Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

12660Re: Fwd: [christiandruids] The People of the Scrolls

Expand Messages
  • imdarkchylde
    Aug 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I hoped it would be of interest.

      **I doubt the author of this peice could really back those two
      claims up.**

      Hmmm. I give up. Should I ask her?

      **...procreation was supported at that time and not doing so was
      some kind of unkinown and exotic idead that made no sense.**

      Well, I'm quite sure that is as true today as it was then. But I
      don't believe Yeshua was a rabbi, personally, although he was
      refered to as one I don't think he felt as if he was one-at least he
      didn't refer to himself in that manner. If he had been, I doubt if
      the established religious orders would have considered him as much
      of a threat.

      **but I think it would be a rabbit trail that would probably take us
      overly far off topic. Anyway, I guess we all know that the Gnostics
      of old would not agree.**

      Such trails seem to be blazed frequently in this forum. I am of the
      personal belief that all religions are different paths to the same
      light (even mine), but some paths do go round and round more than
      others; however, I understand your need to set yourself apart. I do
      find it facinating that you are so sure of what the ancients
      thought. Do you channel, by any chance?

      Love and peas

      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
      > Darkchylde
      > Interesting piece you offered. While the Essenes are not
      > technically "Gnostic", there are some interesting things about
      > that can help us explore the specific syncratic elements that fed
      > into Gnosticism.
      > For one, we obviously get some differing versions from parts of
      > we call the "Bible", which shows there was no fear in this era of
      > doing so (4q158). We see wisdom liturature contrasted with a fall
      > a sort of feminine "Folly" (4q184, 4q185). We see a good deal of
      > Hellenization (for example 4q186) that is solid proof that this
      > already a well developed phenominon before Jesus, and even in the
      > areas many people seem to think would not be touched by such
      > There is even a similar interest in figures like Melchizedek.
      > On the other hand, I think it is important to remember that most
      > scholars believe that the DSS are actually not from one single
      > group, and certainly not entirely an Essene collection.
      > A couple specific things.....
      > >>>They were writers and collectors of books, they meditated on
      > mysteries of God and sought in the Bible the path to secular and
      > transcendental supremacy. The only group within Second Temple
      > Judaism to develop a systematic theology, they composed their own
      > works of biblical commentary and organized what is considered to
      > the earliest esoteric society.<<<
      > I doubt the author of this piece could really back those two
      > up.
      > >>>Facing the Essenes and characteristic of a closed society was a
      > ponderous problem: What should be their attitude toward the rest
      > the Jews? On the one hand they had to protect their isolation; on
      > the other they were compelled to nurture the hope that most of
      > coreligionists would join them at the end of days.<<<
      > I think this is very important. If we do accept that some Gnostics
      > were syncratic Jews then it can show how cultural attitudes could
      > give a negative slant even internally.
      > >>>The ambivalence of such zeal and the need to distance
      > from earthly distractions may also have ultimately encouraged the
      > Essenes to embrace celibacy.<<<
      > This is not only an important point concerning the growing
      > towards monasticism in the era, but also it relates to some of
      > the "Da Vinci Code" kind of thinking where people often argue that
      > procreation was supported at the time and not doing so was some
      > of unknown and exotic ideal that would have made no sense. Even
      > in this group we have often heard the argument that if Jesus was
      > a "rabbi" he would have been married, or other spurious arguements
      > of that sort. Obviously this position simply isn't historically
      > supported.
      > >>>"What we need is not the victory of one religion over another
      > the recognition of the noble and the good in all religions. It is
      > encouraging that to a large extent, and at their best, [the high
      > religions] exalt the same principles and plead for the same
      > righteousness and point to love and brotherhood as the path to the
      > good life, both for individuals and for society."<<<
      > I can think of all kinds of conversation and debate concerning
      > but I think it would be a rabbit trail that would probably take us
      > overly far off topic. Anyway, I guess we all know that the
      > of old would not agree.
      > PMCV
    • Show all 5 messages in this topic