Christianity and the Essenes

taijasi said:
Lunamoth,

I agree ... it just seems that my proverbial olive branch gets repeatedly shredded as I extend it. Indeed, how would you like someone saying point-blank:
Your spiritual path is invalid, please abandon it.
I can agree not to see eye-to-eye, but as I have repeatedly stated, I acknowledge the validity of nearly any spiritual path ... save those that cause explicit harm ... even if I don't agree with such a path. And heck, if you are a masochist, maybe even that is your own business.

So again, why the impasse? THIS - is perhaps the difficulty I have with the "members only" mentality ... and the reason I stay away from Christian forums as a rule.

Regretfully,

Andrew

Andrew, OK, in all gentleness, here is how it looks to me. You have some, shall we say, non-traditional beliefs about Jesus and the Christian path and IMO it is fair to present you views in this forum. However, Thomas and others (myself included) do not happen to share those views and are free to say so. Now, it's not so much that this is the Christian forum so traditional views 'win' but rather that no one can insist that others adopt their views. Repeatedly returning to the topic, in escalating tones, comes across as insisting, IMO.

Theosophy is not even generally considered a Christian faith, is it? (I admit ignorance on this topic). That does not mean your views are unwelcome, but it is unlikely that you find a lot of Christians who fully agree with you.

Disagreeing is not the same as rejecting another's proffered fellowship.

peace,
Laurie
 
Laurie, et al,

Agreed on all points ... and I do appreciate your perspective, which I think helps my own (and my temper, at the moment). You are absolutely right, esoteric views do often run tangent to - even contradictory to - conventional ones, not just in terms of Christianity, but as regards all religions. This I think I sometimes forget, or do not keep in perspective.

My sentiment is that, while it is only natural that we consider our own path valid for ourselves ... and by extension, for all who tread it with us ... it is the greatest of follies to assume - let alone to insist - that others are in error, simply because they choose a different path (or in this case, but a different interpretation of events occurring 2000 years ago). After all, what I am proposing is simply that there is more than one way to peel this grape.

I do not suggest that Christianity is in-valid, or a non-legitimate spiritual path, or that those who follow it are by definition misguided and spiritually blinded. To do so, on any forum, would be rude and inappropriate, in my book. And this goes for all spiritual/religious traditions. There are exceptions. There are no special exemptions.

Yes, it may be useful sometimes to point to areas that need improvement, but I find it helpful to focus on ideas, and not personalities. And the wholesale blacklisting and vilification of a legitimate, spiritually-oriented organization and philosophical movement ... is unacceptable.

I am confident that my own understanding - limited and flawed as it is - is nonetheless adequate at present for me to walk the spiritual path of my choosing ... and make progress, if I put forth effort. At most, I would think others who do not understand my choices (or beliefs) would make inquiry, or bring salient points to the light of reasonable questioning. And I welcome this.

The discussion has certainly veered from the subject of the Essenes, and I take partial, even most - of the responsibility for that ... my apologies for derailing that particular train of thought. But I will not walk on proverbial eggshells, simply because someone feels intolerant of others' views. At best, I will excercise a bit more restraint, and better tact, in expressing my own angle on things.

By the way, this evil organization :rolleyes: of Theosophists that Thomas insists is inimical to the true spirit of Christianity, holds these as their practical ideals, or guidelines, for daily living, taken directly from their website:


  • The world we live in is basically a good place, to be used wisely, to be treasured, and to be honored: rejoice in life.
  • We develop as human beings, not by forsaking the world, but by cooperating with nature to preserve and perfect it: respect the environment and be ecologically responsible.
  • You and I are different expressions of the same life, so whatever happens to either of us happens to both of us—our well-being is linked: help your neighbor, and thereby help yourself.
  • Disharmony and evil are the result of ignorance and selfishness: live in harmony and goodness so as to teach others by your life as well as by your words.
Yes, indeed, Thomas, by their fruits, ye shall know them ... and they sound like a daaaaangerous lot! :p

In Light & Love, if also sarcasm,

Andrew
 
Last edited:
Hi Andrew, I would direct your attention to the Theosophy thread I started in Belief and Spirituality. If you can suggest a better forum for it I will be happy to move it. :)

What is Theosophy?

lunamoth
 
In Rome, in the year 93, Josephus published his lengthy history of the Jews. While discussing the period in which the Jews of Judaea were governed by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate, Josephus included the following account:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."
- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63

There was long held the view that this was a Christian interpolation into the original text. Recent studies, however, come down in favour of the text being original and from Josephus' hand.

Thomas
I thought the Josephus reference to Jesus was now back in serious doubt.
 
personally, i treat with scepticism anyone who says they are/have been in contact with the Secret Clever/Evil People/Lizards/Elders Of Zion/Freemasons/Lamas Who, Like, Run Everything From, Like, This Secret Base At The Earth's Core. or the "lamed-vavniks", for that matter. the latter (unlike the former) may very well exist, but they don't exactly advertise, nor may they even realise who they are.

i don't have anything in particular against theosophy, theosophists or the theosophical society, but i have to say that i have heard it said quite often that HPB herself was quite virulently antisemitic and this quote from the simon wiesenthal centre website seems to back it up - it's from an essay about how theosophy was one of the influences on the nazis.

Blavatsky had helped to foster antisemitism, which is perhaps one of the reasons her esoteric work was so rapidly accepted in German circles. She sharply differentiated Aryan and Jewish religion. The Aryans were the most spiritual people on earth. For them, religion was an "everlasting lodestar." For the Jews, religion was grounded on "mere calculation." They had a "religion of hate and malice toward everyone and everything outside itself." (Secret Doctrine, vol. 2, pp. 339-94.) Jewish materialism and selfishness contrasted strongly with Aryan spirituality and selflessness.

there's also an adequate piece on wikipedia for those who are interested: Madame Blavatsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i'm not interested in debunking jesus, either. as far as i'm concerned he existed and was probably a thoroughly good bloke, if a little too revolutionary for some peoples' taste. i'm not aware that anyone jewish disputes this, although of course we don't think he was the Messiah, or that he was born to a virgin - which is of course what the anti-christian polemic in contemporary jewish sources is about, which refers to him as "ben potiris" (a reference to said "panthera") which, i suspect, is the source of my father-in-law's uncomplimentary references to as "yossele pondrik" which, i hardly need add, is not something i approve of.

what is also not clear is whether the qumran sect were essenes or not - this is hardly established or cut-and-dried. what we do know is that it's all terribly complicated, but that the people to really get annoyed with are the romans.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
The point here is that Christianity fulfilled the Old Covenant, and fulfilled the Messianic expectation of the Essenes, for 'those who had they eyes to see'.

Thomas

Anybody have any more interpretations that the Christians could of developed from the the Essenes? This is a verse I found today: Amos 9:11.

After reading a response from a blogger today, I read a quote in column seven of the Damascus Document saying:

"I will raise up the tabernacle of David which is fallen" (Amos 9:11; Acts 15:16).

Below are interpretations . . .

Stage 1 in interpreting Amos 9:11--the Damascus Document (VII):
"And all the apostates were given up to the sword, but those who escaped to the land to the north; as God said, *I will exile the tabernacle of your king and the bases of your statues from my tent to Damascus* (Amos v, 26-7). The Books of the Law are the *tabernacle* of the king; as God said, *I will raise up the tabernacle of David which is fallen* (Amos ix, 11). The *king* is the congregation; and the *bases of the statues* are the Books of the Prophets whose saying Israel despised. The *star* is the Interpreter of the Law who shall come to Damascus; as it is written, *A star shall come forth out of Jacob and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel* (Num xxiv, 17). The *sceptre* is the Prince of the whole congregation and when he comes, *he shall smite all the *children of Seth* (Num. xxiv., 17)."
Here, Amos 9:11 is strongly linked to Amos 5:26-27.
Here, Amos 9:11 is also linked to Numbers 24:17,which is taken to be a prophecy concerning two End-time figures: (1) the Interpreter of the Law and (2) the Prince of the whole congregation.
In interpreting Amos 9:11: (1) the tabernacle is taken to be the books of the Law, i.e., the Torah and (2) David is taken to be the king = the congregation.

Stage 2 in interpreting Amos 9:11--4Q174:
"*The Lord declares to you that He will build you a House* (2 Sam. vii, 11c) *I will raise up your seed after you* (2 Sam. vii, 12). *I will establish the throne of his kingdom [for ever]* (2 Sam. vii, 13). *[I will be] his father and he shall be my son* (2 Sam. vii, 14). He is the Branch of David who shall arise with the Interpreter of the Law [to rule] in Zion [at the end] of time. As it is written, *I will raise up the tent of David that is fallen* (Amos ix, 11). That is to say, the fallen *tent of David* is he who shall arise to save Israel."
Numbers 24:17 as interpreted in the Damascus Document impacts here, so that, in 4Q174: (1) the Interpreter of the Law is the star of Mumbers 14:17 and (2) the Branch of David is the Prince of the whole congregation and the sceptre of Numbers 14:17.
2 Samuel 7:11c-13 is taken to be a prophecy concerning the Branch of David/Prince of the whole congretation. So, this figure will be a descendent of David, he will rule for ever and he will be, in some meaningful sense, a Son of God.
Here, Amos 9:11 is strongly linked to 2 Samuel 7:11c-13. As a result: (1) the tent of David is radically re-interpreted to be the Branch of David/Prince of the whole congregation and (2) the speaker of Amos 9:11 is taken to be God. This Branch of David/Prince of the whole congregation will be fallen in the sense of having a lowly status, but then be raised up by God in the sense of being elevated to the status of ruler over Israel by God, thereby enabling him to defeat the enemies of Israel.

The Forbidden Gospels Blog: Creating Jesus 6: Unfulfilled expectations
 
Back
Top