1

Among the various Rishonim that hold that G-d can take physical form (e.g Rav Moshe Taku, etc.), do they also hold he can "incarnate" into physical form (i.e come down to Earth and be born to a woman etc.)?

While being similar to the question Can G-d ever take on a physical form?, this question is specifically asking after an incarnation, i.e G-d being born as a human, and assumes that he has a physical form. The linked question while bringing the issue of incarnation up, seems to mainly be concerned with whether G-d has a physical form, which is taken for granted here.

Community
  • 1
Fei23
  • 1,757
  • 8
  • 14
  • 2
    Presumably they would say that God could do anything; even be born into a woman. However, this obviously does not mean that they would endorse Christianity. Merely that they would probably use a different style in refuting it. – mevaqesh May 01 '16 at 19:19
  • Rav Moshe Taku, it is very strange, – kouty May 01 '16 at 19:28
  • No, being born to a women is christianity not judaism. – Dude May 01 '16 at 19:33
  • 1
    @Dude No, having the properties of christianity is christianity. You need much more than being born of a woman to be christianity. The opinion in the question is different from what you are used to, but it's not christian. – Double AA May 01 '16 at 19:35
  • 2
    Possible duplicate of Can G-d ever take on a physical form? – sabbahillel May 01 '16 at 19:37
  • @sabbahillel updated – Fei23 May 01 '16 at 20:22
  • 1
    I do not think this is R' Moshe Taqu's position. Just writing in a comment, because it doesn't address the main question. R' Moshe Taqu, like the Rambam, assumes we cannot comprehend anything about G-d. The Rambam therefore concludes that all of Hashem's "Attributes" are really descriptions of what He Isn't. To the Rambam, this incomprehensibility centers around Divine Unity -- multiple attributes isn't Unity. To R Moshe Taqu incomprehensibility means it is presumptuous to even think we can define what He Isn't. Therefore we must accept the descriptions in Tanakh uncritically. – Micha Berger May 02 '16 at 16:35
  • 1
    RMT thus does not really say Hashem has a body as much as we cannot insist He doesn't since Tanakh uses anthropomorphic language. – Micha Berger May 02 '16 at 16:36
  • what did Rabbi Taku say? obviously doesnt mean physical body like us – ray May 02 '16 at 19:06
  • @ray there is a link on his name in the OP – Fei23 May 02 '16 at 19:19
  • @Fei23 yes. but doesnt say what he said.obviously doesnt mean God has a physical body. – ray May 02 '16 at 21:25
  • 2
    @ray He holds it's heretical to say that G-d doesn't have a body (page 95 in the above link), I think that sums it up. – Fei23 May 02 '16 at 22:12
  • R' Aharon Lopiansky wrote an article about this alleged stance of R' Moshe Taku in an issue of Dialogue. He argued vehemently, and provides support, that the comments are taken out of context and R' Moshe Taku never meant such a thing. – Y     e     z May 03 '16 at 02:50
  • @MichaBerger I think you might have a valid answer to this question http://meta.judaism.stackexchange.com/q/2179/5323 – MTL May 04 '16 at 14:19
  • 1
    @Yez I wouldn't reference that piece as it represents an utter embarrassment for Lopiansky. His claim that no rabbi ever held of corporealism is shown to be utterly false after perusal of Marc Shapiro's Limits of Orthodox Theology where he quotes if I recall, dozen if such works. One need not possess Shapiro's mastery of Jewish texts to realize that Lopiansky's claim that all references to corporealism must have been via hearsay is nonsense. Rambam himself, in as famous a work as Iggeret Techiyat Hametim writes that he directly interacted with a great sage who did not know whether God had a – mevaqesh May 04 '16 at 20:18
  • 1
    [cont.] body. Furthermore, his claim that Raavad, Rabbenu Avraham ben HaRambam, etc. were all basing themselves off hearsay and wrong about what their own contemporaries held, while claiming that he knows better than the Raavad etc. and knows that since these views are so strange that their contemporaries did not hold of them, is hubristic, if not ludicrous. Lastly his claim that Taku couldnt have held of corporealism since it is philosophically inconsistent misses the whole point; Taku did not accept the legitimacy of philosophy; only simple readings of verses and aggadot! – mevaqesh May 04 '16 at 20:23
  • @mevaqesh RAL point was that R Moshe Taku was not dumb and that even if you don't accept the primacy of Philosophy, it is still an illogical and untenable theological opinion that flies in the face of both the historical background of Judaism which lashed out against idol worship and many verses which are clear that G-d does not take a form. – Shoel U'Meishiv Jun 27 '16 at 05:34

0 Answers0