards the earth, 3 And he saith, 'My Lord, if, I pray thee, I have found grace in thine eyes, do not, I pray thee, pass on from thy servant | |
| Aug 23, 2011 at 18:56 | comment | added | Shalom | @Jim Thio, check your text carefully. Start at Genesis 18:16: the "men" (turn out to be angels) got up and glanced at Sodom, and Abraham was walking with them to send them; then G-d (Tetragrammaton) said [18:20-21] "will I cover-up my actions from Abraham? ..." Then the "men" walk away [18:22], and Abraham talks with G-d (Tetragrammaton), arguing over whether to destroy Sodom. (Until 18:33). The angels have already gone and are on their way to Sodom while this conversation takes place; Abraham is debating with G-d. By the way, they're called "men", not "angels", in Abraham's presence. | |
| Aug 23, 2011 at 6:18 | comment | added | user4951 | So is Abraham questioning God or one of his angels when he talked about Sodom? yltbible.com/genesis/18.htm (young translation is the closest to original language if you don't know hebrew :). The word is Jeh-vah there. | |
| Aug 23, 2011 at 6:14 | comment | added | user4951 | so elohim means something like the word lord in english. It can mean God, it can also mean one of His henchmen. Christians bible always translate elohim as God. You mean christians' translators are wrong? Also Abraham asked the "beings" if he would spare Sodom if there are 5 people. The "beings" answered directly without asking his superior first. theflyfishingrabbi.blogspot.com/2007/11/… . So the being that's in front of Abraham is not God himself? | |
| Aug 1, 2011 at 19:26 | comment | added | WAF | Just on the 'messenger' not 'angel' point - I often make this correction as well, but I read recently that the Greek word from which 'angel' derives means the same thing. Your distinction is no less important as a result. I just found it interesting. | |
| Aug 1, 2011 at 17:38 | comment | added | Monica Cellio | @Jim Thio, not angels in the sense of fat toddlers with wings and harps; that's another religion, not us. The word used in torah for the beings in these various encounters is usually but not always "malach", best translated as "messenger" or "emissary". Malachim in Judaism are part of the heavenly court, created by God to do specific jobs; they are not independent agents or the spirits of dead people. | |
| Aug 1, 2011 at 15:43 | comment | added | Alex | @Jim: the expression there is "they heard the voice of G-d walking around..." - not G-d Himself. See also zaq's answer. | |
| Aug 1, 2011 at 15:06 | comment | added | user4951 | What about God that walked around in Eden's garden. He's not corporeal too? | |
| Aug 1, 2011 at 15:05 | comment | added | user4951 | So all those are angels? As a half agnostic half christian I am surprised. I never knew all these. | |
| Aug 1, 2011 at 8:13 | history | answered | Shalom | CC BY-SA 3.0 |