Essenes

[rivertree]

Root of Jesse:

"I'm not going to comment on the veracity, because I don't know. Her visions were told to a man who wrote them, and it is said that he had his own agenda. I really don't know. In fact, after investigation, it is said that much of it is not from her. I would probably characterize the book as a historical novel. How much came from her, and how much came from other sources, we don't know.
I don't really know whether it even matters or not. One gospel says Jesus was born in a manger, one says a cave. I think what's important is that our Lord and Saviour was manifested as a human."

I hope you know that I was not challenging the veracity. For one thing, I have not read it all yet, but intend to do so, simply from personal interest. For another, I am more interested in gathering information about the Essenes from various sources. I was just wondering about the visions and whether there was extra information outside of the actual vision that was included in the writing. I'll probably want to read mor about Anne Catherine Emmerch also, and I appreciate that you were willing to share with the rest of us.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Root of Jesse:

"I'm not going to comment on the veracity, because I don't know. Her visions were told to a man who wrote them, and it is said that he had his own agenda. I really don't know. In fact, after investigation, it is said that much of it is not from her. I would probably characterize the book as a historical novel. How much came from her, and how much came from other sources, we don't know.
I don't really know whether it even matters or not. One gospel says Jesus was born in a manger, one says a cave. I think what's important is that our Lord and Saviour was manifested as a human."

I hope you know that I was not challenging the veracity. For one thing, I have not read it all yet, but intend to do so, simply from personal interest. For another, I am more interested in gathering information about the Essenes from various sources. I was just wondering about the visions and whether there was extra information outside of the actual vision that was included in the writing. I'll probably want to read mor about Anne Catherine Emmerch also, and I appreciate that you were willing to share with the rest of us.

Well, just so you know, the Catholic Church doesn't hold them to be true. Win By Surrender might laugh at that, but it's just what he and I have been talking about. This is one of those later things that is not held up as truth.

It is definitely worthwhile to read, if as nothing more than a novel set in Biblical times. It's really quite amazing, if you think about it, and the visions themselves could be very pure. What's held as suspicious is the motives of the scribe who took the dictation.

And certainly, no Catholic is expected to believe them, lock, stock and barrel. In fact, I think there are more worthy subjects to believe. But it is a fascinating read...

 

[WinBySurrender]

First of all, Jesse, I admire your effort here, and I pray I've been as forthcoming and gentle in outlining my viewpoint as a Baptist. Thank you, and I mean that as a brother in Christ. This is a good way to establish a relationship that bridges the gap. I pray we continue in this vein, as is it much more pleasant than how both of us were doing things earlier -- for which I ask your forgiveness and offer you the right hand of fellowship and friendship. God bless.

Well, to be fair, I've shown where Paul tells Timothy IN SCRIPTURE that he is to use both tradition and Scripture. So Scripturally, I've shown where Tradition is as valid as Scripture.

I guess I would have to say to that, "One Scripture verse does not a doctrine make," and its not precisely translated as ...

... Not "tradition" meaning "practices" but "Tradition" which gives meaning and context to Scripture.

"Tradition" is the Greek paradosis which means "a giving up, or a giving over." Paradosis - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard

How that applies is included in the link, that as to "tradition" it implies that the giving over is due to the word of mouth, or in writing from either the oral tradition as God gave Moses in writing the Pentateuch, or from the Law, the Prophets and the testimonies themselves. From my viewpoint, there is nothing implied in the definition that would indicate any teaching that is not previously recorded in the sacred writings.

I've said, for example, that priestly celibacy and abstaining from meat on Fridays, are "traditions" whereas the meaning of John 6, and Apostolic Succession, and the Trinity come from "Tradition".

Based on the definitions above, in my opinion, those would not fit into biblical doctrine because they are not supported Scripturally.

I guess I'm asking if you believe the doctrine of the Trinity? Why? There is no doctrine of the Trinity in Scripture. The pieces are in Scripture, but it's Tradition that puts them all together and gives meaning to the term. By the same principal, we have the Eucharist, and every other Catholic doctrine and dogma.

As to the Trinity, I believe Matthew 28:19 teaches that we are to baptize "in the Name" (singular) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I don't think there is no clearer verse in the Bible that unifies them as God in Three Persons. A to the Eucharist, we have differing interpretations of that, as I'm sure you're aware, which could take up a whole different thread in delineating for one another.

 

[ebia]

Jesus is God. He owed none of His characteristics as God or man to any man, but only to God. Speculations based on His behavior and character as a man and extrapolating them to mean He was "influenced" by men of any stripe, or was raised in an environment that became the basis of His ministry is laughable.

IMO your position amounts to a denial of Jesus full humanity.

 

[WinBySurrender]

IMO your position amounts to a denial of Jesus full humanity.

Then, as usual, you have failed to understand what has been said.

 

[ebia]

Then, as usual, you have failed to understand what has been said.

Seemed clear enough but you're welcome to refine it.

 

[WinBySurrender]

Seemed clear enough but you're welcome to refine it.

If you can't understand the concept that God has no responsibility to man whatsoever, and somehow relate that falsely to a denial of His divinity, then you are beyond understanding, or hope.

 

[ebia]

If you can't understand the concept that God has no responsibility to man whatsoever, and somehow relate that falsely to a denial of His divinity, then you are beyond understanding, or hope.

That sentence has virtually nothing in common with your paragraph I was commenting on or my comment.

 

[WinBySurrender]

That sentence has virtually nothing in common with your paragraph I was commenting on or my comment.

Whatever ... have a nice life. Deliberate antagonism is not fellowship, my friend.

 

[ebia]

Whatever ... have a nice life. Deliberate antagonism is not fellowship, my friend.

Strange that you think a challenge to something you say is necessarily antagonistic.

 

[rivertree]

Well, I made a big Word file on which I put the Anne Catherine Emmerich vision concering the Essenes, and also put there some information about who she was, which I have not yet read, although I did read quite a bit of her vision, or reported vision, as the case may be.

I also put on the "Dead Sea Scrolls, Who is the Teacher of Righteousness?" article from Biblical Archaeology Research, BAR. I titled that file "Studies", and sent it to my Kindle (an E-book).

I found a really awesome page of quotes, studies, and links on a site called Biblos.Com, a site that I previously did not know about. The article is under Bible Encyclopedias (on the Biblos.com site), if I remember correctly, and contains most of the quotes from Josephus, Pliny, others, and some of the church fathers. I put that all on another file, Studies2, and sent that to my Kindle. Also on Studies2 I put information on the Essenes from a site called "Jewish Virtual Library."

So I have a lot of information on my Kindle that I can carry around with me whereever I go.

Which is awesome. However all the information leads me down bunny trails which can be fraught with confusion and opposing viewpoints. Though I am the type of person who can be aware of information without necessarily coming down on one side or the other completely. One thing, however, is never in doubt: "His lovingkindness endureth forever."

 

[rivertree]

So, while looking up information about the Essenes, I followed up on my quest to discover whether the Essenes were the Masoretes, of the famed Masoretic, or Masoratic, Text. So far: just a bit of confusion, I may never find out the answer to that, or I may find out that the Essenes
were probably not the Masoretes, quite likely.

My knowledge of the Masoretes is extremely small. I'm learning a bit more. Again, there are bunny trails to follow, and possible decisions to consider, although I am not one to make a lot of decisions about things.

I found an article called "The Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls" on a site called Bible History Daily.

In the course of searching around, I discovered, something probably most of you already know, that there is a lot of controversy regarding the Septuagint, and (or vs.) the Masoretic Text. Orthodox and some Catholic believers seem to prefer the former, and Protestants and Jewish people seem to favor the latter. All this is new to me, though I have been a believer for many years.

Anyway, I don't think a lot of discussion about this in the Christian History Forum would work, perhaps it would be more appropriate in some of the other theology forums. I just want to say that my interest in Essenes has sort of opened a whole new Pandora's Box (perhaps not quite the right reference) for me. I guess I will continue to look into a bit, knowing that my lack of knowledge of languages and script severely limits me, and my constitutional avoidance of details limits me also. But His lovingkindness is never limited.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well, I made a big Word file on which I put the Anne Catherine Emmerich vision concering the Essenes, and also put there some information about who she was, which I have not yet read, although I did read quite a bit of her vision, or reported vision, as the case may be.

I also put on the "Dead Sea Scrolls, Who is the Teacher of Righteousness?" article from Biblical Archaeology Research, BAR. I titled that file "Studies", and sent it to my Kindle (an E-book).

I found a really awesome page of quotes, studies, and links on a site called Biblos.Com, a site that I previously did not know about. The article is under Bible Encyclopedias (on the Biblos.com site), if I remember correctly, and contains most of the quotes from Josephus, Pliny, others, and some of the church fathers. I put that all on another file, Studies2, and sent that to my Kindle. Also on Studies2 I put information on the Essenes from a site called "Jewish Virtual Library."

So I have a lot of information on my Kindle that I can carry around with me whereever I go.

Which is awesome. However all the information leads me down bunny trails which can be fraught with confusion and opposing viewpoints. Though I am the type of person who can be aware of information without necessarily coming down on one side or the other completely. One thing, however, is never in doubt: "His lovingkindness endureth forever."

Just beware of contradictions to scripture. In other words, if it contradicts, I'd drop it off your Kindle immediately. If it shines light for you, then great.

 

[Root of Jesse]

First of all, Jesse, I admire your effort here, and I pray I've been as forthcoming and gentle in outlining my viewpoint as a Baptist. Thank you, and I mean that as a brother in Christ. This is a good way to establish a relationship that bridges the gap. I pray we continue in this vein, as is it much more pleasant than how both of us were doing things earlier -- for which I ask your forgiveness and offer you the right hand of fellowship and friendship. God bless.

WBS, I have always said that the Church Christ created was the Christian Church, and that "Catholic", whether capitalized or not, simply means "universal". So in my squabbles with you, Albion, etc., I have never meant to put you down. You are my Christian brother, even when we disagree on points. I believe I told you, a large portion of my family is Baptist. I have heard it said by Catholic evangelists that we Catholics have so much, and do so little with it. And conversely, our Protestant brothers do so much with what they've been given. Reminds me of the parable of the talents. I am not one of those Catholics, as I'm sure you can see. *Shakes hand in friendship*.

I guess I would have to say to that, "One Scripture verse does not a doctrine make," and its not precisely translated as ... "Tradition" is the Greek paradosis which means "a giving up, or a giving over." Paradosis - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard

How that applies is included in the link, that as to "tradition" it implies that the giving over is due to the word of mouth, or in writing from either the oral tradition as God gave Moses in writing the Pentateuch, or from the Law, the Prophets and the testimonies themselves. From my viewpoint, there is nothing implied in the definition that would indicate any teaching that is not previously recorded in the sacred writings.Based on the definitions above, in my opinion, those would not fit into biblical doctrine because they are not supported Scripturally. As to the Trinity, I believe Matthew 28:19 teaches that we are to baptize "in the Name" (singular) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I don't think there is no clearer verse in the Bible that unifies them as God in Three Persons. A to the Eucharist, we have differing interpretations of that, as I'm sure you're aware, which could take up a whole different thread in delineating for one another.

I would point you to this link which shows many more supporting scriptures for the idea of Tradition:
Scripture Catholic - ORAL APOSTOLIC TRADITION

Regarding the Trinity, because we know the doctrine of the Trinity now, it is easy to see all the places the Trinity, or one of the three components, show up in Scripture. But the doctrine of the Trinity was pieced together and debated, and a theological tug of war took place before it was settled. This article shows how Scripture and Tradition came together to form the doctrine, and solidify it: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Trinity

Yes, there are different interpretations, but there is so much Traditional support for the Catholic stance on it, you're right, another thread would be necessary. My only intention was to show the difference between tradition and Tradition. Our liturgy is Traditional. The Rosary is traditional.
Tradition is required to be believed, if not completely understood, in order to be a faithful Catholic. Maybe that's the best way to put it.

 

[WinBySurrender]

WBS, I have always said that the Church Christ created was the Christian Church, and that "Catholic", whether capitalized or not, simply means "universal". So in my squabbles with you, Albion, etc., I have never meant to put you down. You are my Christian brother, even when we disagree on points. I believe I told you, a large portion of my family is Baptist. I have heard it said by Catholic evangelists that we Catholics have so much, and do so little with it. And conversely, our Protestant brothers do so much with what they've been given. Reminds me of the parable of the talents. I am not one of those Catholics, as I'm sure you can see. *Shakes hand in friendship*.

I would point you to this link which shows many more supporting scriptures for the idea of Tradition:
Scripture Catholic - ORAL APOSTOLIC TRADITION

Regarding the Trinity, because we know the doctrine of the Trinity now, it is easy to see all the places the Trinity, or one of the three components, show up in Scripture. But the doctrine of the Trinity was pieced together and debated, and a theological tug of war took place before it was settled. This article shows how Scripture and Tradition came together to form the doctrine, and solidify it: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Trinity

Yes, there are different interpretations, but there is so much Traditional support for the Catholic stance on it, you're right, another thread would be necessary. My only intention was to show the difference between tradition and Tradition. Our liturgy is Traditional. The Rosary is traditional.
Tradition is required to be believed, if not completely understood, in order to be a faithful Catholic. Maybe that's the best way to put it.

Very well put. I have known these things for some time, but that is the best succinct example of explaining the Catholic view of "Tradition" I've seen. I still don't buy into it, but I do understand how important Tradition is to the Catholic doctrines. I don't believe I have to accept it to see you as a good brother in Christ and be able to discuss intelligently the places were we differ, but more importantly, the things we view the same. God bless.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Very well put. I have known these things for some time, but that is the best succinct example of explaining the Catholic view of "Tradition" I've seen. I still don't buy into it, but I do understand how important Tradition is to the Catholic doctrines. I don't believe I have to accept it to see you as a good brother in Christ and be able to discuss intelligently the places were we differ, but more importantly, the things we view the same. God bless.

I also don't believe that you have to accept it to be a good Christian. My only point in even discussing Tradition is to show that our doctrines are not out in La La land somewhere. As an example, I've seen, over the last couple years, people saying that the Catholic Church was trying to make Mary the fourth person of the Trinity, or some such. One of the keys to Tradition is that, if the Apostles didn't proveably believe it, it's just not going to happen. Therefore, Mary will never be part of the Trinity. To be fair, those people don't understand what being named "Co-Redemptrix" might mean (I'm not sure I do either, so I won't expound). One thing it does not mean is that she's on the same plane as her Son, or the Father. I fight Catholics all the time, reminding them that Mary is human. A creature. There's no way a creature can be the creator. She can co-operate with the Creator, and I'm sure that has something to do with 'co-redemptrix'. It just means 'redeems with', as cooperate means 'operates with'.

Over on the other thread, I tried time and again to say that I don't consider Catholics to be better than Protestants, in fact, I see much worse in the parking lot at Church, with folks nearly running over people to get out after Mass. And then there was my experience as a Presbyterian in a Catholic High School...if it was up to them, I'd never have been Catholic, and I'm including the priests, nuns, Christian Brothers, as well as the students.

Thanks for a beginning to understanding. God bless you, too.

 

[Soulgazer]

So little is known about the Essene, that anything you read is apt to be false. It is just as likely that the Dead Sea scroll were Ebionite or possibly another aboriginal Christian group.

They had a gate in Jerusalem. That has been proven by excavation. They are mentioned by Josephus. The rest is simply not known but often speculated upon.

 

[WinBySurrender]

I also don't believe that you have to accept it to be a good Christian. My only point in even discussing Tradition is to show that our doctrines are not out in La La land somewhere. As an example, I've seen, over the last couple years, people saying that the Catholic Church was trying to make Mary the fourth person of the Trinity, or some such. One of the keys to Tradition is that, if the Apostles didn't proveably believe it, it's just not going to happen. Therefore, Mary will never be part of the Trinity. To be fair, those people don't understand what being named "Co-Redemptrix" might mean (I'm not sure I do either, so I won't expound). One thing it does not mean is that she's on the same plane as her Son, or the Father. I fight Catholics all the time, reminding them that Mary is human. A creature. There's no way a creature can be the creator. She can co-operate with the Creator, and I'm sure that has something to do with 'co-redemptrix'. It just means 'redeems with', as cooperate means 'operates with'.

Over on the other thread, I tried time and again to say that I don't consider Catholics to be better than Protestants, in fact, I see much worse in the parking lot at Church, with folks nearly running over people to get out after Mass. And then there was my experience as a Presbyterian in a Catholic High School...if it was up to them, I'd never have been Catholic, and I'm including the priests, nuns, Christian Brothers, as well as the students.

Thanks for a beginning to understanding. God bless you, too.

Thanks again, Jesse. I've had personal contact with one young lady who otherwise might have been my wife had she not been particularly adamant about Mary's redemptive abilities. She was indeed elevating Mary above the human plane and placing her somewhere on the level of Christ. I agree with you, it's a very peripheral viewpoint among some extreme Catholics, and I know the church authorities will never let it happen.

There is much we as Catholic and Baptist (I hesitate to use the word "Protestant" because the Baptist movement was not part of the the original Protestant movement, and is not the liturgical church that the primary churches truly in that latter movement are) can do to further communication with one another. When issues arise among Catholics and non-Catholics (for lack of a better term), we can enjoin others from getting into the violent verbal exchanges that have taken place in the past.

Now that I have seen that you for who you are rather than who I thought you to be (my misjudgment, with not fault of yours), I look forward to working with you to help others understand that our differences are just that, and our strength is in what we hold in common. There are few enough truly faithful in the world as it is. We can't afford to let rifts appear between those of us who are. That goes for differences with any viewpoint, for that matter. This board is a microcosm of the Christian world as it is. Here the animosities boil over quickly into confrontation and distortion. Perhaps if we can keep these things on low simmer long enough for us to help each other and others on the board understand the differences are as small as we are willing to let them be, we can truly have an impact for speaking the truth in love, always. I would look forward to that.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Thanks again, Jesse. I've had personal contact with one young lady who otherwise might have been my wife had she not been particularly adamant about Mary's redemptive abilities. She was indeed elevating Mary above the human plane and placing her somewhere on the level of Christ. I agree with you, it's a very peripheral viewpoint among some extreme Catholics, and I know the church authorities will never let it happen.

There is much we as Catholic and Baptist (I hesitate to use the word "Protestant" because the Baptist movement was not part of the the original Protestant movement, and is not the liturgical church that the primary churches truly in that latter movement are) can do to further communication with one another. When issues arise among Catholics and non-Catholics (for lack of a better term), we can enjoin others from getting into the violent verbal exchanges that have taken place in the past.

Now that I have seen that you for who you are rather than who I thought you to be (my misjudgment, with not fault of yours), I look forward to working with you to help others understand that our differences are just that, and our strength is in what we hold in common. There are few enough truly faithful in the world as it is. We can't afford to let rifts appear between those of us who are. That goes for differences with any viewpoint, for that matter. This board is a microcosm of the Christian world as it is. Here the animosities boil over quickly into confrontation and distortion. Perhaps if we can keep these things on low simmer long enough for us to help each other and others on the board understand the differences are as small as we are willing to let them be, we can truly have an impact for speaking the truth in love, always. I would look forward to that.

The phrase "I see what you mean, even if I don't agree" will go pretty far!

 

[WinBySurrender]

The phrase "I see what you mean, even if I don't agree" will go pretty far!

Amen, brother, amen!