Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: The Yezidis
- pmcvflag <email@example.com> wrote:Hey Mer248lina
>>>I would welcome a lengthier response please to the highlightedline. Could you please elucidate why neither the mandaeans nor the
Yezidis are 'technically' gnostic groups.<<<
Well, perhaps it is easier to raise the question of what exactly
would make them "Gnostic" in the more technical sense. I know that
right now it is a vogue to talk about everything esoteric
as "Gnostic", and any kind of lesser known middle eastern religion
gets thrown in, and anything mystical as well.
I am not trying to be a "focus fascist" here *lol*, I think some of
these groups certainly have enough in common to make them of interest
here. For instance, even though the Sufis are not technically
Gnostics, the conversation about them certainly was of interest here.
Instead I am trying to keep the issue of categorization in the
conversation here so that people do understand that this forum is
much more specific than the other two hundred or so Yahoo groups on
A number of recent scholarly works, including "Rethinking Gnosticism"
by Williams, and "What is Gnosticism?" by King have raised important
issues with just what the historical category of "Gnosticism"
technically is. Many groups that used to be lumped into the category,
such as Manichaeans, Mandaeans, Marcionites and Cathars don't
The Mandaeans were thrown in the category of "Gnosticism" initially
by E. Drower, who said she did so based on the influence of a friend.
She stated that at the time she didn't know much about Gnosticism
(her specialty was the Mid East, not Gnosticism), and after more
study she realized that this categorization was false. Much of the
categorization was based on the name "Mandaean", which was actually
not even a name these people used for themselves. There was also a
bit of a hasty generalization of thier soteriology that turned out to
not be completely accurate. The initial categorization was then
repeated by people like Robinson who specialized in Gnosticism, but
not necessarily clear on the Mandaean belief system.
I have heard that as they have been in diaspora, many of the Mandaean
youth have taken up the "Gnostic" label and have actually become
closer to Gnostic thinking by mixing the religions a little.
Initially though, Mandaeans are not Platonists, and they don't
believe that "Gnosis" is salvation (a critical attribute for
something to be "Gnostic"). In the absence of such a defining
attribute, the question would be why would we categorize them
as "Gnostic" at all? The answer is that now scholars of this subject
Yezidis were never categorized as "Gnostic" in the first place. Why
would they be?
PMCVThanks pm, now you've given me a load of work to do lol. Have to verify what you've said about Salvation, gnosis and mandeans.
Switch an email account to Yahoo! Mail, you could win FIFA World Cup tickets.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, other guy <no_reply@...> wrote:
>> >>...he's a sun-god(a peacock with spreaded tailhttp://www.judstud.se/img/events/Melek%20Taus.jpg ---take a look
>> feathers is a symbol of the sun).
This depiction of Melek Taus shows his tail feather eyes extending out
in a solar symbol because of the number of eyes (twelve). The roots of
the eyes of the feathers are seven in number, and denote the planets
of the ancients, which are numbered from the supernal triad - the
three feathers springing from the birds head. dividing the image in
half, is the Moon, representing opposites, while He stands on the
Earth symbol as a foot stool. The Sumerian symbol to the left, the
star, represents a god. The rest of it says something like, "created
in light and darkness" or something of that nature.
>>His secret name is Shaitan(Satan) which the Yezidis are forbidden tospeak.
You're forgetting these are Iraqi Kurds. That word is probably not in
their original vocabulary from "4,000 years ago, when they started
this religion" as one of your sources says(*snicker*). It's probably a
label that an outside culture gave their deity. Probably somewhere
from a short distance west? Speaking of origins, Most scholars agree
that the Yezidi are an evolution of Zoroastrianism and Mithraism. Want
sources? Go find them, there's plenty of material out there. Try not
to use keywords like "Lord Lucifer" in the search though...just a tip.
>> And like Lucifer, he is fallen and has an evilHow is that evil? Those are just attributes of the Sun (the whole
>> aspect(remember, he is fir as light and fire as burn).
"fire as light and fire and burn").