The Christian concept of God as experiencing suffering
peace,
I came across the book of the Khazari by one of the commentators of our generation who introduced the Christian concept in the introduction to the first article, and presents there the Christian system that God became incarnate in the form of a man in order to identify with the suffering of the Son of Man.
Of course, suffering in our world has a purpose, and therefore God cannot stop suffering in the world, so what is left for Him is to identify with those who suffer by also experiencing suffering himself.
I wanted to ask the rabbi, what does the rabbi think about this concept? Does it sound logical?
I personally thought about the idea and found no ‘logical’ flaw in this idea, although it is natural that such an idea needs a broad factual foundation in an area that is not natural for Christians to have enough of (if at all)… but as a conceptual, theoretical, intellectual concept I found no flaw in it, although it sounds strange but not that exaggerated. Therefore, I ask you what you think about it?
Moreover, this does not mean that God has actually become flesh, for just as what feels the body is the soul, so even when the body is already dead, this does not mean that the soul is also dead, but may continue to exist. Thus, it can be said that God is not tied to the body (is not the body) but rather has connected to the body and thus experiences suffering. And when he dies, it means that only his body dies.
blessed.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you very much,
But finally, how can we assess the strength of the claims?
For example, the rabbi in the fifth notebook mentions that it is possible that there will be a revelation because it is logical that God created the world for a specific purpose, probably religious (through our free choice, which He could not have done on His own). Even with this claim, the rabbi can say that this is the kind of claim that says nothing.
Impossible.
What does that have to do with the argument you made? When someone does something, they want something from it, and it is likely to further their goal. What is illogical or arbitrary about that?
And when someone creates suffering that they cannot prevent and therefore shows identification with their creatures, is that so excessive and illogical?
I didn't say it was exaggerated. I said it may or may not be true, and there's no way to determine anything about it. I'm done.
And if the Rabbi hears of a tradition that claims this - that indeed God wanted to identify with the suffering of the people of the world.
Why would he reject it? (I assume you reject it - Christianity)
What does tradition mean by this? It is a perception or interpretation, not a fact. What does this have to do with tradition?
By the way, I don't reject things just because they are Christian.
Christians have a broad tradition of several thousand people that Jesus walked on water, and several other apostles close to him who passed on his words.
Their main claim is that Jesus is an incarnation of God whose purpose is to experience suffering in order to identify with all the people of the world who experience daily suffering that is necessary and cannot be canceled.
We also see that many people in their time accepted the words of the apostles and saw them as trustworthy.
Why does the Rabbi not accept this tradition?
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
