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

Re: Some more Essene Research FYI

Expand Messages
  • imdarkchylde
    I m not sure which one I would favor, rpobably the first, as I sense the second one to be a bit sensationalistic, like you said. And my friend has told me
    Message 1 of 37 , Aug 26, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm not sure which one I would favor, rpobably the first, as I sense
      the second one to be a bit sensationalistic, like you said. And my
      friend has told me what kind of Essene he was, but I didn't recognise
      the one you mentioned, but I don't rememeber which he said and I long
      since dumped the email, so I will have to ask. (Brain gets full
      sometimes, you know LOL).
      I was actually the one into Manichean thought at one time, and we
      have discussed the similiarities. So perhaps it is an offshoot of the
      Sedona group.
      I believe Yeshua to have been a gnostic, 'THE' gnostic, but I can see
      how the Essenes can find validation that he was Essene - perhaps at
      that time they weren't so different. I also believe Yeshua to be a
      Kabbalist, and their could probably be soem contention on that point
      in that some may feel you couldn't be Gnostic and Kabbalistic at the
      same time- but that is been the conclusions I have drawn. I have
      Druidic friends that liken Yeshua's philosophy to Druidic thought,
      and I haven't found anywhere I could argue, I'm afraid.
      I believe that with so many 'faiths' that tended to be passed down in
      an oral tradition that it is like the game where you whisper a
      sentence in someone's ear and by the time it gets to the end person
      the sentence changed. But I believe that such thought processes were
      meant to change and evolve, and this helps to facilitate our species
      being able to evolve its consciousness. But that is just me, and
      perhaps I am superimposing my old hippie ideas into my faith.
      I have certainly found elements in the Essenes base belief system
      that mirrors our own gnostic system, and I wonder if they had a
      similiar root. But like I said, I haven't studied the subject as
      thoroughly as I'd like before drawing conclusions or parallels. I
      desire to read lots of different sources, and I look to where they
      agree and support each other to discover what I feel to be
      the 'truth.'
      I am grateful for your imput. If you find something in this area to
      be of particular importance, please post it to me.
      Love and inner peas

      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
      > DarkChylde
      > >>>Oh, I totally agree that they would be hard to reconcile, but
      > reconcilliation isn't my intention.<<<
      > Ah, well, in that case it could be important which one of the
      > you feel to be most accurate. I mean, they are so different from
      > other that they would imply very different (even nearly opposite)
      > attributes for comparison with Gnosticism.
      > >>>I am studying the Essenes right now and am in conversations with
      > friend who is an Essene 'Bishop' r in an effort to broaden my
      > perception of the history of the early church, and how it all plays
      > together. You are absolutely right about the DSS not being of
      > origin and such was posted after those entries.<<<
      > Bishop? I am guessing it may be that group from Sedona called "The
      > order of the Nasorean Essenes"? Or is it a different group? I think
      > may have had a couple in here at some time, they also sometimes
      > to be "Manichaean", and they do express an interest in Gnosticism
      > well if I recall. It is true that there has been some speculation
      > about the possibility that the Essenes may have influenced early
      > Christianity, but I think we should be cautious. In the past there
      > have been people in this group that are convinced that Jesus was an
      > Essene, and that the Essenes are a form of Gnosticism. The first
      > is not impossible, but also not proven, the second one is downright
      > misinformed (I do realize this is not anything you were implying, I
      > just mention it as relative to the subject as it has come up in the
      > past).
      > >>>As to how it fits in with Gnostic thought and history- well, the
      > jury is still out on that one. I have more to study before I begin
      > draw conclusions.<<<
      > I have doubts that there was much interaction or influence between
      > two, but one never knows what may turn up. What I DO think we can
      > with the Essenes that also relates to Gnosticism is a move in
      > of the time towards certain behaviors that react to the world with
      > very non-traditional outlook. I mean, things like millenarianism,
      > asceticism, initiatiatory societies that seperated themselves from
      > larger population, the Roman occupation and the negativity that the
      > world seemed to have found itself in.... and even though the
      > and the Essenes seemed to generally have extremely different
      > theological and spiritual views, they certainly seemed to be
      > to the same issues in many cases.
      > PMCV
    • lady_caritas
      ... it ... to ... Baptist ... Heh. Neither is the treatment of his mother, Elizabeth. The author writes, John was begotten by means of a womb worn with
      Message 37 of 37 , Sep 9, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
        > I'm glad to hear that Layton didn't include TT *lol*. BTW, I just
        > thought I would also add an interesting note for the group (maybe
        > will come up in the Essene conversation as well) that in addition
        > the sects you mention are attacked the treatment of John the
        > is not very sympathetic either.

        Heh. Neither is the treatment of his mother, Elizabeth. The author
        writes, "John was begotten by means of a womb worn with age."


        > Less obvious, but possibly still significant....
        > "It is through water and fire that the whole place is purified -
        > visible by the visible, the hidden by the hidden. There are some
        > things hidden through those visible. There is water in water, there
        > is fire in chrism."
        > (side note.... considering the subject matter and the mention of
        > of the rituals mentioned in other valentinian texts, along with
        > scribal errors elsewhere in Philip, one could reasonably wonder if
        > the second use of the word "water" in this passage may not have
        > originally been "baptism")

        That's possible. Sure. Yet,... talking about "things hidden
        through those visible" preceding "water in water" compels me to draw
        an immediate association of hidden water through visible water. I
        don't know if that is any less meaningful than spelling it out.

        Since "chrism" is mentioned, it even might be expected to think of
        the water in terms of baptism. Chrism and water are mentioned as
        *both* being necessary for baptism elsewhere in GPh:

        "We are reborn by the holy spirit. And we are born by the anointed
        (Christ) through two things. We are anointed by the spirit. When we
        were born we were joined. No one can see himself in the water or in
        a mirror without light. Nor, again, can you see by the light without
        water or a mirror. For this reason it is necessary to baptize with
        two things – light and water. And light mean chrism."

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