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

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

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