Timeline for Can G-d ever take on a physical form?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
30 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 10, 2023 at 19:43 | comment | added | Rabbi Kaii | @mevaqesh Zohar and Christianity are similar in some ways due to the Greek ideas they have both integrated. That doesn't mean that Zohar is christian-influenced. | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 13:03 | comment | added | mevaqesh | @DoubleAA Will you also move all other anti-rationalist Christian influenced literature over to Christianity.SE? That wouldn't leave too much here. We would be left with a whole lot of Rambam, and a lot of Zohar and the like would be off topic. | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 13:01 | comment | added | mevaqesh | @Fred some clear reference point. | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 13:01 | comment | added | mevaqesh | @Fred Accordingly, one needs to specify one's reference point in order for a statement like "those Lubavitchers are heretics" to be meaningful. Furthermore, as a major representative of Judaism (legitimately or not), R. Schneerson's view seems worth presenting, and its different interpretations considered. It is true that on a Maimonides stack exchange this would be considered Christian, but so would the Zohar that he quotes, and many other passages in Zohar, and in mysticism. It does not seem appropriate then to simply delegitimize the presented view, shocking or not; at least without | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 12:57 | comment | added | mevaqesh | @Fred Well one needs to have some reference point; one can condemn the extreme Lubavitchers, but only in reference to a particular text. Similarly, one can interpret texts in light of the popular beliefs among Jews. There are certainly a variety of views (most of which would be considered heretical according to Rambam) that can (and indeed historically have been) supported on the basis of the texts of Tanakh, Hazal, later writers, popular beliefs, and philosophic notions. | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 12:49 | comment | added | mevaqesh | @Alex How does the next line prove anything? The interpretation of the next line follows the interpretation of the previous line. If one understands the first line to be idolatrous, there is nothing in the second line to dispel that nothing. Its not like מאן פני האדון ה' דא רשב"י is such a powerful expression of the obvious distinction between man and God. Incidentally, this is one of the most famous passages of the Zohar, that even fans of Kabbalah in general, and Zohar in particular, such as R. Yaakov Emden, conceded was an idolatrous interpolation. | |
| Aug 1, 2016 at 6:28 | comment | added | Fred | To the degree that you're accurately portraying the view of some percentage of Lubavitchers, this doesn't show that it's a Jewishly acceptable view. On the contrary, it shows that those Lubavitchers who view the Rebbe's statement this way (e.g. that you can pray to the Rebbe, that the Rebbe is a sui generis manifestation of God, etc.) are heretics (whatever percentage of Lubavitchers this may be). | |
| Mar 22, 2012 at 2:40 | comment | added | Adam Mosheh | Was the Lubavitcher Rebbe a tzadik gamur? | |
| Mar 12, 2012 at 19:10 | comment | added | user1292 | None of the Sages from Avrahahm to the Rishonim have a problem with this. Only in this bitter Galus is such an idea that G-d is actually in this world and that a Tzaddik who lives the Torah to such a level that he brings G-d into world through living is something that isn't Jewish. The Zohar says Hashem and the Torah are one and when you unite and engrave the Torah on your heart you make yourself one with Hashem. Hashem dwells in you. | |
| Mar 12, 2012 at 19:07 | comment | added | user1292 | The Zohar states that a Jew has inside of him a piece of Hashem LITERALLY. The Zohar also says that a Torah Sage has the Shechinah dwelling in him Literally. The Alter Rebbe's Maamar in Likutei Torah Parshas Kedoshim "Hadarta Pnei Zaken" discusses this idea. I agree that such an idea is foreign but the truth is that a tzadik is so connected to Hashem that he actually brings and reveals G-dliness in the world in everything he does to the level that Hashem is actually manifesting in the world through him. | |
| Feb 21, 2012 at 0:12 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | Motion to migrate to Christianity.SE | |
| Oct 1, 2011 at 7:02 | comment | added | user4951 | @Curiouser What does it mean, "Israel, Torah, and God are all one" I thought God is not divisible and that's like the main doctrine that differentiate judaism from christianity? | |
| Aug 2, 2011 at 20:07 | comment | added | Alex | @Curiouser: any berachah? I rather doubt that; even the fixed formula לשם יחוד, which many other chassidim say before every mitzvah, is in Chabad minhag said only before ברוך שאמר. Anyway, as I'm sure a moment's thought will make clear, asking רשות is not the same thing as worship; otherwise, for example, our Sephardic brethren would ח"ו be guilty of shituf for saying ברשות מלכא עלאה קדישא וברשות מורי ורבותי וברשותכם in zimmun. Be that as it may, if perhaps there are some shluchim who hold such mistaken views, it is ridiculous to drag the Rebbe into it when he clearly said no such thing. | |
| Aug 2, 2011 at 19:46 | comment | added | Curiouser | @Alex: The state is California. A number of shluchim have told me that it is permissible to say ברשות אדוננו מורינו ורבינו מלך המשיח לעולם ועד וברשות הקב’'ה before making any beracha. And they believe you can daven directly to the Rebbe for things, not even merely as an intermediary. And they are learned and God-fearing Jews of good reputation here. So I for one am not prepared to castigate them for their beliefs so long as they maintain mitzvah observance. | |
| Aug 2, 2011 at 13:50 | comment | added | Alex | @Curiouser, since you don't even say (in your profile, or anywhere) what state you're in, I have no way of evaluating the truthfulness of your claim. (הרוצה.... ירחיק עדותו.) But I highly doubt it. Yes, if you ask a shliach (or any Lubavitcher), "Is the Rebbe עצמות ומהות אין א גוף?" then the answer will be yes, based on the sicha you quoted. But if you probe and ask what that means - honestly, not לקנתר - then the answer will no more be that we should "daven to the Rebbe" ח"ו than that we should daven to Moshe Rabbeinu. | |
| Aug 2, 2011 at 13:25 | comment | added | Curiouser | I don't think it's appropriate to "name names" on a forum like this, but I can attest that dozens of mainstream American Chabad shluchim in my state believe that God is/was incarnated in the Rebbe; since they remain Torah observant Jews I don't see any reason to write them out of Judaism or to belittle their beliefs, for which they have their sources, not least of which is the source I cited. | |
| Aug 2, 2011 at 13:22 | comment | added | Curiouser | I happen to be a fan of Chabad and have no negative agenda. But I also recognize that many Chabadnikim whom I know understand that reference literally, that God operates the world through the Rebbe and is embodied in the Rebbe. They have told me explicitly it is appropriate to pray to both the Rebbe and to God. I know this makes some people feel uncomfortable, but I remain open-minded about a significant group of Torah observant Jews (Chabad) who believe this and I try not to judge their beliefs. | |
| Aug 1, 2011 at 18:10 | comment | added | Alex | In short, then, the Rebbe is not saying anything about "incarnations"; that is a deliberate falsification by those who have it in for Chabad (or for Chassidus generally) for less-than-pure motives. | |
| Aug 1, 2011 at 18:09 | comment | added | Alex | Not only that, but reading the very next line in that sicha easily disposes of any notion of this referring to an incarnation of G-d, ח"ו. He continues: וע"ד מאמר הזהר מאן פני האדון דא רשב"י אדער ווי בעת השליחות איז אפי' מלאך נקרא בשם הוי' אדער ווי משה רבינו האט געזאגט ונתתי עשב - "similar to how the Zohar calls Rashbi as 'the face of G-d," or how even an angel is called by G-d's name when on a mission, or how Moshe says [in first person] 'I will give grass..." [because "the Shechinah is speaking from his throat"]." | |
| Aug 1, 2011 at 16:18 | comment | added | Shalom | The flowery language CLEARLY WAS NOT INTENDED LITERALLY. When in his father-in-law's presence, Rabbi MM Schneurson would not lean on Seder night; after his father-in-law died, he did. All the talk about "he's with us", "he's connected to G-d", etc. is nice, but he was another flesh-and-blood human being who was no longer alive. | |
| Aug 1, 2011 at 15:58 | comment | added | Curiouser | The "accepted answer" there is "If you see misinformation, vote it down. Add comments indicating what, specifically, is wrong." That seems to me quite reasonable and useful. Now that you took the time to explain your objection, I improved the answer. Presumably, I could have improved the answer more if the other downvoter had the courtesy you showed by responding to my plea for explanations. | |
| Aug 1, 2011 at 15:48 | comment | added | Isaac Moses♦ | SE doctrine is apparently that commentless voting is there by design and doesn't necessarily constitute bad behavior. | |
| Aug 1, 2011 at 15:44 | comment | added | Curiouser | I added more context for you, which is a defense of why praying via a Rebbe is not a problem of praying to intermediaries -- hopefully this helps. But I am still astounded at how common these un-explained downvotes are. What ever happened to the decency of asking for clarification first? How is the site supposed to produce improved answers if everyone behaves so badly? | |
| Aug 1, 2011 at 15:42 | history | edited | Curiouser | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 973 characters in body
|
| Aug 1, 2011 at 15:38 | comment | added | Isaac Moses♦ | I said that it's "outrageous-sounding," which I think most people would agree with, not that it's outrageous. I asked for context to help people who might be astonished by this claim understand it in context. Such an extraordinary-sounding claim is difficult to accept unquestioningly based on a single sentence translated from a document that I can't read. Pointing to secondary sources that discuss this trend in the Rebbe's writing would also be useful. | |
| Aug 1, 2011 at 15:32 | history | edited | Curiouser | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Aug 1, 2011 at 15:31 | comment | added | Curiouser | No, the Lubavitcher Rebbe was referring to his father in law, the Previous Rebbe, whom he referred to as the Rebbe. But he certainly felt that the Previous Rebbe was an embodiment of God, and he actually used those words to describe it. So I'm not sure why your opinion that it seems "outrageous" matters? Now some Lubavitchers have explained this esoterically, but I have met plenty who take it literally. It seems rather presumptuous of you to decide what is outrageous for a Torah sage of the level of the Lubavitcher Rebbe to say. | |
| Aug 1, 2011 at 15:21 | comment | added | Isaac Moses♦ | What you're suggesting - that the Rebbe considered himself an incarnation of God - is outrageous-sounding. Could you possibly provide some context for the statement you're quoting for those of us (probably a majority) who don't read Yiddish? | |
| Aug 1, 2011 at 15:09 | comment | added | Curiouser | Two down votes without a reason? I notice this is becoming a real trend on this site. | |
| Aug 1, 2011 at 13:08 | history | answered | Curiouser | CC BY-SA 3.0 |