Re: Some more Essene Research FYI
>>>I'm not sure which one I would favor, rpobably the first, as Isense 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 Ican 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 probablybe 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
>>>I have Druidic friends that liken Yeshua's philosophy to Druidicthought, 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 passeddown 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 hippieideas 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 asI'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
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
> I'm glad to hear that Layton didn't include TT *lol*. BTW, I justit
> thought I would also add an interesting note for the group (maybe
> will come up in the Essene conversation as well) that in additionto
> the sects you mention are attacked the treatment of John theBaptist
> 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 someone
> 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 withThat's possible. Sure. Yet,... talking about "things hidden
> 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")
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."