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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 5 , Aug 2, 2006
      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 2 of 5 , Aug 2, 2006
        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 3 of 5 , Aug 3, 2006
          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 4 of 5 , Aug 3, 2006
            --- 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.