A gnostic interpretation of the Virgin birth of Jesus

a reply to: Joecroft

I believe you are spot on here with your interpretations

Thank You.

Making the male not male etc…is to do with seeking the “Father”, the Spirit of God, which is neither male nor female. Making the 2 into one is to do with uniting the Spirit of God with the Soul. The Soul being the Son, which is the real you

If I'd guessed, I would have thought "inner" refers to Son (or hindu atma) and outer is Father (Hindu Brahman).

Genesis tells us that GOD gave us free choice. In a nutshell, Judiasm (as well as eastern religions) warn that If we spend the Creators light energy to experience pleasure sensations our body will remain dark. But if we don't spend the Creators energy for short term pleasure sensations, that light energy flows naturally though the chakra's, allowing us to be full of the Creators light.

So the process Jesus explained to enter the kingdom might be a completely natural process that occurs once we stop seeking worldly pleasures.

a reply to: madmac5150

The early church suppressed anything feminine. Sophia. Mary Magdalene. "Sophia" was renamed as "The Holy Spirit" (genderless) and Mary Magdalene was portrayed as a prostitute. Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute. She was a business woman. History supports that fact. She was a consort of Yeshua, the Christ. The Catholic Church demonized her as a prostitute, because they did not want women to be empowered within their power structure. Text

What do you reference when you say early church? Do you mean the Roman organizations and their offspring or do you mean the first synagogue of the Nazarene's of which James was the Nasi? There are some who regard James as the Christian church but that is not correct. I have seen this on ATS a good many times from so many who are mistaken in referencing the Roman Church and its spawned denominations as connected to the first Nazarene movement of the Christ Jesus. Actually these are two distinct movements with entirely different liturgy which separates them.

The Nazarene movement of James used the Judaic structure which taught that the male priest hood of Aaron and the tribe of Levi were the sole caregivers of the liturgy of Torah. Torah in turn taught that woman, because of the sin in the garden, would be subservient to the male as punishment for the introduction of sin in the Gan Eden. This was the edict from the Creator and forever adopted as a portion of the Judaic liturgy. It has nothing to do with sexism of which these modern generations with their political correct mind sets teach today.

Mary Magdalene was the sister of Lazarus and Martha and was the woman who Jesus cast out seven demons [devils]. She and Martha and Lazarus also accompanied Joseph of Arimathea to Glastonbury [Britain] and both died on the isle of Glastonbury. They both evangelized Britain and France under the authority of the apostle Philip. You are correct that there is no direct literary proof that she was a harlot.

a reply to: glend

Originally posted by glend
If I'd guessed, I would have thought "inner" refers to Son (or Hindu atman) and outer is Father (Hindu Brahman).

I’m not too knowledgeable on Buddhist or Hindu beliefs, but Yeah…that’s a good way to view it. Must of my knowledge comes from within and from contemplating the OT, the NT, and various Gnostic texts…

In biblical terminology a person is said to be born from “on high” or “born from above”…which fits with the Father (Hindu Brahman) being the outer…

But the funny thing is, is that the Father is within as well as without. The Father is that which is above all and in all…So it’s outer/higher but also inner…(Not sure if there’s a word for that in Hinduism…)

Which makes sense, because the Soul is really Spirit; it’s just the lower end of the Spirit…i.e. that which is currently perceiving and living this reality…

Originally posted by glend
Genesis tells us that GOD gave us free choice. In a nutshell, Judiasm (as well as eastern religions) warn that If we spend the Creators light energy to experience pleasure sensations our body will remain dark. But if we don't spend the Creators energy for short term pleasure sensations, that light energy flows naturally though the chakra's, allowing us to be full of the Creators light.

During my spiritual search, I abstained from everything and had spiritual chakra experiences. So yes, there is definitely something to be said for not spending energy on physical body sensations.

Many interpret the Gnostics as being against the flesh and that it is evil etc…but I think the Gnostics only meant that following after things of the flesh without knowledge of the Spirit, is what is bad, and not that the flesh is evil pe se…but that’s just my own opinion…of course having said that, there are different Gnostic theologies regarding the demiurge…

Originally posted by glend
So the process Jesus explained to enter the kingdom might be a completely natural process that occurs once we stop seeking worldly pleasures.

Stopping the worldly pleasures certainly gets your mind focused on seeking. Your mind reaches a heightened sense because you’re devoid of thinking about worldly attractions; this is essentially what happened in my case.

Your thirst becomes one for truth, where everything gets switched to being predominately about the internal, instead of the normal default, of living in the external. The seeking has to be done with all heart, soul and mind, to the extent where you’re prepared to give up everything, in order to find the truth…only in this way is the heart truly seeking…

I personally believe there can be other paths to the same truth, but I can only speak of my own experiences. For me, it was mainly about seeking by asking myself (the right) questions, and then not forcing the answer, but allowing the answer to arrive in it’s own time. Which I know sounds a bit mystical and woo woo ish lol but that’s what happened to me…

If one combines Jesus other teachings about seeking and finding the Kingdom and the Kingdom being within, then it’s clearly an internal search towards finding the truth…

- JC

Regarding later "gnostics" I believe they and Catholicism were to different degrees and in different ways influenced by the Israelite Philo of Alexandria, Egypt, Judahite-Roman aristocrat.

In his writings which fuse Hellenistic philosophy with the Pentateuch he wrote that God was too perfect to interact directly with matter, which he viewed as imperfect, so he created a "Son" the "Logos" or Divine Word/Reason, as it is alternately translated according to context as it is not fully captured conceptually as only "Word."

In turn the Logos, who was not as but too close to perfection as well and created "Sophia" or "Wisdom" to create the world.

A lot of people assume, many scholars even, that the 'gnostic' demiurge is the "creator" when it is always Sophia.

Sophia (or the aeons in some texts) breaths life into the lifeless body of Adam because Ialdabaoth can't make him alive. Of course he thinks it was him, Ialdabaoth does. At one point Sophia tells him to stop lying about being God.

He also can't create anything from scratch or out of nothing, case in point, earth, created to hide her abomination from the realm of light and its inhabitants.

He does create other "archons" and one even turns on him, Sabaoth the good. And imperfect planets because he can only create poor replicas of existing things. Which is fascinating considering the imperfect planets we know about today that can't sustain life.

To wrap up Sophia/Wisdom is Creator to Philo and the Nag Hammadi texts and not Ialdabaoth.

I believe that the title Wisdom is given Jesus(pbuh) in theology. It SHOULD be applied to the Holy Spirit and is, in Judaism, at least associated with the word Wisdom and interpreted as the creative force "With Wisdom God created" of creative Power.

The Holy Spirit WAS defeminized by Romans and Greeks pre-Orthodoxy, so I want to revise a statement I made earlier that Sophia wasn't turned into the Holy Spirit, She WAS the Holy Spirit until the Church fathers declared the Holy Spirit was not feminine.

The exception may be the Greeks, if only in secret, they have the Church of Hagia Sophia, although that's just a theory.

a reply to: Seede


James was called "Zaddik" not "Nasi."

That is a myth, I have heard it before. Hebrew roots cult myth.

A Zaddik (Just One) is an ancient Hebrew name for a sage who can work miracles like making it rain. Honi the circle drawer is a good example.

It's also a "pillar", an idiom in Hebrew in use to this day. James, Simon and John were all "Pillars" or Zaddikim/Zaddiks.

The RCC calls him "Bishop" of Jerusalem but can you refer me to any writing calling him a Prince, the meaning of "Nasi"?

Specifically in Biblical Hebrew "Prince[of the Sanhedrin]."

I doubt he was a member of the entity that murdered him and a Pharisee or Sadducee.

Gamaliel, Nicodemus, they were Sanhedrin and Pharisees and friendly with James but he was not a Pharisee or Sanhedrin member.

Tell me this, did Josephus or Hegessipus SAY James was a Sanhedrin Prince?

No. So, a logical deduction is "Nasi" is a misnomer for Ya'akov Ha Zaddik, and he was not a "Prince" of the Sanhedrin.

Because nobody ever said he was and to speculate and also conclude he was, without evidence and with contradictory evidence, isn't logical at all.

Play it safe and don't assume these fabrications that disgrace James, are anything but fabrications.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

Originally posted by Disturbinatti
The Holy Spirit WAS defeminized by Romans and Greeks pre-Orthodoxy, so I want to revise a statement I made earlier that Sophia wasn't turned into the Holy Spirit, She WAS the Holy Spirit until the Church fathers declared the Holy Spirit was not feminine.

YEAH!!! Sophia is the Holy Spirit…

That makes a lot more sense, from your previous post anyway…


Valentinus was right all along…but was declared a heretic by the early Roman Church.

The Valentinian theology believed the Holy Spirit was the feminine aspect of God…and they often used it interchangeably with the word “truth”…

Which makes perfect sense, because the Meeting between Father/Spirit and Son/Soul is what brings truth…

One of the key gifts of the Holy Spirit is Wisdom, and Understanding which are both reflected in Chokhma and Binah, within the Kabbalistic Tree of Life…

These Kabbalistic and Gnostic understandings are littered around many parts of the Old Testament…

Exodus 31:3
…and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, with understanding, with knowledge and with all kinds of skills.

- JC

a reply to: Joecroft


Thanks.

I have read in Zohar, Be-resheeth (In the beginning or Genesis) is interpreted alternately as, "With Wisdom God created..."

I should have been more thorough in my earlier explanation, thought about it and decided it neede clarification because that person wasn't mistaken, I wasn't trying to say that either but I realized how it would sound so revised it to clarify.

Because from the Wisdom literature I mentioned earlier (especially in Pistis-Sophia with Odes of Solomon) created the notion of Wisdom as a Divine entity, in the LXX especially which is "Sophia."

I believe "With Wisdom God created" is a quote from Proverbs or another book in the genre, and influenced the Zoharic reinterpretation of Beresheet.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

Historically the Nazarenes and Ebionites were declared heretics in the 5th and as early as the 2nd century (Ebonites, Iranaeus, Nazarenes and Ebionites by Epiphanius, 5th century) for "keeping the Law of Moses" and staying Judahite/Israelite in most respects.

The [Nazarene's] did believe in the immaculate conception while the Ebionites did not believe in the immaculate conception. The Ebionites did regard Jesus as a Messiah but did not regard Jesus as divine or Only Begotten Son of The Most High. The Ebionites did believe the Judaic practice that the Messiah would be simply another man from the linage of David. They believed that the covenant known as the Mosaic Law did apply to all Jews.

On the other hand the Nazarene's, under James, forbid sacrifice and circumcision under the new covenant which Jesus taught. The Nazarene's believed in the immaculate conception but not a virgin birth. They believed that Mary was no longer a virgin after the birth of Jesus and in fact did have brothers and sisters after Jesus. There are some religions who will insist that Mary remained a virgin till her death. That belief would be virgin birth.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

James was called "Zaddik" not "Nasi."

You are right insofar as you understand but you seem to be aggressive and irritable and not complete in your understanding.

We are not discussing national Judaic belief here. I well understand the difference between Nazarene covenant and Mosaic covenants. The Nasi or president of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin is not the Nasi or president of the Synagogue of James. We are looking at two distinct different organizations altogether even though the patterns may be confused.

Firstly a Tzadik is one who is counted as righteous and James was considered a Tzadik. A Nasi was the president [leader] of the religious court in the days of Jesus within the Judaic structure of the temple. As the Nazarene's, under James, did not recognize the Temple authority nor did they have a court of 23 or 71 to govern their covenant, James became the Nasi and was a Tzadik. Not all Tzadik's are a Nasi but all Nasi's are Tzadik.

If you doubt this then tells us how could the Apostles and the Nazarene congregation forbid sacrifice as well as circumcision which was then a law of Moses? Even though James was allowed, by Jewish law, to enter the Temple once a year in behalf of his Nazarene congregation, he could not eliminate the temple sacrifice without the authority of the Roman appointed high priest and National Sanhedrin.

What did James do? As the high priest and appointed Nasi of the Nazarene movement, he forbid sacrifice as well as eliminating the requirement of circumcision which was of the old covenant of Moses. You seem not to realize that being high priest and a Nasi were bound together in the Nazarene movement whereas they were two entirely different aspects of national Judaism. Your confusion is that you are not separating the two movements but are trying to tie the Nazarene movement into the established Judaic structure.

a reply to: Seede

I wasn't being aggressive I was just telling you something true.

I don't see a reason why you would think that, all I did was tell you things.

a reply to: Seede

I asked you simply if you could produce literature from the first three centuries that confirms your "Prince of the (Nazarene?) Sanhedrin" or even just Nasi/Prince?

I do know that you can not as I have read Hegessipus and Josephus on James, neither say anything of the sort.

It would be pure assumption to say he was called "Nasi" when he wasn't according to any MSS. Why not call him his rightful title if you desire to be closer to the Judahite influence in Christianity?

What's wrong with Zaddik? It's more honorable than Nasi.

And James wasn't on the Sanhedrin, something your sources probably never mentioned about the "Nasi" as in "Judah ha Nasi" of Rabbinical lore, is it means Prince of the Sanhedrin.

Your dislike of being short of facts is what lead to your error and my correction of, it was not me being hostile but you feeling hostile.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

Text And James wasn't on the Sanhedrin, something your sources probably never mentioned about the "Nasi" as in "Judah ha Nasi" of Rabbinical lore, is it means Prince of the Sanhedrin. Your dislike of being short of facts is what lead to your error and my correction of, it was not me being hostile but you feeling hostile.

My apology for being discourteous and assuming.

Perhaps you did not understand or perhaps I did a poor job in explaining. My intent was to show James as a separate sect of Judaism then that of the Jerusalem temple. The Nazarene movement did pattern from the National Judaic structure in that they first declared independence from the Temple authority. Under Roman law they were free to establish their own religion because Rome had many such cults and sects of cults and when the criteria was met the Roman senate would put the seal of approval on the right of worship. This was the law of the Roman empire.

This separation of Nazarene's from mainstay Judaism did not affect the language as all were Jews or Jewish converts. The Nazarene's did not incorporate all of the liturgy then that of National Judaism but the pattern was very close. They used the voting system to choose their high priest but somewhat used the National Judaic terminology in many cases. Their congregation held voting power regardless of tribal affiliations. James was voted into power of this new movement and being that there was not a Sanhedrin, James held the office of power of both high priest and Nasi of the Nazarene movement. That is the reason that biblical scholars will accept the assumption of James being a high priest as well as the Nasi but only in the Nazarene movement.

The way this came about was that through this declaration to Rome that the Nazarene congregation still held fast to the temple as well as Torah, they were entitled to temple usage as well as mainstream Judaism. This is why James was granted permission to enter the Jerusalem Temple to prayer and supplication. This infuriated the Jewish High priest Caiaphas to the extent that he murdered James some time later. Several years later Jerusalem was sacked by Rome and most all were slaughtered of the nationals.

Sorry I was so sharp and intolerant -- lol

PS - I neglected to list a very good source of 1st century references but invite you to a load of starting information -- www.biblesearchers.com...

a reply to: Joecroft

But the funny thing is, is that the Father is within as well as without. The Father is that which is above all and in all…So it’s outer/higher but also inner

Yes in Hinduism its the same as you describe.

Which I know sounds a bit mystical and woo woo ish lol but that’s what happened to me

No not at all. Your experiences remind me of the the Buddha's search for truth. He tried abstinence to the point of death but still failed to reach enlightenment. So ignoring the flesh did nothing but prolong his pain.

He could only achieve enlightment through mindfulness. Controling his mind, instead of it controlling him. Fathoming the root of all his minds desires to realize their emptiness. Only then could he find his true self, the son or atman. And only through the son (atman) could he realize the Father (Brahman).

So I see true Christianity as being compatiable with Buddhism.
But sadly most Christians would disagree with me

a reply to: Disturbinatti

Originally posted by Disturbinatti
I have read in Zohar, Be-resheeth (In the beginning or Genesis) is interpreted alternately as, "With Wisdom God created..."

Hmmm…

Take a look at this…

From “The Zohar” by Micheal Laitman, Page 178

39. The Creator made the Upper letters, which refer to the Sefira Bina, large, and the lower letters that refer to Malchut—small. Therefore it is said: “Beresheet Barah” (in the beginning He created)—two words that begin with Bet, and then Elokim Et (the Creator Himself)—two words that begin with Aleph. The first set of Aleph and Bet are letters of Bina, and the second set of Aleph and Bet are letters of Malchut. And they should mutually affect one another with their properties.

According to this, the first set of Aleph and Bet = Bina…

And Bina or Binah = Understanding…

Which would appear to make the translation “With Understanding God created…”

Maybe it’s not that simple…I haven’t done too much work on the Kabbala…and Zohar…

Although to me Wisdom and Understanding go hand in hand, so perhaps both should be in the translation together…


Which makes sense, in light of this verse below…

Proverbs 3:19
By wisdom the LORD laid the earth's foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place;

- JC

a reply to: Joecroft


Laitman is not the author of the Zohar, that book is not the Zohar.

I found the "With Wisdom" passage, Proverbs, 3:19.

"With Wisdom God created..."

Chochma is Wisdom, not Binah.

Laitman doesn't know his Proverbs!!!

Or the Zohar!!! That's where I learned about it.

Laitman is a Kabbalah Centre wannabe if I am not mistake.

I have the entire Ashlag commentary version of the Zohar and a different one too, I don't just talk about things if I don't know what I am talking about.

Laitman's book is ABOUT Kabbalah and the Zohar from HIS perspective.

And it doesn't represent Orthodox Kabbalah, isn't even accurate!!!

It's not "with understanding..."

It's "With Wisdom..."

Laitman. Hilarious!

a reply to: Joecroft

Sorry, didn't finish your message the first time.

You found out on your own I see.

My bad.

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: Disturbinatti

Originally posted by Disturbinatti
I have read in Zohar, Be-resheeth (In the beginning or Genesis) is interpreted alternately as, "With Wisdom God created..."

Hmmm…

Take a look at this…

From “The Zohar” by Micheal Laitman, Page 178

39. The Creator made the Upper letters, which refer to the Sefira Bina, large, and the lower letters that refer to Malchut—small. Therefore it is said: “Beresheet Barah” (in the beginning He created)—two words that begin with Bet, and then Elokim Et (the Creator Himself)—two words that begin with Aleph. The first set of Aleph and Bet are letters of Bina, and the second set of Aleph and Bet are letters of Malchut. And they should mutually affect one another with their properties.

According to this, the first set of Aleph and Bet = Bina…

And Bina or Binah = Understanding…

Which would appear to make the translation “With Understanding God created…”

That's the second sentence and about the creation of Heaven, not earth, and doesn't cancel out the alternate interpretation, "With Wisdom God created...'' because it was the earth, with Wisdom and the Heavens "with understanding."

Since Wisdom precedes Understanding I would say Be-Resheet being interpreted as the "With Wisdom" is perfectly acceptable as ''Understanding" would be to Heaven.

Both are correct in different places.

Maybe it’s not that simple…I haven’t done too much work on the Kabbala…and Zohar…

I didn't notice the second sentence myself so it's not a big deal. Both apply to different creations is all.

I don't think Laitman gets it though which is why you remained in a state of doubt. If a nobody like me can clear it up, and not Laitman, I would avoid his books lest you be led astray.

Although to me Wisdom and Understanding go hand in hand, so perhaps both should be in the translation together…

As you can see now that is the case already.

Which makes sense, in light of this verse below…

Proverbs 3:19
By wisdom the LORD laid the earth's foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place;

- JC

Exactly.

Forget Laitman, this is FROM the Zohar, Vayigash (Prov. 3:19)

"With Wisdom Y-H-V-H created the earth, with understanding (Binah) the Heavens."

It goes on to explain but I don't want to type it, daily Zohar has it if you Google what I gave you. Something about the Left column.

But thankfully we don't need the Laitmanns of the world when we have the ability to purchase actual Zohars and not books about them, because we don't need it explained in a separate book. Books about books are awful sometimes unless they are real Lurianic or Hasidic, Abulafia types.

Definitely stay away from any organization that panders to the Maddonnas and B. Sprears of the world. They just want to make money.

I bought 15 volumes at 15 a piece with (ridiculous) Ashlag commentary that I usually skip over and another abridged but highly acclaimed version organized differently. It was pricey but under 100.

Laitman's book is NOT the ACTUAL Zohar, but a book with 'Zohar' in its title and probably some quotes and terrible exegesis/eisegesis both.

a reply to: Joecroft

They have two ways of organizing the Zohar that are somewhat standard, the old way, Zohar l ll and lll+ Tikkunei Zohar, Zohar Hadash, Raya Mehemna is a book spread out between all 3, as is Sitrei Torah.

Now it is like that still with Raya M. and S. Torah, Tosefta, but now it is began according to parashah, weekly Torah portions.

Beresheeth A and Beresheeth B, the first two whole books according to the Ashlag organization, are literally dedicated to the word Beresheeth in entirety. "In the beginning..."

So thats about 300 pages about a word. Then it goes to Noach, Lech Lecha, Vaera, until the Torah is complete and then you have Idra Zuta, Sifra Dzenioutha, a physical description of A. of Days. It's​ interesting. About 40 individual books in 15 volumes, then I have a 3 volume version with some of the additional Tikkunei and Hadash and the same stuff as the other one too but abridged.

a reply to: Joecroft


Also I mean the word "Beresheeth" LITERALLY translates to "With Wisdom."

Long before Kabbalah or the Zohar or even the Talmud, first century "Targums" in Aramaic of Genesis are translated "With Wisdom God created."

Philo in the first century attributed Wisdom the same position and the Logos (meaning "Reason" as well as "Word", in Greek, and thus equal to "Understanding") was a step above Sophia/Wisdom and would be the demiurge of Heaven.

Nachminides explained how it was a mistranslation.

In the Zohar book I mentioned with that specific Psalm it that it is said "established" Heavens instead of created is because Heaven just needed to be established with Understanding (Tevunah or Binah) and it evolved by itself.

Israel is called "Saba and Tevunah" which is interesting because Bath-Sheba/Saba and Bath-Shva are mentioned in connection with the 12 Patriarchs and David and Solomon.

Shva is the Canaanite wife of Judah and mother of his three sons, the other two mean 3/5 of ALL Judahites are also half Canaanites-(Phoenicians-Carthaginians) and I think Hiram of Tyre is a grandson of David too. Genesis genealogy of the 12 tribes is FASCINATING if you know what to look for, so many people are named after so many gods, Asher (there are several of these one Shems son another Manassah's(?)), Saba, Shiva, Nebo... I was looking into it earlier.

About # 30 of the book I mentioned with the Psalm. Between 30 and 40 is where the Psalm is discussed.

The column nonsense is all Ashlag and the Daily Zohar doesn't distinguish, I have it in all caps so I know right away, thank God, it saves me a ton of time reading nonsense about Chochmah and Binah and Tiferet and how they form this and interact with that, it usually is just nonsense, when it fills in a few words only it is okay.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

Originally posted by Disturbinatti
That's the second sentence and about the creation of Heaven, not earth, and doesn't cancel out the alternate interpretation, "With Wisdom God created...'' because it was the earth, with Wisdom and the Heavens "with understanding."

I found this Hasidic commentary on page 17 in…

“The Religious Thought of Hasidism: Text and Commentary”


It mentions how the Targum uses “with Wisdom” in it’s translation and how this signifies Chockmah in the sefirah. It then goes onto mention how the next word Elohim, signifies the sefirah of Binah etc…and how in turn this relates to Heaven and Earth, which is in perfect harmony with Proverbs 3:19 and makes a LOT more sense than what Laitman stated…

Looks like you’re right, “forget Laitman” lol

BTw – I knew that book wasn’t the Zohar; the Zohar has tons of volumes, as you know. In fact, as far as I’m aware they’re still translating parts of the Zohar into English…

I just never heard that phrase “With wisdom God created” which made me real curious; so I decided to look up the “Beresheet” translation…unfortunately I found Laitman first…

Originally posted by Disturbinatti
They have two ways of organizing the Zohar that are somewhat standard, the old way, Zohar l ll and lll+ Tikkunei Zohar, Zohar Hadash, Raya Mehemna is a book spread out between all 3, as is Sitrei Torah.

Now it is like that still with Raya M. and S. Torah, Tosefta, but now it is began according to parashah, weekly Torah portions.

Beresheeth A and Beresheeth B, the first two whole books according to the Ashlag organization, are literally dedicated to the word Beresheeth in entirety. "In the beginning..."

So thats about 300 pages about a word. Then it goes to Noach, Lech Lecha, Vaera, until the Torah is complete and then you have Idra Zuta, Sifra Dzenioutha, a physical description of A. of Days. It's interesting. About 40 individual books in 15 volumes, then I have a 3 volume version with some of the additional Tikkunei and Hadash and the same stuff as the other one too but abridged.

Man…You seem to have a lot of extensive knowledge…How long have you been studying the Zohar and Kabballa…?…

Originally posted by Disturbinatti
Also I mean the word "Beresheeth" LITERALLY translates to "With Wisdom."

Long before Kabbalah or the Zohar or even the Talmud, first century "Targums" in Aramaic of Genesis are translated "With Wisdom God created."

…

In the Zohar book I mentioned with that specific Psalm it that it is said "established" Heavens instead of created is because Heaven just needed to be established with Understanding (Tevunah or Binah) and it evolved by itself.

I know Wisdom proceeds understanding on the sephirot, but in these translations, is Wisdom considered to be from the Higher aspect of God, while Binah (Understanding) is in the lower (Malchut) of man…is that correct…?


- JC