stephan huller

http://www.unreportedheritagenews.co...er-of-4th.html

mountainman

What part of the evidence rules out the possibility that this represents a reference to the known persecution of the Manichaean church in Egypt under Diocletian?

stephan huller

Didn't you just waste 2000 hours of my life arguing that the Manichaeans weren't Christians and didn't have anything to do with Jesus until the tradition was co-opted by the agents of Constantine at the time of the Council of Nicaea?

mountainman

I was questioning the evidence for this belief, by assessing separately two various categories of evidence namely that preserved by (1) the orthodox christian heresiologists, and (2) the 4th and 5th century Manichaean followers themselves, all the way down the silk road.


No. This is your bad comprehension skills. The argument was that the leaders of the Manichaean communities c.324 CE and afterwards in the Roman Empire (eg: at Rome and in Egypt) decided that they needed to make the attempt to conform their "Holy Writings" to the imperially elect "Holy Writings" of the Bible and New Testament, supported by the Emperors of Rome and Alexandria from 324 CE. They therefore sought to claim that Mani was the Paraclete of Jesus, "who came after three hundred years". It was a PR exercise doomed to fail in 4th century christendom.

stephan huller

But however you slice it, your theory isn't helped by transforming - "Ammonius, son of Copres, lector of the former church of the village of Chysis" - into a Manichaean. The language is clearly Christian - 'church.' How can you argue that Manichaeans were gathering in churches c. 304 CE and didn't believe in Jesus or any of the other things we associate with Christianity? Also, Leonides flourished in the Nicene period. Manichaeans did not flourish after Nicaea. They were still persecuted.

Chili

But that is typical of a wolf in sheeps clothing and that has never changed throughout the ages, i.e. Billy Graham would never have a concert in a city without the consent of a Catholic dignitary so that Catholics would attend. Of course Billy in all earnesty thought that he was on the right track and actually could perform great prodigies to persuade the earth's inhabitants to make an idol (read 'ideal') for themselves that often left a mark on their forehead by way of partial transfiguration and you can read all about that in Rev. 13:11-17.

But notice the difference between the first and second beast and try to accept that only the first 'naked animal man' is destined for heaven while the second 'naked animal man' is destined for hell and that is why the Manichaeans were called heretics.

mountainman

The OP is about the evidence for the "Great Persecution in Egypt in 304 CE". If I can refrain from talking about my three theories then so can you. Lets just deal with this element of evidence.....

The question was whether this is likely or not, seeing the predominance of the evidence suggests that the "Great Persecution in Egypt" under Diocletian was against the Manichaeans. The historicity of the "Great Manichaean Egyptian Persecution" is orders of magnitude greater that the conjectured traditional historicity of the "Great Christian Egyptian Persecution".

Is it?


Because there were Manichaean monasteries in Rome c.312 CE and Egypt had hosted Manichaean settlements and establishment of monasteries since the middle of the 3rd century (although they were persecuted under Diocletian - above).



This is a separate issue.


According to the evidence we were discussing they were flourishing enough in the 5th century to have manufactured exceedingly small codices the size of a matchbox, and we know that at least some of them egressed from the Roman Empire in the fifth century, perhaps along with the followers of other "heretical leaders" such as the ex-archbishop of Constantinople Nestorius. Like all other heretical groups (ie: non orthodox state christians) the Manichaeans slowly became extinct, death be death, book by book, fire by fire, house by house ---- at the hands of the imperial christian state.

Evidence for the Great Persecution in Egypt in 304 CE

As far as I see it, the first step in establishing that this perseuction
was against the "Christians in Egypt" is to establish that this persecution
was not against the Manichaeans in Egypt.

stephan huller

From what I have seen there is nothing here to suggest he was Manichaean and the evidence is consistent with him being a typical Christian

avi

The point is simple: Diocletian persecuted the Manichaens NOT because they were Christians, or Heretical Christians. He persecuted them because of their refusal to honor the ancient Greek gods of Diocletian.

avi

stephan huller

But there is no reason to think that the documents Luijendijk has found weren't typical Christians who later went on to accept the Nicene Creed. There is nothing Manichaean about the documents. She can connect individuals who produced Christian documents at the time of Nicaea to Christians listed as being disposssed by the Diocletian persecution. How doesn't this show that there were Christians at the time of Diocletian?