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

Fwd: [christiandruids] The People of the Scrolls

Expand Messages
  • verna ward
    FYI - thought this might be of interest considering the discussion of the histories of the early churches. Blessings to all!!! love and peas Darkchylde Note:
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      FYI - thought this might be of interest considering the discussion of the histories of the early churches. 
      Blessings to all!!!
      love and peas
      Darkchylde

      Note: forwarded message attached.


      Do you Yahoo!?
      Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
    • pmcvflag
      Darkchylde Interesting piece you offered. While the Essenes are not technically Gnostic , there are some interesting things about them that can help us
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Darkchylde

        Interesting piece you offered. While the Essenes are not
        technically "Gnostic", there are some interesting things about them
        that can help us explore the specific syncratic elements that fed
        into Gnosticism.

        For one, we obviously get some differing versions from parts of what
        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 of
        a sort of feminine "Folly" (4q184, 4q185). We see a good deal of
        Hellenization (for example 4q186) that is solid proof that this was
        already a well developed phenominon before Jesus, and even in the
        areas many people seem to think would not be touched by such things.
        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 the
        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 be
        the earliest esoteric society.<<<

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

        >>>Facing the Essenes and characteristic of a closed society was a
        ponderous problem: What should be their attitude toward the rest of
        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 their
        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 be
        give a negative slant even internally.

        >>>The ambivalence of such zeal and the need to distance themselves
        from earthly distractions may also have ultimately encouraged the
        Essenes to embrace celibacy.<<<

        This is not only an important point concerning the growing movement
        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 kind
        of unknown and exotic ideal that would have made no sense. Even here
        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 but
        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 that,
        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.

        PMCV
      • imdarkchylde
        Blessings!!! 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?
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 2, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Blessings!!!
          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
          Darkchylde



          --- 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
          them
          > that can help us explore the specific syncratic elements that fed
          > into Gnosticism.
          >
          > For one, we obviously get some differing versions from parts of
          what
          > 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
          of
          > a sort of feminine "Folly" (4q184, 4q185). We see a good deal of
          > Hellenization (for example 4q186) that is solid proof that this
          was
          > already a well developed phenominon before Jesus, and even in the
          > areas many people seem to think would not be touched by such
          things.
          > 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
          the
          > 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
          be
          > the earliest esoteric society.<<<
          >
          > I doubt the author of this piece could really back those two
          claims
          > up.
          >
          > >>>Facing the Essenes and characteristic of a closed society was a
          > ponderous problem: What should be their attitude toward the rest
          of
          > 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
          their
          > 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
          be
          > give a negative slant even internally.
          >
          > >>>The ambivalence of such zeal and the need to distance
          themselves
          > from earthly distractions may also have ultimately encouraged the
          > Essenes to embrace celibacy.<<<
          >
          > This is not only an important point concerning the growing
          movement
          > 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
          kind
          > of unknown and exotic ideal that would have made no sense. Even
          here
          > 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
          but
          > 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
          that,
          > 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.
          >
          > PMCV
        • pmcvflag
          Darkchylde ... Sure, if you wish. I think, though, that we can point out simple and obvious problems with the proposition, such as the fact that the Essenes
          Message 4 of 5 , Aug 3, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Darkchylde

            >>>Hmmm. I give up. Should I ask her?<<<

            Sure, if you wish. I think, though, that we can point out simple and
            obvious problems with the proposition, such as the fact that the
            Essenes don't predate the Greek Mysteries.

            >>>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.<<<

            Agreed, the term "rabbi" was simply a common term that need not have
            implied an official office or position in a particular sect.

            >>>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?<<<

            Channel? No *lol*... I simply read. Rather anticlimactic, I know.
            Perhaps I should try to cultivate a greater taste for drama. Still,
            it is pretty amazing that without even canneling I have been able to
            determine what William Blake felt about the Christian Church, what
            the anabaptists believed about baptism, Dante's political
            affiliation, and many other bits of trivia.... including what the
            Gnostics generally believed about some things.

            In any event, it is simple deduction on my part that when they talk
            about religions they believe to be false (such as those who follow
            the Demiurge) it implies they believe religions can be false.
            Perhaps, though, you feel I am far to speculative in making such a
            leap. If you feel you can make a better case for another view being
            presented in Gnostic texts, then it is what we are here to explore
            and I encourage you to do so.

            There is a hint in Apoc of John (for instance) that this particular
            author (or redactionist) felt all were eventually saved (which isn't
            exactly the same as saying all paths lead to the same place, but it
            could be interprated in a similar vein). Even then it states that
            some are taken by a false messege, a "counterfeit spirit". Most
            Gnostic texts are pretty clear in their message that not everyone
            finds Gnosis, and that there are indeed false paths and errors. Some
            even go so far as to state that they are part of an exclusive and
            seperate "race" of beings. I am simply taking them at their word on
            that one and assuming they mean what they said.

            This is not to argue or imply that you should agree with those
            Gnostics.

            PMCV
          • imdarkchylde
            ... and ... he ... have ... the ... Still, ... to ... talk ... being ... particular ... isn t ... it ... Some ... on ... Blessings and Shalom!! For starters, I
            Message 5 of 5 , Aug 3, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
              >
              > Darkchylde
              >
              > >>>Hmmm. I give up. Should I ask her?<<<
              >
              > Sure, if you wish. I think, though, that we can point out simple
              and
              > obvious problems with the proposition, such as the fact that the
              > Essenes don't predate the Greek Mysteries.
              >
              > >>>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.<<<
              >
              > Agreed, the term "rabbi" was simply a common term that need not
              have
              > implied an official office or position in a particular sect.
              >
              > >>>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?<<<
              >
              > Channel? No *lol*... I simply read. Rather anticlimactic, I know.
              > Perhaps I should try to cultivate a greater taste for drama.
              Still,
              > it is pretty amazing that without even canneling I have been able
              to
              > determine what William Blake felt about the Christian Church, what
              > the anabaptists believed about baptism, Dante's political
              > affiliation, and many other bits of trivia.... including what the
              > Gnostics generally believed about some things.
              >
              > In any event, it is simple deduction on my part that when they
              talk
              > about religions they believe to be false (such as those who follow
              > the Demiurge) it implies they believe religions can be false.
              > Perhaps, though, you feel I am far to speculative in making such a
              > leap. If you feel you can make a better case for another view
              being
              > presented in Gnostic texts, then it is what we are here to explore
              > and I encourage you to do so.
              >
              > There is a hint in Apoc of John (for instance) that this
              particular
              > author (or redactionist) felt all were eventually saved (which
              isn't
              > exactly the same as saying all paths lead to the same place, but
              it
              > could be interprated in a similar vein). Even then it states that
              > some are taken by a false messege, a "counterfeit spirit". Most
              > Gnostic texts are pretty clear in their message that not everyone
              > finds Gnosis, and that there are indeed false paths and errors.
              Some
              > even go so far as to state that they are part of an exclusive and
              > seperate "race" of beings. I am simply taking them at their word
              on
              > that one and assuming they mean what they said.
              >
              > This is not to argue or imply that you should agree with those
              > Gnostics.
              >
              > PMCV
              >




              Blessings and Shalom!!
              For starters, I am more in Ptolemy's camp about the demiurge, and I
              do not have the hostility towards the worship of him- I feel that
              people have reasons as to why one religion will appeal to them and
              one will not, and mainstream religions that are jugmental and
              intolerant of others are usually filled with suspicious and paranoid
              contol freaks (which is something I know personally far to well).
              And yes, there are many false paths, so to speak- yet we are all in
              different states of development, and I feel that like the prodigial
              son some of us must walk that path before we find that it was the
              wrong one.
              But I also believe as AOJ seemed to show that we must learn what
              not to do before we learn what to do, especially hard-headed types
              like me that tend to not listen. That belief is what I think lead
              to the misinformation on the Barbelonites, who believed that one
              must experience everything before they can move on, so to speak.
              Like getting caught smoking cigarettes and being made to smoke the
              whole pack to cure yourself of it. So perhaps we take a 'false' path
              in this life, but perhaps we will come closer to true gnosis in the
              next one. And I am of the beleif (mind you I don't lean as much
              toward the Sethian form of gnostism-no bristling, I don't think its
              incorrect or whatever, I just believe in the Annointed and his
              Bride) that gnosis brings about the development of the Christ
              consciousness, which gives us a direct path to the entirety. I
              always disliked the idea in mainstream religions that if you didn't
              follow their path you would burn in hell. According to the Cabala-
              and some gnostic texts, too- we are in 'hell' now. So I feel the
              gnostics where not in the state of denial that many other more
              suppressive 'faiths' tend to be mired in. As it says in Gospel of
              Thomas, Yeshua said "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he
              finds. When he finds he will become troubled. When he becomes
              troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the all." So
              in order to acheive gnosis we must break free of the comfort zone
              offered by mainstream beliefs, or by having no belief at all. We
              must become discouraged when we discover that our preconceived ideas
              are incomplete and if we can embrace that reality and leave the
              preconceptions behind, the more we learn the real story and truth
              the more amazed we are. If we can reach that point, we can open
              ourselves to gnosis. And no, not everyone is ready for that.
              Comfort zones and denial hold us back in so many ways, and for those
              who are not ready, which is to say that it will come when they are,
              conventional religion at least gives them a framework to start
              with. My parents, who are conservative, right-wing, evangelical,
              mainstream Christains, accuse me frequently of 'warping' scripture
              to fit my beliefs. And yet in reality, they are the ones who do
              what they are so quick to accuse me of. Much like when I accused
              you of being defensive, when it was really myself that was being
              defensive. I 'came around' and saw my error, and given a few
              eternities, they may reach that point as well. So I don't wish to
              impose my beliefs on anyone. To do so would only hurt the intention
              of showing them the light, rather than help them.
              Perhaps you catch my meaning?
              That is what was meant by going round and round, yet I feel we all
              come from the light, are different manifestations of Ain Sof, the
              unmanifest, and that eventually everyhting will dissolve back into
              its root. Even the original constriction, the tzimtzum, if you will,
              was brought about by the entirety and will dissove back into the
              entirety.
              Did I just hear someone snoring?LOL

              Love and peas
              Darkchylde
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.