Re: Some more Essene Research FYI
- Blessings, PMVC!!
Yes, my bees and I have been in therapy for some time LOL.
And your Mom was right, as most judgment made is made towards the one
doing the judging, but the judge is usually in denial of that point.
I would like to point out that I never called you a liar, And if
your point is I am judgmental in calling you judgmental I believe I
already agreed with you on that. Yes, you are judgmental AND I
As for you ot being sarcastic, well I guess the virgins and Dragon
Queen thing was your creativity showing itself, eh??
I must admit, you are stimulating. And I was not ignoring (else I
wouldn't have posted it) but gracious I was being as I decided not to
come back with same. A choice I am glad I am learning to make.
I put that in to show I didn't miss it, just decided to not 'take
Thank you for the info from Josephus. I am finding there are many
transaltions of the Essene material that vary slightly and I am
trying to discover the one that best suits my studies. I am waiting
for a coorespondance from a family freind who does alot of research
into the Sadducee, Pharasee and Essene departments.
And yes, originally you dubbed a friend of mine as neo with no info,
so perhaps you do make critisisms of people as well. But if you are
in denial about this I am learning to tolerate. Learning.
Bees and elfswords and carpocrations, oh my!!
Love and peas
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >>>Which text? Apoc. of John? Hmm, I seem to remember in this very
> group something about that text being dualistic and not aligned with
> the Sethian forms, but I can look that up later.<<<
> We should also probably point out that there is a difference
> the Sethian sect and the Sethian category (forms) of Gnosticism...
> just to be clear for the forum.
> >>>As for whom had considered it an Essene text, I provided the
> website, but I'll be buggered if I can find the other one that I
> that on.<<<
> Yes, I understood that. I, on the other hand, was talking about
> academic sources dealing specifically with the subject at hand.
> is why I said "scholars". You know, people like King, Logan,
> Williams, Turner, Layton, Pagels, Rudolph, Mayer, etc..
> >>>Neither website was of a historical nature, however. I just
> thought it was interesting that the conception was so.<<<
> Sure, I can understand wishing to explore the possibilities.
> >>>And I have always had the 'hang of' objectivity<<<<
> Then let me rephrase it this way; thank you for taking the time to
> PRESENT the ideas in such a way that we are able to deal with them
> objectively. I was trying to say I think you did good in picking
> that particular source.
> >>>and I don't think I ever said that there weren't any differences
> in the Essene beliefs and the 'Gnostic' beliefs.<<<
> Nor did I suggest you did. However, you DID state... "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." SO, I thought it could be worth
> while to explore how similar or different they really seemed to be.
> >>>I seek the common thread that run through many beliefs, for I
> think therein lies the truth. I find threads that can link
> Gnosticism with many faiths if they interperted simple truths as
> Gnostics did/do. But his is purely my opinion, I am not making any
> claims of history.<<<
> Many people feel that the methodology you are talking about is
> philosophically and spiritually valid. I make no judgement from
> stance... it isn't my job here.
> >>>As for the Hebrews 11:38 reference, you are absolutely right. I
> didn't catch that one.<<<
> And that was simply a single example. I didn't figure I needed to
> type them all up in order to point out that the methodology of this
> page is not always textually critical. Still, I think the
> is helpful all the same.
> >>>As for the #60 reference, they did not site a text source for the
> Essene belief, so it is hard to tell without deeper study. May get
> back to you on that one.<<<
> Josephus talks about two groups called Essenes. Here is part of
> he says.....
> "There are three sects of the Jews; the Pharisees and Sadducees and
> the Essenes. These [last] pretend to practise a holier life
> [J: "Jews by birth"] in their display of love for one another and
> continence [comp. Ẓenu'im, above]; they abstain from every
> covetousness [J: "pleasure as an evil deed"] and avoid even
> listening to conversation concerning such things. They renounce
> matrimony, but they take children of strangers [J: "when they are
> still easily instructed"], and treat them as their own, training
> them in their own customs; but they do not forbid them to marry.
> Women, however, though they may be inclined to join the same mode
> life, they do not admit, as they by no means place the same
> confidence in women."
> >>>I didn't mean to equate anything, and if I used that term I used
> it badly as that was never my intention- my intention was to find
> commonalities, similar structures for belief which my research into
> many religions, the ancients notwithstanding, again that common
> >>>And yes, the cosmology is quite different, and I was aware of
> going into this. My apologies for not stating that.<<<<
> So, does that mean that most of the commonalities you see are on
> level of praxis?
> >>>I havent' had a chance to peruse the Essene texts for themselves
> yet, and when I have I will probably have more information to shape
> (and change) the ideas I have now.<<<
> I understand. Before you start, though, I would like to point
> something out about this page you offered since it lists
> many "Essene" texts. I know you are unwilling to accept the
> word "fraud" or "hoax", as they are proof I am overly judgemental
> and critical. So since I am not allowed to use the easy words let
> just point out in a PC kind of way that some of the texts on this
> page that claim to be historical Essene documents found recently
> actually entirely modern. This may not mean they are right or
> but they are not historical so we cannot accept them as
> representative of the ancient Essenes. I only point this out
> I was not sure which "Essene" text you were thinking of presenting
> for us as demonstrations.
> >>>And I had to go with a comparison of Essene and Christian as
> was no Gnostic and Essene comparisions available.<<<
> And I didn't complain in the least. I tried to help make the
> >>>Once I have satisfied myself to consider writing about it maybe
> will have one of my own.<<<
> And I am sure I will find it interesting, while also feeling the
> need to make clear the differences as well so they are given some
> equal time. I consider that to be an open minded methodology. Even
> though YOU feel that the similarities is where the "truth" is, we
> simply cannot make the same assumption as a group trying to
> a level of logic and objectivity.
> >>>And I will graciously ignore the comment about what I am open
> I simply will consider the source. I am still reading and
> *lol*, and yet you did neither... ignored or be gracious. Well, I
> get the joke. However, let me point out that I was not making a
> sideways snide comment (when I intend a quip, I am quite blunt). On
> the contrary I have known many people who simply and honestly don't
> respect historiography (it is an actual word). Although I disagree
> with that, I can respect that people have the stance. I tried to
> point out that I was working around what you seemed to say you felt
> (message #12719), in spite of the fact that the accusation was
> I am glad you want to continue researching, but you need to stop
> reading intents into my posts. I am not generally a sarcastic
> person. When I was a kid my mother said "don't trust the people who
> accuse you of lieing when you did not... it is they who are the
> liers. They are just seeing themselves in others." I realize my
> criticism of sources and methods has put you on the defensive, but
> my criticisms ARE of sources and methods... not generally persons.
> Let the bee out of your bonnet and try to open up a little ;)
- --- 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."