Christianity and the Mystic Rav Avraham Abulafia

Christianity I think is mainly based on Paul, and not Jesus at all.  Jesus himself I see as simply a Jewish saint. And one could go further based on the medieval Mystic Rav Avraham Abulafia and claim he was משיח בן יוסף (messiah son of Joseph) foretold in the Talmud tractate Sukka.

That still would not provide any reason to worship him, as the Rambam makes clear.

[I mean to say that the Rambam made Monotheism clearer by going with Aristotle. In that case the idea of the First Cause is absolutely simple and consistent with Divine Simplicity.]

Appendix

Note (1) I mean to say that Neo-Platonic thought up until the Rambam had enough problems  to cause the Rambam to switch to Aristotle, and Aquinas followed him. I used to think perhaps the reason was Divine Simplicity, but now that I am thinking of it, I realize you can have just as much Divine Simplicity with Neo Platonic thought.

Note (2) Avraham Abulafia's books have been printed in Mea Shearim Jerusalem-or you can buy the whole set on line. When I was researching this topic I had to go through the microfilms with that insane medieval script to see what Rav Abulafia was saying. I should mention Avraham Abulafia was the subject of professor Moshe Idel's (at H.U.) Ph.D thesis and later books. }

Note (3) The subject of Messiah son of Joseph comes up a little in the Zohar, but mainly in Moshe Chaim Lutzatto's Tikunim and the קול התור of the Gra and a drop in the Ari {Isaac Luria}. The Gra's book, Kol HaTor deals mainly with the topic of messiah son of Joseph. Maybe there are more sources that I did not run into.

Note (4) I am not saying this is a topic to spend time on. Mainly it looks to me to be "Bitul Torah" wasting time that could be better spent on learning Torah. But still, in any case, I had I think good reason to get to the bottom of this topic.

Note (5) Sorry. I forgot to mention that Rav Avraham Abulafia was respected by Reb Chaim Vital and the Chida.

Note (6) Rav Abulafia went to debate the pope. He was not happy with the Catholic Church. There were orders to arrest him. No one could lay a hand on him.

Note (7) Rav Abulfia's ideas are brought down in the Remak and also Reb Chaim Vital in detail [in שערי קדושה חלק רביעי].

Note (8) The reason I say that Christianity is based on Paul is that if your take Jesus in his own context there is no claim of Divinity nor nullification of the commandments. These are strictly Pauline doctrines.  That is to say major doctrines of the church have no textual support from the New Testament. The said doctrines contradict what Jesus said openly. They depend only on Paul and yet Paul was writing things that contradicted what the disciples of Jesus had written openly in his name.

I should mention:I grew up in John Birch society area. It was basically WASP and very nice. I kind of had a glimpse of Old American Values, and it was a really nice world.

Christianity.But in its modern forms Christianity looks pretty bad.

But in its modern forms Christianity looks pretty bad. Still my major complaints are that it is not very convincing. A good deal of the premises seem to be founded on very strained readings of the New Testament. Still for Christian saints of the past I am willing to cut a lot of slack because of the pureness of their intentions.

What I mean is the divinity of Jesus is not supported by the text. Doing miracles has nothing to do with divinity. Answering a question "Are you so and so?" and answering  "I am" also has nothing to do with it. [If someone would ask me, "Are you  Avraham?" I would say "I am".] It is just the common way to answer a question. And if Jesus had meant to use the name of God אהיה (as God said his name is in the burning bush), then he would have had to have said, "I will be."
For the way the English Bible translates it is  a mistake. אהיה אשר אהיה means "I will be that which I will be." Not "I Am."

For a comparison you can look at writings where someone was claiming to be G-d and they make it clear that that is what they mean like in Bhagavad Gita.

Similarly nullification of the mizvot is not supported by the text. [That is nothing that Jesus said would support such a conclusion.]

What Christianity is based on  is mainly Paul's interpretation of Jesus. It is clear that James disagreed with him.

[In other words as far as Christians follow the example of Jesus they do well. But then some people throw in Paul who is the direct opposite of everything that Jesus said. And then they have to change the simple meaning of everything the Jesus said and did to make it correspond to Paul.]


[Wasp’s tend to take their social meme from Luther [even though in theory they come from Calvin]. I am not happy with Luther. The social meme of WASP's does not even come from the NT but rather Luther and Calvin.]