From: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Lmendels@waynest1
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:30:05 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/18.0 - Midrash, Denver CO

To: 21010JIS@MSU

 21> Date: 12 Oct 92 02:08:04 GMT
 21> Message-ID: <1992Oct12.020931.27758@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
    PRIOR: RAL> Message-ID: <9210080400.AA00965@aplpy.jhuapl.edu>
    PRIOR: RAL (Now: 21)> Response from my "Zohar expert" friend...
                       {Responce II to re-post II}
     First of all, you can put aside the idea of your 'friend' being
     any kind of 'expert'!  Someone that woefully ignorant of the
     Amsterdam version of Zohar, could be not "Zohar expert".

 21> If the quote Carlson posted is typical of the "Amsterdam Zohar"
 21> (or its English translation), it is not only "markedly different"
 21> but rather a fraud and a forgery.

     First of all, the Amsterdam version of Zohar is considered both
     ancient and genuine in Orthodox Judiasm!  Second, the passages
     you commented on are not the same that I'd posted on!  Third, this
     version is well known by almost all scholars, Rabbinic or no, down
     through the centuries!  While the majority of the quotes I gave
     are only found thus in the Amsterdam version, the ideas presented
     are outlined elsewhere in other versions of Zohar, to a lesser
     extent.  The only thing that is a 'fraud and a forgery' here, is
     RL stating that you are a 'Zohar expert'!

 21> Carlson's posting of it smacks of the same.

     I want to thank you for the endorsement that I was correct all
     along.  For when you accuse me, on a public net that is world
     -wide, of falsehood - it rather points back to you.  Why?...
     Because these passages I quoted are VERY well know, and you
     have not only shown your ignorance in this regard, -  but have
     gone off half-cocked and leveled smut in my direction.  Thank
     you again :-)

 21> Regarding his typically-out-of-context mention of the Jewish
 21> Encyclopedia's mention of Cabala: Unlike Christianity, the Cabala
 21> does not ascribe divinity to the Unity's many different
 21> manifestations into the physical world.

     Who's Cabala?!  If you were any kind of 'Zohar expert', then you'd
     know that from the time of Natan of Gaza on, the 'upgraded'
     version of the Lurianic Kabbalah did indeed take the dogma of the
     Tzimtzim and formulate it into a nature of the G-dhead that
     included an ascribing of the Divine to the Three aspects of
     El*him!  Accordingly, that El*him of Israel, was not the Ein-Sof,
     but was a second-cause dwelling within the Sefirah Tiferet.
     -It was revealed by this Sefirah, but not identical, as in yachid;
     but composite: as in Echad.  The Metatron was likewise expanded to
     include a visible Presence of HaShem, within The Angel of the
     L*RD/Covenant, - & considered the very HaShem Himself, though not
     the totality of the Presence of HaShem.  Where the heck do you
     think the Shabbatai Zevi-ites, and Frankists got there ideas in
     the first place!   It, (Shabbateanism), was quite wide-spread, and
     swept-up many of the Rabbinim in the 17th century with it's
     notions, and the movement was VERY widespread.  The Amsterdam
     Zohar, (which was NOT added to by "Christians"), is in accord
     with the Kabbalistic "trinity" movmenets which swept Europe, N.
     Africa, and the Middle East starting in the 17th centuries, and
     may very well represent an earlier base text, - which in later
     versions, (the Rabbinim being careful to not encourage further
     Jewish 'trinity' movements), chose to edit!

... 012 But, woe unto the house that the turnip enters :-) 210    
--  
Bill Carlson - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG