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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 5 , Aug 2 6:31 PM
    • 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 2 of 5 , Aug 3 1:31 PM
      • 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 3 of 5 , Aug 3 4:42 PM
        • 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.