Priest as an Angel in Malachi

[RJM]

Anyway, the issue is the same: How can an incorporeal being have "discourse" with humanity except through matter? Abstract substances can only have effects through matter. The three strangers are all human beings.

Not at all. God speaks to man in many ways, not just by words, imo. And the Abraham story says that God (spirit) can take on a human form and dine with men, if God so chooses.

Anyway, sorry and thank you. I just wanted your thoughts

 

[Thomas]

As was shown in post #7, clearly it is not.

Unless you can show a clear connection between Qumran and specific Christian doctrines, then clearly there is no correspondence.

Would Christ be considered heterodox or orthodox in your mind in relationship to the colorful spectrum of Judaisms at the time?
Clearly heterodox, as His preaching shared elements across the spectrum of Judaism, but clearly ideas that were uniquely His own.

Let's say Christ is orthodox.
I don't see how – he was challenged on His preaching, and accused of blasphemy more than once.

Why in the world would he pull from Qumran tradition - a "somewhat heterodox" position - to refute what I guess you think were the "somewhat more orthodox" Pharisees?
False conclusion. Just because Jesus and the Essenes challenge the status quo with regard to the Law, does not mean that either one is a spokesperson for or dependent on the other.

This is not a minor ideological link. This is a major one.
The logic error:
1: The heterodox group A refute the orthodox group Z
2: The heterodox group B refute the orthodox group Z
3: Conclusion: A and B share common beliefs.

Point 3 is not logically proven. The Greek Orthodox Church and the Jehovah's Witnesses both dispute the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin, but no-one would say that the GOC and the JWs have a common belief, or that one derives from the other.

You'd have to demonstrate the coincidence of a particular heterodoxy between A and B.

From The Qumran Sect and Christian Origins by H. H. ROWLEY, MA., DD., THEOL. D., LL.D., F.B.A.
Emeritus Professor of Hebrew Language and Literature at Manchester University.
"The Scrolls are therefore to be recognised as of importance for the understanding of the background of Christianity and for the light they shed on currents of Judaism in the period in which Christianity came into being... anyone who reads the Fourth Gospel, or indeed any part of the New Testament, and who then reads the Scrolls in any of the translations that have been published, will be quickly aware that there is a world of difference between them. One of the translators, Professor T. H. Gaster, has said with the fullest justification that in the Scrolls "there is no trace of any of the cardinal theological concepts . . . which make Christianity a distinctive faith." They do not offer the single and sufficient explanation of Christian origins. They do bring their contribution to the understanding of the soil in which Christianity was planted.

Now through the Scrolls we have knowledge of another contemporary group, which in its different way preserved amongst the Jews a deep religious devotion, and helped to create the climate in which the Christian faith could be born. In many ways God prepared for the coming of his Son."

 

[Thomas]

Since Thomas will not answer the question clearly, I will try to answer it for him.

OK ... how about this –

If God willed that I was aware of the angelic presence at Mambre, then I would know. If God rather chose to preserve this knowledge for Abraham alone, then I would not. Sara seemed unaware ...

As in the case of the travellers on the road to Emmaus (cf Luke 24:16), God reveals Himself to whosoever He chooses, howsoever He chooses, when He chooses, such that even Mary Magdalene, who was a close follower of Jesus, was at first unaware it was He when He spoke to her in the garden (John 20:16).

 

[moralorel]

Some say this episode was an actual occurrence in the external world. Since @Thomas will not answer the question clearly, I will try to answer it for him. If @Thomas were present during this episode, then he would have seen three strangers that eat, drink, get their feet washed, and talk with Abraham and Sarah. They are obviously men (although some might conclude they are angels or the Lord in the form of men). Assuming this reading is the correct one, @Thomas would have heard and seen Sarah laughing and kneading cakes too.

Some say Abraham had a vision or a dream. So, if @Thomas were present near Abraham during this episode, he would have seen a man having a vision. Nothing else and nothing more. He would have not been aware of any "angels" nearby, because he would have concluded Abraham is having a discourse with "incorporeal beings" in a vision, I suppose. Also, he would not have heard and seen Sarah laughing or kneading cakes.

In both scenarios a witness of the event can conclude there were no angels present if they are unaware that they are angels, so I still have no clue which side @Thomas is taking here. The same issue arises with "angels came and attended him [Jesus]" (Matt. 4.11). A vision of "incorporeal beings" or not? Priests/holy ones/angels attended him? Same issue with other passages like Exodus 23.20-21: "See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him." Is the angel the high priest (who also carries "the Name" on his attire) or what I guess Christians would take to be an "incorporeal being" in a vision?

I was hoping @Thomas was going to vividly paint the picture for me, but, instead, I got Hebrews 13.12, but I think he means Hebrews 13.2. I suppose he is siding with St. Augustine since he concluded that they are angels: “Actually, these men were angels, as is clear from the witness of Scripture not only here in the Book of Genesis where the episode is recorded but also in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where, in a sentence praising hospitality, it is said: 'Thereby some have entertained angels unawares.'" The Orthodox Church, however, takes a view similar to Justin Martyr: "One of those three is God, and is called Angel, because, as I already said, He brings messages to those to whom God the Maker of all things wishes, then in regard to Him who appeared to Abraham on earth in human form in like manner as the two angels who came with Him, and who was God even before the creation of the world, it were reasonable for you to entertain the same belief as is entertained by the whole of your nation." St. Augustine rejects this interpretation.

Anyway, the issue is the same: How can an incorporeal being have "discourse" with humanity except through matter? Abstract substances can only have effects through matter. The three strangers are all human beings.

Genesis 18:1-2 states "And the Lord appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth.

So one of them was the Lord. Since the Bible says that no man has seen the Father, then this must be Jesus. I don't know for sure who the other 2 are. Maybe Gabriel and Michael? But one for sure is NOT an angel. Abraham also appears to bow to worship. So he knew he was seeing the Lord. Mankind isn't supposed to worship angels. The other two were probably the angels that went to Sodom and Gomorrah.

Abraham had met the Lord before, so he would have recognized Him.

 

[Ahanu]

Not at all. God speaks to man in many ways, not just by words, imo. And the Abraham story says that God (spirit) can take on a human form and dine with men, if God so chooses.

The Abraham story is not much different from other religions in the Near East during the time it was written. In many of them a deity can simultaneously exist in many bodies. And not just human bodies: God can even "dwell" in stone (Genesis 28.18-19, 22; 31.13).

I don't exist in the cultural time period that shaped the writer's mind, so these descriptions do not resonate with me at all.

 

[Ahanu]

OK. That's not the case in the three Abrahamic traditions.

And I do not mind being excluded from that club. I gladly reject the "indwelling spirit" concept, along with all the baggage that comes with it (e.g., demonic possession). All of our concepts of truth are relative, and this should not be mistaken for relativism. I definitely do not believe all concepts are equally valid. But I do believe the Baha'i position on this matter is closer to the truth (e.g., demonic possession is not possible). 50,000 years from now I am sure another concept will be closer to the truth that is different from mine. Descriptions of reality should not be mistaken for absolute descriptions of reality. Humanity's capacity for truth is not static and forever fixed. All minds are not the same. Diversity of belief is inevitable.

 

[Thomas]

And I do not mind being excluded from that club. I gladly reject the "indwelling spirit" concept ...

OK. This is a rather fundamental statement that separates, irrevocably, the Baha'i from the Abrahamic Traditions.

Angelology is common to the three great monotheistic religions. In Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the angelic orders constitute the first creation, the “intelligible” foundation of the material world, and this liminal world is the domain of the soul, the psyche and the senses.

The angelic world provides the image of an ordered hierarchical universe (Cosmos) consisting of multiple degrees of reality, to which correspond multiple states of consciousness, that are in themselves degrees of knowledge. This “world” full of [spiritual] “Intelligences” is intimately linked to the cosmos and consequently to humanity which is in its keeping and supposed to be its keeper.

The Cosmos is a theophany.

A manifestation of the Spiritual Realm in Judaism and Islam, the angel is subordinate to the Logos in Christianity. In the NT angels herald the mysteries of the Annunciation, the Nativity, the Resurrection – the angels are in His service.

For us, angels are the prototype of the spiritual life, they are the mode and figure of the contemplative life. Angels are the guardian and servant of the soul.

This monotheistic traditions do not have a monopoly on mediating beings – they are there in Buddhism, for example, and although devas are not precisely the same, the are too akin to be ignored or dismissed.

In understanding angels we have to preserve ourselves against the narrowly defined fundamentalisms of a materialist world that denies the liminal, the spiritual and the mystical on the one hand, and the romantic and sentimental ambience of pseudo- or neo-spiritualisms of the New Age with its crystals and incenses anddream catchers.

Above all is the need to reawaken the eye of the heart, so long occluded by the narrow and arid materialism of the secular world that in promoting a so-called 'autonomy' reduces what it is to be a truly human 'person' at every step.

 

[Thomas]

There is a tendency to view the Cosmos as two distinct entities – the physical world, which the soul seeks to escape from, and the spiritual world, which the soul seeks to escape to.

What this fails to comprehend is the real nature of a holistic cosmos – of multiple states of being, in which we are but an instance, and that our self-identified 'state of being' is simply a limited mode of consciousness, through which we see the world as a Platonic shadowplay; we observe now "through a glass and in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known." (1 Corinthians 13:12)

Likewise John: "Dearly beloved, we are now the sons of God; and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2).

It is clear – our vocation is not to escape this world, but to transform it, that we, who by our union with Him, can bring about the change – in Him we can make the world anew, and in a twinkling, it will be changed ...

The first step then is the dialogue with one's own soul, and through the soul open onto the liminal world, the spiritual world, where your angel awaits...

 

[Thomas]

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7)

The soul dwells in the world, but the world is less real and less perfect than the soul which prefigues it.

The message of Christ's Resurrection is that by His 'death' and resurrection, He puts things back in place and overturns our vision of the cosmos.

The body serves as the instrument of the soul in the world. We are bodies, but moreover we are persons. We believe ourselves to be the masters of this corporeal presence since it is somehow identified with us, but really it is a passive and involuntary presence (cf Genesis 3:7-10). My corporeal presence is visible to all, even to me, but I have no say over this visibility. It belongs to the world, to every gaze, unbeknownst to me and without being able to do anything about it — No-one is master of their corporeal presence.

In Scripture however, references to the resurrected Body of Christ tell us something different. Christ's body is still present in the world, but His is no longer a passive and involuntary presence. The soul which inhabits this body is master of it and makes use of it at will – Christ can actualise the corporeal mode of His presence according to His own decision and as He judges good.

The relationship that He entertains with the corporeal world, the world of bodies, has been completely transformed – Christ is no longer seen, He causes Himself to be seen.

Christ Resurrected is not so much 'above' the world of the senses (except in a symbolic sense), as the sensorium has been placed in right relation to its spiritual actuality and in so doing has become transfigured.

 

[Thomas]

And I do not mind being excluded from that club. I gladly reject the "indwelling spirit" concept, along with all the baggage that comes with it ...

OK, but then that sunders any real Baha'i continuation with the Abrahamic Traditions.

All of our concepts of truth are relative ... I definitely do not believe all concepts are equally valid.

OK, a generalisation – nothing I can do with that ...

But I do believe the Baha'i position on this matter is closer to the truth.

OK. I don't.

Descriptions of reality should not be mistaken for absolute descriptions of reality.

Nor should they necessarily be absolutely dismissed as descriptions of reality. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Ahanu]

Unless you can show a clear connection between Qumran and specific Christian doctrines, then clearly there is no correspondence.

What do you want for a clear connection? A letter from Jesus to a group of Qumran priests?! "Guys, the last couple of years at Qumran have been splendid, but it is time for me to move on and initiate the messianic age. Who's with me?" Sorry, I cannot produce that level of connection.

Any evidence would have to be circumstantial evidence. This was a long time ago. Jesus didn't write anything, and no contemporaries wrote about him during his lifetime. There is strong circumstantial evidence for John the Baptist being in touch with Essenes and its influence in early Christianity.

1. Both John the Baptist and the Essenes were active in the same general location "in the wilderness of Judae" (Matt. 3.1). John's baptisms were only a few miles from the Dead Sea. What about Charles Taze Russell, who founded the Bible Study movement that later developed into JW? He spent a lot of time in Pennsylvania and elsewhere in the United States. These places do not appear to be a hotbed for the GOC.

2. Both practice baptism. Like John's, Qumran baptism also held the sense of conversion.

3. Isaiah 40.3 was a central text for both John the Baptist and Qumran. "A voice cries in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.'"

4. John the Baptist said that the one who comes after him will "baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire" (Luke 3.16). Qumran also notes evil-doers will be judged by fire (1QS 4.13) and the righteous will be cleansed by the Holy Spirit (1QS 4.21). Out of all the Jewish sects, only Qumran places such emphasis on a judgement just around the corner with the Holy Spirit playing a huge role. Early Christianity shares these ideas.

5. The only evidence of eating locusts in the time of Jesus is from the DSS and verses about John the Baptist. Some scholars have noted he eats like a former Essene.

6. It sounds like John the Baptist grew up in the wilderness (Luke 1.80). John's family - which has a priestly background - probably sent him there at an early age. Josephus said: "They [the Essenes] neglect wedlock, but choose out other persons' children, while they are pliable, and fit for learning; and esteem them to be of their kindred, and form them according to their manners" (War 2.120).

7. The Damascus Document forbids marriage between niece and uncle (CD 5.7-11). It was this issue that led to John the Baptist's beheading (Mark 6.18). The Qumran community is strict about issues around marriage.

8. John the Baptist is Jesus' forerunner.

Stack this on top of parallels I have previously provided on the forum:

9. Jesus and the Essene movement both prohibit divorce (Mark 10.1-16; CD 4.19-5.2) and make appeals to the same texts concerning creation for proof (Gen 1.27, 2.24). Jesus and the Essene movement believe they have the authority to challenge and correct the Law of Moses by restoring it to the original Law of creation, implying both groups held it above Mosaic Torah (and thus "one-up" the position of traditional Jews), a position that not only upset the apple cart of the everyday Sadducee who believed the Law was fixed, but it led to conflicts with Pharisaical oral Law too (Mark 10.5-6; Matt 5.32; Luke 16.18; Deut 24.1-4).

10. Jesus' praise of celibacy is a nod to certain Essenes, and it most likely enthralled many of them for eschatological purposes (Matthew 19.12; CD 4.21; 1QS 1.6-11; 1QS 7.4-6).

11. Jesus and the Essene movement do not participate in the sacrificial cult of the Temple, and both think their own community is a valid substitute for the Temple itself (1QS 9.3-6; Gal 2.9; Matt 16.18; Eph 2.20; 1 Pet 2.4).

12. Jesus and the Essene movement shared "all things in common" (Acts 4.32-35; 1QS 1.11-12; CD 13.11).

13. Jesus and the Essene movement describe the messianic age as a time of healing, and both also link resurrection with Isaiah 61 - a concept quite unheard of for many (4Q521; 1QS 4.6; Matt 11.4-5; Luke 7.22; Isa 61). The heavens and the earth will listen to his anointed/messiah 2. and all that is in them will not turn away from the commandments of the holy ones . . . 5. For the Lord will visit the pious and call the righteous by name 6. And upon the poor his spirit will hover and the faithful he will renew with his force 7. He will honor the pious on a throne of an eternal kingdom, 8. liberating the captives, giving sight to the blind, straightening the bent . . . 11. And glorious deeds that never were the Lord will perform as he said 12. For he will heal the wounded, revive the dead, and proclaim good news to the poor (4Q521). Note the order of verse 12 above. It corresponds exactly with the order found in Luke 7.22 and Matthew 11.4-5.

 

[Ahanu]

What do you want for a clear connection? A letter from Jesus to a group of Qumran priests?! "Guys, the last couple of years at Qumran have been splendid, but it is time for me to move on and initiate the messianic age. Who's with me?" Sorry, I cannot produce that level of connection.

Any evidence would have to be circumstantial evidence. This is a long time ago. Jesus didn't write anything, and no contemporaries wrote about him during his lifetime. Unlike your false analogy using the GOC, JW, and their rejection of the Catholic views of original sin, there is strong circumstantial evidence for John the Baptist being in touch with Essenes and its influence in early Christianity.

1. Both John the Baptist and the Essenes were active in the same general location "in the wilderness of Judae" (Matt. 3.1). If the Gospels are to be believed, these great crowds that went to see John had to be along the southern Jordan River, which was not far from the Dead Sea. It would only take about a half day's walk to get to Qumran. What about Charles Taze Russell, who founded the Bible Study movement that later developed into JW? He spent a lot of time in Pennsylvania and elsewhere in the United States. These places do not appear to be a hotbed for the GOC.

2. Both practice baptism. Like John's, Qumran baptism also held the sense of conversion.

3. Isaiah 40.3 was a central text for both John the Baptist and Qumran. "A voice cries in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.'"

4. John the Baptist said that the one who comes after him will "baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire" (Luke 3.16). Qumran also notes evil-doers will be judged by fire (1QS 4.13) and the righteous will be cleansed by the Holy Spirit (1QS 4.21). Out of all the Jewish sects, only Qumran places such emphasis on a judgement just around the corner with the Holy Spirit playing a huge role. Early Christianity shares these ideas.

5. The only evidence of eating locusts in the time of Jesus is from the DSS and verses about John the Baptist. Some scholars have noted he eats like a former Essene.

6. It sounds like John the Baptist grew up in the wilderness (Luke 1.80). John's family - which has a priestly background - probably sent him there at an early age. Josephus said: "They [the Essenes] neglect wedlock, but choose out other persons' children, while they are pliable, and fit for learning; and esteem them to be of their kindred, and form them according to their manners" (War 2.120).

7. The Damascus Document forbids marriage between niece and uncle (CD 5.7-11). It was this issue that led to John the Baptist's beheading (Mark 6.18).

8. John the Baptist is Jesus' forerunner.

Stack this on top of parallels I have previously provided on the forum:

9. Jesus and the Essene movement both prohibit divorce (Mark 10.1-16; CD 4.19-5.2) and make appeals to the same texts concerning creation for proof (Gen 1.27, 2.24). Jesus and the Essene movement believe they have the authority to challenge and correct the Law of Moses by restoring it to the original Law of creation, implying both groups held it above Mosaic Torah (and thus "one-up" the position of traditional Jews), a position that not only upset the apple cart of the everyday Sadducee who believed the Law was fixed, but it led to conflicts with Pharisaical oral Law too (Mark 10.5-6; Matt 5.32; Luke 16.18; Deut 24.1-4).

10. Jesus' praise of celibacy is a nod to certain Essenes, and it most likely enthralled many of them for eschatological purposes (Matthew 19.12; CD 4.21; 1QS 1.6-11; 1QS 7.4-6).

11. Jesus and the Essene movement do not participate in the sacrificial cult of the Temple, and both think their own community is a valid substitute for the Temple itself (1QS 9.3-6; Gal 2.9; Matt 16.18; Eph 2.20; 1 Pet 2.4).

12. Jesus and the Essene movement shared "all things in common" (Acts 4.32-35; 1QS 1.11-12; CD 13.11).

13. Jesus and the Essene movement describe the messianic age as a time of healing, and both also link resurrection with Isaiah 61 - a concept quite unheard of for many (4Q521; 1QS 4.6; Matt 11.4-5; Luke 7.22; Isa 61). The heavens and the earth will listen to his anointed/messiah 2. and all that is in them will not turn away from the commandments of the holy ones . . . 5. For the Lord will visit the pious and call the righteous by name 6. And upon the poor his spirit will hover and the faithful he will renew with his force 7. He will honor the pious on a throne of an eternal kingdom, 8. liberating the captives, giving sight to the blind, straightening the bent . . . 11. And glorious deeds that never were the Lord will perform as he said 12. For he will heal the wounded, revive the dead, and proclaim good news to the poor (4Q521). Note the order of verse 12 above. It corresponds exactly with the order found in Luke 7.22 and Matthew 11.4-5.

This list is not exhaustive.

 

[Ahanu]

From The Qumran Sect and Christian Origins by H. H. ROWLEY, MA., DD., THEOL. D., LL.D., F.B.A.
Emeritus Professor of Hebrew Language and Literature at Manchester University.
"The Scrolls are therefore to be recognised as of importance for the understanding of the background of Christianity and for the light they shed on currents of Judaism in the period in which Christianity came into being... anyone who reads the Fourth Gospel, or indeed any part of the New Testament, and who then reads the Scrolls in any of the translations that have been published, will be quickly aware that there is a world of difference between them. One of the translators, Professor T. H. Gaster, has said with the fullest justification that in the Scrolls "there is no trace of any of the cardinal theological concepts . . . which make Christianity a distinctive faith." They do not offer the single and sufficient explanation of Christian origins. They do bring their contribution to the understanding of the soil in which Christianity was planted.

Now through the Scrolls we have knowledge of another contemporary group, which in its different way preserved amongst the Jews a deep religious devotion, and helped to create the climate in which the Christian faith could be born. In many ways God prepared for the coming of his Son."

Not sure what cardinal theological concepts he has in mind. I am not saying Christianity is a carbon copy of Qumran doctrine. Just stating there was some influence in various areas of early Christian thought.

 

[Ahanu]

This is not a minor ideological link. This is a major one.
The logic error:
1: The heterodox group A refute the orthodox group Z
2: The heterodox group B refute the orthodox group Z
3: Conclusion: A and B share common beliefs.

Point 3 is not logically proven. The Greek Orthodox Church and the Jehovah's Witnesses both dispute the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin, but no-one would say that the GOC and the JWs have a common belief, or that one derives from the other.

You'd have to demonstrate the coincidence of a particular heterodoxy between A and B.

Just to clarify. I see your point when this is looked at in isolation. That one example that I used was thought of in relation with all the other circumstantial evidence.

 

[Ahanu]

Ah ... that's a bit of an overstatement. Benedict says 'possibly' and offers no evidence in support of that possibility – so clearly there's no evidence to suggest to what extent, if at all, the Essenes shaped Christian thinking and, as detailed above, when we look at John, who is closest to Essene motifs, eg light and dark, John's theology is distinct from Essene teaching ...

For a long time it was assumed John was influenced by Gnosticism because of his use of dualist analogy, especially light and dark. Now the same claims are being made for the Qumran materials, but really it's not the case.

Benedict was talking about John the Baptist, not the Gospel of John.

". . . it appears that not only John the Baptist, but possibly Jesus and his family as well, were close to the Qumran community. At any rate, there are numerous points of contact with the Christian message in the Qumran writings. It is a reasonable hypothesis that John the Baptist lived for some time in this community and received part of his religious formation from it."
-Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration

 

[Ahanu]

Benedict was talking about John the Baptist, not the Gospel of John.

". . . it appears that not only John the Baptist, but possibly Jesus and his family as well, were close to the Qumran community. At any rate, there are numerous points of contact with the Christian message in the Qumran writings. It is a reasonable hypothesis that John the Baptist lived for some time in this community and received part of his religious formation from it."
-Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration

So, yeah, Essene influence could be coming from the Baptist.

 

[RJM]

I like the Essene connection

 

[Ahanu]

Genesis 18:1-2 states "And the Lord appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth.

So one of them was the Lord. Since the Bible says that no man has seen the Father, then this must be Jesus. I don't know for sure who the other 2 are. Maybe Gabriel and Michael? But one for sure is NOT an angel. Abraham also appears to bow to worship. So he knew he was seeing the Lord. Mankind isn't supposed to worship angels. The other two were probably the angels that went to Sodom and Gomorrah.

Abraham had met the Lord before, so he would have recognized Him.

Okay. For the sake of peace I'll post this commentary from the Pesiqta de Rav Kahana:

R. Hanina bar Papa said: The Holy One appeared to Israel with a stern face, with an equanimous face, with a friendly face, with a joyous face. …Therefore the Holy One said to them: “Though you see Me in all these guises [I am still one]—“I am the Lord your God.” R. Levi said: The Holy One appeared to them as though He were a statue with faces on every side, so that though a thousand men might be looking at the statue, they would be led to believe that it was looking at each one of them. …

Thus David said: “The voice of the Lord is in His strength” (Ps 29:4)—not “The voice of the Lord is in its strength”—that is in its strength to make itself heard and understood according to the capacity of each and every person who listens to the Divine Word. Therefore the Holy One said: Do not be misled because you hear many voices. Know that I am He who is one and the same: “I am the Lord your God.” (Braude translation, slightly modified).

 

[Thomas]

What do you want for a clear connection?

A doctrine or teaching axiomatic to Christianity appearing in the DSS.

A letter from Jesus to a group of Qumran priests?!

LOL, well that would clinch it, and perhaps, in some undiscovered cave, there might just be a scroll that speaks of Jeshua ...

Any evidence would have to be circumstantial evidence.

Exactly, and we must be cautious in asserting too much from circumstantial evidence.

I'm not disputing the possibility – indeed the probability – that there was a some order of dialogue between the Essenes, John and Jesus.

What I am saying is that without firmer evidence, and with our increase of understanding of theological and mystical speculation in the Second Temple era, the best we can say is that both the Essenes and Jesus emerge from a rich broth of Jewish religious belief.

The origins of baptism, for example, are there in the ritusl bathing found in Leviticus and other Jewish texts, where immersion in water was a ritual of purification. Immersion was required for converts to Judaism from the Babylonian Captivity on (c500BC).

The ritual could be repeated, and the Essenes practiced daily immersion (so not strictly conversion), rather something more akin to orthodox Jewish ritual, but also with an apocalyptic end in view. John’s was a 'baptism of repentance' (Luke 3:3), although he taught that his baptism was a foreshadowing of salvation through Christ.

+++

The late Fr Jerome Murphy-O-Connor OP, a renown Professor of New Testament, says that the place to look for a sign of the Essenes is not in the Gospels, but in the Letters.

He mentions the final version of St Paul's Letter to the Ephesians, in which Paul (or more likely a disciple and scribe) notes that there are phrases here that have much in common with the Scrolls:

And what is the exceeding greatness of his power towards us, who believe according to the operation of the might of his power, (Ephesians 1:19) and again "Of which I am made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God, which is given to me according to the operation of his power" (3:7) and "Finally, brethren, be strengthened in the Lord, and in the might of his power." ([Ephesians 6:10]

+++

I think a richer ground is the focus of both the Essenes and Christians on the soul, the inner self, the Temple of the Divine. Here again there is much in common, although here also are notable distinctions.

The Essenes, for example, do not believe in the Resurrection of the Flesh.

+++

It's worth noting that after the death of John the Baptist, Jesus moved 100 miles north, to Capernaum on the Sea of Galilee. This is the place (it seems) where he established His mission. By the time He began His public ministry, he had a firm group around Him, both of close disciples, a wider group of followers, and also those (notably women) who offered financial and other means of support. Were any of his immediate followers Essenes? Seems not ... maybe He had severed His ties with the Essenes, because He saw that although they shared ideas in common, His own mission was other than theirs?

 

[Thomas]

Not sure what cardinal theological concepts he has in mind. I am not saying Christianity is a carbon copy of Qumran doctrine. Just stating there was some influence in various areas of early Christian thought.

OK ... I can see that ... maybe even a direct influence, but then at some point Christ's preaching took on its own particular dimension, and from then on moved away from the Qumran theology.