Re: Some more Essene Research FYI
>>>Very well. You are absolutely and irrefutably right.<<<Well, of course ;) However, I am not happy until such time as it is
demonstrated one way or another (though it will surely be on my side
when it does happen *cough*).
>>>This is a horse I will beat no longer. Let's bury it, shed a tearif one must, and agree to disagree.<<<
No, Darkchylde, you made historical claims that I raised very fair
issues about. This is partly an historical group and you do need to
answer the historical issues or genuinely accept historical
criticism. I raised three very specific questions and it is ok if
you disagree but you do need to at least answer those questions. You
can make any claim you wish, but you are not allowed to drop the
function of this forum when it is uncomfortable. If you would rather
relativistic New Age format for discussion then I can list many
groups that fit that, but in here we have a different etiquette. If
you are going to make a point then either back it up or qualify it.
Many times I have said "well, I think this but I admit I have no
real way to demonstrate it". There is no shame in that, but you do
need to understand the difference and try to stick to it in this
- --- In email@example.com, 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."