Neoplatonic views are not heretical.

@RabbiKaii I listed the specific ideas. The pushback stuff is mostly just a personal observation to set the context for why I'm asking the question in the first place, but its still important

@setszu what I am saying is that perhaps that pushback is indicative that (some of?) these ideas are unfamiliar or contradictory to tradition

@RabbiKaii I mean, isn't that the point of the entire question - asking whether certain ideas are heretical (contradictory to tradition)? Oh and btw Neoplatonism doesn't come from Plato (who was an early/OG Platonist), but from the likes of Plotinus, Iamblichus, Proclus, etc. If 1% of frum Jews heard about Plato, imagine asking about Iamblichus :)

@Harel13 I think the point of the term is to show some kind of a synthesis between the ideas, rather than Neoplatonism deriving from Judaism? I know that there exist some scholars who will try to say that the likes of Philo of Alexandria perhaps had some minor impact on the development of Neoplatonism on Plotinus, but Platonism itself definitely seems to have largely developed on its own. I don't think Platonic concepts originate in Judaism necessarily, but one can make a case that there is no real conflict between them I guess?

I suspect that most people (myself included) aren't going to understand this question without some significant research!

@MosesSupposes I added some clarification in edits. Please remove the downvote, and let me know if you need some additional clarification since the question focuses on two specific ideas that I've outlined.

@MosesSupposes Any answer can start with something like "Like you said in the question, Neoplatonism encompasses a variety of ideas, so determining whether the entire philosophy is heretical is a difficult task for a single answer here. Having said that, if we focus on the two ideas you specifically mentioned as representatives of Neoplatonism (which are almost universally excepted in Neoplatonic thought among all schools of Neoplatonism) and asked if they're irreparably in conflict with Judaism, they would be considered heretical/non-heretical because .......". Makes sense? :)

See ramban for G.od creating only one thing.

@Shababnik Interesting, but here's the thing: "Instead He brought forth from total and absolute nothing a very thin substance devoid of corporeality but having a power of potency, fit to assume form and to proceed from potentiality into reality. This was the primary matter created by G-d; it is called by the Greeks hyly (matter). After the hyly, He did not create anything, but He formed and made things with it, and from this hyly He brought everything into existence and clothed the forms and put them into a finished condition." - First creation must be willful & intelligent and already actual.

@Shababnik So Ramban and I are not talking about the same thing I think

@setszu You could say it all happened "by itself" after that one creation of energy? But to say that some entity created something from nothing is not in line in my opinion

@setzu I haven't downvoted, but thanks for the additional explanation. It makes it clearer, not that I feel qualified to answer! I've actually just been reading Genesis and the Big Bang by Gerald Schroeder and I am wondering if the Universe/Big Bang could fit as the 1 creation and possibly some type of angels as the eternal, transcendental beings? (side point, "transcendental" always makes me think "beyond teeth")

@MosesSupposes Ahahaha "beyond teeth", I never made that connection until you pointed it out just now, very clever!! Yeah, but essentially the same thing as immaterial. Also yeah, someone else before said that some type of an angel could qualify as this first most perfect creation, I just don't know what angel this would be or what sources in Judaism speak of this. Btw, thx for not downvoting.

@MosesSupposes Oh and theoretically, I think beyond a certain point (first most perfect creation), and possibly the "universal soul", you can have multiple creations, so even parallel universes are ok (doesnt have to be 1 creation at THAT point). I think branching might be possible at a certain point, though if my memory serves me well, Illuminationists don't think this in their emanationist model (but they also don't believe that G-d, blessed be He, has a will, so they're cringe anyway). Thx though!! :)

I wasn't suggesting an angel as the most perfect creation - I was suggesting the Universe (or Multiverse if you prefer to step out a level as appropriate). I was suggesting some angels as the eternal transcendental creations

@MosesSupposes In Neoplatonic views (particularly Islamic ones), G-d, blessed be He, can only create 1 creation directly, which is an eternal creation, and since its a direct creation of His, its the most perfect one at an absolute level (what I'd call it). Other creations might only be what I call "localized perfection" which is maximal perfection achievable for their personal contingent essence ("whatness"). So the first creation, whatever it is, is both an intellect and it is the most perfect contingent/dependent creation.

@MosesSupposes If you propose that the universe (multiverse cannot be the 1st creation since G-d, blessed be He, only produces one direct effect) is the first creation, then you have to subscribe to both the eternal universe view but there are separate proofs to show that the first creation must be immaterial and hence it cannot be the universe, which is intrinsically changing.

@setzu my feeling is that it is quite problematic to restrict God in any way. There are limits within which God will act because He has said/demonstrated so, and possibly there are perceived limits because of the way in which God presents himself in our limited reality, but God is omnipotent, so reconciling this with only being able to create 1 direct effect seems very problematic. That said, since God exists outside spacetime and is in a way perfectly simple, the single creation could perhaps encompass everything at once including every event, but not sure that is a complete solution.

@MosesSupposes Why is it a restriction? Your view would essentially be proposing that G-d, blessed be He, can intentionally bring flaws or even evil (G-d forbid) into the world. I'm not proposing that G-d, blessed be He, cannot create anything subsequently, I'm proposing that He can only bring the first most perfect creation directly. Think of that as like an obedient pen or servant maybe. Then G-d, blessed be He, can direct that servant to keep creating what G-d, blessed be He, wants.

@setszu because you are proposing that He is unable to directly create anything else afterwards? I don't see what that has to do with flaws and evil - those don't inhibit God in any way?

I'm with @wizzardmr42 here. That's what got me as well when I read the first of your questions. And Maimonides's first tenet of faith is that G-d alone did, does, and will do all actions (not sure how best to translate "עשה" in this context)