Toto

Of course not, but there's still a world of difference between normal skepticism of all Christian sources on the one hand and believing that Christianity was invented in the fourth century on the other.

If Pete didn't spend so much time trying to prop up his extreme theory, he might actually make some progress. But he persists in seeing everything through his paradigm of good pagans vs evil Constantine.

avi

Toto, you have done, and are doing, a GREAT job, please don't misunderstand.

What I took, and take, issue with, was lumping a lumpen like me, with folks well known to this forum--> they are:
intelligent,
well educated,
several steps away from the dreaded path of dementia.

Why I defend Pete and his theory, though I understand but little of it, (and almost nothing of its implications),
a. I perceive, but with these thick specs, who knows whether that perception is accurate or not, a hostility directed towards him, that is disproportionate to the magnitude of his "error". This hostility is manifested by MANY forum members, but, I am accustomed to being outvoted, on every single issue. For me, quantity does not translate into quality.
b. To my, admittedly naive mentality, Pete's "error" has a greater probability of credibility, than the orthodox view: i.e. that Eusebius' History of the Church has some degree of validity. I simply cannot fathom how anyone can accept the account given by Eusebius, whether it concerns Irenaeus, or Origen, or Hippolytus, or any of the other "Patristic" writings. I feel exactly the same, about Eusebius, as I do about the Quran, 99% nonsense, and the rest untrue.
c. Sometimes, I argue for, or against a position, not because I personally believe in the substance of the argument, but simply to foster a better dialogue, where "better" is defined as a dialogue with a broader scope, than has been developed thus far, in the history of the particular thread....

So, with regard to the origin of Christianity, let me write it again. I find my own position most closely in line with several of the arguments presented by Philosopher Jay, aa5874, and Sheshbazzar.

I find myself nodding my head in agreement with most of the things written by several other members of the forum, particularly including those posts submitted by Pete. I acknowledge that I do not know whether or not Christianity existed before Constantine, but placed on the rack, with hot irons approaching, I would acknowledge that I do accept the hypothesis that there did exist, in the second century, if not earlier, a nascent, credible, widespread, group of sects each following a different written text, systematically performing certain rituals ("sacraments") some of which may have been practiced by other groups, and adhering more or less, to one flavour or another of a multifaceted Judaism (itself no stranger to sectarian branches off the mainstream), plus or minus strict adherence to John the Baptist's ceremonies and their supposed significance.

avi

Transient

I agree with most of those statements and ideas.
I would also add that I always view with suspicion those who avoid questions and play the man instead - it is a great sign of weakness both in the person and their theories. Bully tactics just do not work anymore - read it again - they do not work in fact they are very very counter productive.
Not that those involved will take any note of it - they will just keep on keeping on with the same crap.
I would rather see Mountainman engaged point for point in a scholarlistic fashion - I won't hold my breath.

Transient

Didn't you read what he said mate? "Care to take this on and discredit it point by point?" Obviously you will not - much easier to play the man than the ball but your reputation sinks every time you avoid those hard questions.
Your own theories are probably very suspect and that is why you spend your time knocking Pete instead of point for point knocking down his ideas.
It is getting very very old.

Toto

It is now November 2010. I know from the archives, that you have been involved in discussing Pete's theories for over two years. I think you must understand it, because you have previously stated it correctly and indicated that you do not accept it.

Many of us here have been interacting with Pete for even longer. He has been unwilling or unable to carry on a productive discussion. At a certain point, many people lose patience. You see this as hostility. I see this as an indication that the discussion has become unproductive and is not worth the bandwidth or the time that it takes to read it.

This is a problem. You are not fostering a better dialogue by sticking up for a point of view that is discredited.

Toto

I don't know why you think that Pete's charges have not been discredited point by point. Possibly because Pete does not give a clear exposition of his theory, and starts of with a lot of vague claims.

In any case, this thread is tending towards a discussion of Pete instead of Mani. Please get it back to the main point.

mountainman

I presume when you refer to evidence here you are pointing to two early 4th century (post-Nicaean) specific texts - the "Acts of Achelaus" by the orthodox and otherwise unknown Hegemonius (what a pleasant sounding name) and the orthodox Ephrem Syrus, "Against Mani". Both these texts explicity state that the paraclete of Jesus has appeared "over three centuries" after Jesus. Let me see. 1+3=4. That means the claim that Mani as the paraclete appeared in the 4th century. This is to be expected.

But the question is do we have any writings or manuscripts from Mani or his followers which predate the Council of Nicaea? This is the evidence which will determine the validity of many positions on just whether the sage Mani actually mentions Jesus. I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask for and seek such evidence. I would much rather know I was wrong about the whole idea, than to remain unaware that speciic evidence was irrefuteable and unambiguous.

You dont seem to understand that I am not married to the idea that the new testament was fabricated very late in the peace.


And I stephan huller refer you to the collection of the "Gnostic Acts and Gospels of the Travelling Apostles" which were created by historical people as yet unknown to mainstream conjecturing. The Gnostic Acts are the Jesus and Apostle comic books. In the Acts of Paul, Paul is compared to the mouse in Aesops "The Lion and the Mouse". In the Acts of Andrew the very clever apostle Peter manages to fit a camel through the eye of a needle. Need I go on? You do not see that a generation of as yet unknown people have already created the "Canonical Comics", and this is treated as part of the deep and transcendental mystery of "Christian Origins".



I despise noone man.
You have it backwards.

Toto

Pete - what about this source that you yourself cited?

Frontiers of faith: the Christian encounter with Manichaeism in the Acts of Archelaus (or via: amazon.co.uk), by Jason BeDuhn, Paul Allan Mirecki. (2007 CE)

Have you tracked down these sources? What about all the documents from China?

Since you are proposing a theory that is so at odds with the scholarly consensus, you need to do the extra work to show why everyone else who reads the sources in the original languages is wrong.

mountainman

I am not any sort of "Believer". I am simply very critically skeptical of the claims - set in 4th and 5th century orthodox cement - that the Buddhist-like "Holy Man", sage, trecker to India, who attracted Persian imperial sponsorship, followers and monasteries in the Persian and the Roman Empire, made mention of "Jesus of the New Testament" in "The Gospel of Mani" or in any of the other 3rd century books in his Canon.

I dont see anything wrong in being skeptical of certain claims. Because I am not some sort of "Believer" my ideas rise and fall by the evidence itself.

Toto

No that is not what it means, nor is it to be expected.