Kabbalah

[keng]

I have felt somewhat enticed by Kabbalah at times in the past. So I printed the post giving an overview. It was very interesting but there are a couple of points that haunt me. I have not noticed these before in the books a periodicals I have read. So I was hoping Simchat-Torah could elaborate on these. If I sound critical please excuse my choice of words.

1. It says that through real kabbalah we integrate the outer universe with the personal universe that is inside us.

This sounds like collective consciousness. I am involved in a serious study to refute the misrepresentations in books like the DaVinci Code and Holy Blood, Holy Grail. This has lead to the Gnostic material that hints of these concepts, and tangents bring in even stronger connections. This stuff is like eating dog food, there is a little nutritional value but I could have done without it.

2. The Shekhina of G-d is feminine but has eerie overtones to me. I solve the problem by ignoring it, but this forces the issue on my thinking. The goddesses of paganism found there greatest proponent in Hitler. He mentions goddesses several times in Mein Kampf. Several years ago after critics kept charging that Hitler was a Christian I studied the matter and was able to produce evidence to the contray, but that's another story.

3. Not in the presentation on this forum but elsewhere I have found Kabbalah produces ideas that play havaoc with the mind of one trying to give it credence and at the same time stay on solid footing with what has already been learned. For instance, reincarnation could be supported by Kabbalah. The problem is that I have witnessed people who were spiritual extroverts, then after getting into stuff like this become spiritual zombies.

Again the first two issues appeared as a result of reading the Kabbalah post, the last I had encountered before and as a result of doing a little investigation. This is not a life threatening issue with me, rather I am just trying to understand why I feel an enticement to the subject and if I am to pursuit the matter. Toda Raba

 

[simchat_torah]

Shalom Keng,

I hail from Champagin/Urbana. Howdy neighbor.

Anywho... let's discuss

Again the first two issues appeared as a result of reading the Kabbalah post, the last I had encountered before and as a result of doing a little investigation.

Hmmm... I'm not sure where I referred to either of the first two points made above.

1. It says that through real kabbalah we integrate the outer universe with the personal universe that is inside us.

To my recollection, I didn't ever say anything resembling this.

I'm not sure if you are referring to the New Age philosophy that essentially states we are G-d's of our own universe, or something entirely different. I really have to wonder, where this idea is drawn from the other thread?

Would you mind pointing that out please????

The Shekhina of G-d is feminine but has eerie overtones to me. I solve the problem by ignoring it, but this forces the issue on my thinking

I am not going to really lay out a simple answer, stated as fact. Instead, I'm merely going to toss out a few points to ponder, aligning with your questions.

a) In Hebrew, Shekinah is feminine.
b) In the Tenach (ot) G-d is often portrayed with feminine/nurturing qualities (especially in the Hebrerw texts). Can we truly define G-d according to a gender? Is he limited to soley patristic qualities?
c) When the Shekinah is mentioned as a manifestation in the Temple, there was often an eerie overtone to it. The priests fell to their faces (note: not on their backs). The temple was filled with a cloud, etc.

Basically, what I'm saying is that I'm not really sure if this concept is totally limited to Kabbalah. We can see the feminine nature of G-d in the Shekinah strictly from a biblical texts standpoint. As well, there certainly is a mystical, almost fearful, effect that the Shekinah brings with it. Again, this is looking soley at Biblical texts, and not even venturing into Kabbalah.

Not in the presentation on this forum but elsewhere I have found Kabbalah produces ideas that play havaoc with the mind of one trying to give it credence and at the same time stay on solid footing with what has already been learned. For instance, reincarnation could be supported by Kabbalah

Three quick points:
1) If you read the first thread, then you would know that Kabbalah is strictly to be viewed as esoteric and not literal.
2) As well, after reading the first thread, one would understand that there are modern (or magical) forms of Kabbalah that are not based on the Jewish principles of the Torah what so ever. When the foundation is removed, danger surrounds. In other words, when studying Kabbalah, be sure one is looking at the true ancient form of Kabbalah and not the modern misinterpretation focusing on magick. Original Kabbalah was soley interested in studying the nature of G-d. nothing more.
3) Allow me to ask you a question:
Would you label the "John the Baptist" and "Elijah the Prophet" connection as reincarnation? If your answer is a sound no, then what about in an esoteric view? What then?

Keng, achi (my brotha), I appreciate your open heart and eagerness to discover what is behind the veil no matter the cost. Some are too afraid to venture outside of the 'comfort zone', and they lose out on some of the greatest prizes. I am glad to see one willing to open themselves up and challenge their understanding.

It is truly refreshing.

Shalom,
Yafet

 

[keng]

Shalom, haber. I will reply later but wanted to express my appreciation for your reply. There was a lady I met the other day who was very interested in Kabbalah and wanted to find someplace in this city to study, she has no Jewish background. At that time I told her she had a really big objective in mind. I will give her a print of your informational post and this also. Sorry to be so short, I must run.

 

[Hix]

Shalom Keng, have you seen Yafets thread explaining Kabbalah? http://christianforums.com/t99182 its quite a read im sure you would agree

As for the Shekinah it is the most misunderstood name I have ever encountered, most people take that becuase it is feminine that it is describing G-d as female or a female aspect of the divine. This is false, ancient hebrew did not have a neutral gender such as "it" which would be more appropriate. Indeed G-d Almighty transends gender, he is genderless and has no form, as Isaiah says there is nothing like him and no form can be related to him. Notice I say "him" this once again is out of convenience for lack of neutral gender

I should note also any time the Tanach mentions aspects of G-d such as his arm, or his hand, or his back etc this is not speaking literally of a literal body, rather metaphorically in terms we humans could understand better. In truth we can never fully comprehend the infinite nor even close to it.

I must agree with Yafet, your attitude to venture outside the box for truth is very refreshing, Baruch HaShem!
Shalom and G-d bless you
~Hix~

 

[blessed2]

The Shekhina of G-d is feminine but has eerie overtones to me. I solve the problem by ignoring it, but this forces the issue on my thinking. The goddesses of paganism found there greatest proponent in Hitler.

I agree with simchat_torah.

In the Tenach (ot) G-d is often portrayed with feminine/nurturing qualities (especially in the Hebrerw texts). Can we truly define G-d according to a gender? Is he limited to soley patristic qualities?

I think that things often have not only the literal meanings but deeper ones as well.
(Keep in mind that I'm not the wisest but I'll try to give fodder for the mill.)

Gen 2:25
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Actually nake..........yes, probly, but
Too perhaps they were "naked" completely open, hiding nor concealing nothing from G-d nor each other.
They say when you meet someone you are actually meeting their representative.....your meeting the mask they've put on. It takes a while to get to really know that person....for them to open up, take away the mask of who they want you to see....to see the real them.

I've heard that where it says:
Gen 2:22
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

The instead of "rib" it actually means side.
Could this mean that G-d created man in His own image, then
removed a Side of Him to create woman? The nurtering etc side?

Would this explain:
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Chr-st

1 Corinthians 6:16
What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

Ephesians 5:31
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

Could this mean that we shall be as with Adam in the begining...together we are 1 complete being...in the image of G-d?

Too I've heard that the words help meet
Genesis 2:18
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him

Actually means "completer".

Don't we search for our other half....someone who completes us?

Anywho.....just a few thoughts.
Thank you for your patience.

 

[keng]

Thanks again for the response, male and female personages is not the problem. A female deity is, not that God has to be Arnold S. rather the religions with strong feminine aspects. Thanks, Hix, that may be the solution to my hangup, let me mull it over. Sorry to be so short.

 

[keng]

For several years the book of the translations of the Gnostic writings has gathered dust on my book shelf. The recent publication of the DaVinci Code caused me retrieve the book of writings setting on the shelf. By the way I do think the Lord is guiding me through this though it is unusual, and there is too much to explain at the moment. At present I remember encountering some comments indicating there is a link between Gnosticism and Kabalah, I find no such link except a possible connection in the first two points I listed and even this is very remote (a misapplication and misinterpretation), however I am trying to be sure that if I were to study Kaballah I would be doing so with the right mind set and for the right reason, in which case I would be able to serve the Lord's purpose and help others.

Concerning re-incarnation, I think there is a process we are unable to understand that makes the Word true, as in the case of Elijah. I have also had a pet theory that the Lord speaks to children in the womb. However, the Arizal who is mentioned in the Kaballah post has prepared several volumes explaining reincarnation. Although there are things in life that are difficult to explain I don't think reincarnation is the answer based on scripture.