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

Re: Some more Essene Research FYI

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    DarkChylde ... 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
    Message 1 of 37 , Aug 26, 2006

      >>>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).<<<

      Well, it isn't really important... I was just curious.

      >>>>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 know you think I am a nitpicker, but because of this groups
      historical focus I think maybe it would be good for us to draw a
      line between modern groups that consider themselves to be "Essene"
      and the actual historical Essenes. Just as with "Gnosticism" there
      are so many modern groups that have taken the name "Essene", and
      many of them have almost nothing in common with the historical group
      other than the fact that they like the name of the historical group.
      I am sure, as with Gnosticism, there may be some modern groups that
      also do practice something like the beliefs of the historical groups
      as well, and like I always say... people can call themselves
      whatever they want and they are correct to do so (emically). We just
      like to be clear about who we are talking about here, so I don't
      want people to confuse the modern groups with the historical ones.

      >>>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.<<<

      Kabbalah and Gnosticism do have many similarities, and some
      historians believe that they are directly related (Scholem, in the
      Origins of Kabbalah, argues that Kabbalah is an offshoot of
      Gnosticism). However, historically speaking Kabbalah didn't yet
      exist in the days of Jesus, but Merkabah did and Kabbalah grew out
      of Merkabah.

      >>>I have Druidic friends that liken Yeshua's philosophy to Druidic
      thought, and I haven't found anywhere I could argue, I'm afraid.<<<

      Well, neo-Druids are surely influenced by modern western thinking,
      which means there is at least some Christian influence on them.
      Perhaps this is why they are not following the historical Druid
      practice of human sacrifice, eh? ;)

      >>>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.<<<

      I can agree with that. However, sometimes rather than evolving it
      seems to me that some ideas are devolving. While some thoughts
      change for the better, the intended lesson of the children's game
      was to show how thoughts get corrupt or even lost in transmission.
      What if our government acted on misrepresentation of
      CIA "intelligence", whether intetionally or unintentionally? Oh,
      wait... nevermind ;) . Anyway, you see my point. Sometimes the
      original message is worth paying attention to and changes may not
      always be for the better. Of course, now I am just talking about
      personal opinion... something I should avoid probably.

      On the other hand, many of the modern groups we just talked about
      are not faiths that have been passed on via oral traditions, but
      rather recreations (or even creations without the "re") so it
      wouldn't apply anyway I guess.

      >>>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.<<<

      Which Gnostic system did you mean? I didn't remember you previously
      talking about being part of a Gnostic system so I wasn't sure which
      group is "our own" in this case. Or, by "our own" did you mean the
      traditional systems that this forum deals with? If the latter is the
      case then I would be interested to read your take on these
      similarities. I don't see very many things in Essene thinking that
      mirrors Gnostic thinking. On the contrary they seem profoundly
      different to the core, but I am not closed to exploring these
      similarities as you see them.

      >>>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.<<<

      Likewise, if you discover some basis for connection please let the
      group know.

    • 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
        --- 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.