stephan huller

I'd like to return to something substantive given that nothing has been forthcoming from the abnegationists to support the allegation that Mani never claimed to be the Paraclete of Jesus.

To Notsri

I have been looking up in the word nhm in various Aramaic dictionaries and the messianic implications are readily apparent even here. In other words, the Christ-interest didn't stop at menachem but developed upwards from its root.

Some examples:

Pes Nach p. 128 the Lord said to them (the prophets): "Myself and you, let us go and comfort her (Jerusalem)

Yalk Prov 947 in the house of the mourner, on week day, the comforter breaks the bread and gives it to the mourner, as it is written (Lam. 1.17) "Zion breaks (the bread) with her own hands and she has no comforter (mnhm)" but if she had a comforter the comforter would break it.

and then nahmanah is always used in the sense of 'the (messianic) comfort of Zion'

Yalk Ex. 264 "shall not live to see the relief (comfort) of the community"

Pes 54b (man does not know) what day his relief from trouble will occur

Y Ber V "the prophets who closed their books with words of praise and consolation (predictions of relief by the messiah).

Maccabees 5b

The point here is that the concept isn't limited to the proper name Menachem. Messianic relief was always associated with the root nhm and it can even be argued to have present in the Hebrew (Isaiah 12.1; 49.13 etc).

maryhelena

Stephan, you undoubtedly have a lot of knowledge re the stuff you write about. Unfortunately, in sharing that knowledge you so frequently end up disparaging those you are in discussion with. I personally find this habit extremely distasteful.

If it is a scholarly discussion that you seek then why not look for such a forum - a forum where the unwashed, unlearned don't seek to participate. I think you would feel far more comfortable there - except of course that with some of your theories you would end up in the same position as the "esteemed men of the academy" here. In other words, because of your anti-consensus position, you would end up being subject to whatever the frustrated scholars might throw your way.

Remember some time back I asked you the question "what historians support your view that there was only one Agrippa?" Your answer 'None". Yet, Stephan, you continue to hold that position. Nothing wrong with that of course - as long as it allows you to grant the same courtesy to other people. That is the only reason I posted in this thread - because I find your continuing disparagement of others who disagree with you disturbing behaviour in this forum - a forum where all should be able to participate without having first to qualify re standards set by Stephan Huller.

As to your attempt at some sort of sexist jokes re female participation in this forum - you needed to be slapped on the wrist for that...Whatever are the scientific facts, re male and female characteristics, to use such as some sort of demeaning weapon is dishonorable in any meaningful exchange of ideas.

So, Stephan, sharpen up your skills re personal interaction on public forums. Your considerable knowledge base is welcome - your arrogance and belittling of forum members is not - and will continue to cloud your participation here unless you hold such in check.

The OP of this thread is important to keep in focus - but so is the manner in which the discussion is being undertaken. And no, I'm not a moderator - just a forum member who would hate to see this forum go the way of others that have allowed similar negative behavior to contaminate the discussions.

stephan huller

Mary Helena,

There are a number of difficulties that I have with this forum none more obvious that I am 'me' - stephan huller and you are this fantasy character as are a number of people I interact with in the forum. If people had to put their real name out there they wouldn't be acting this ---- or holding ---- opinions. I think for some people the mask of anomynity allows for the perpetuation of ----- POV.

I don't necessarily need to interact with scholars. In fact I used to interact with scholars by email and I asked a lot of ----- questions myself. What I find aggrivating is people that basically knowing little or nothing about a particular subject matter coming off as experts.

I am not an authority on the subject of Manichaeanism. I fully acknowledge that. How then am I in a position to overturn all aspects of the inherited paradigm? This is the part that annoys me. We should show respect to people who have invested all their efforts to gaining the expertise in a particular subject or field.

When we go to the doctor we don't start overturning all his explanations and saying that the heart is really located in our feet and our brain sits in our ass, dispute the idea that smoking might cause cancer etc. There is at bottom a basic respect paid to the doctor because he became an expert in the field of medicine. While there may be the odd bad doctor in the mix, it would be foolish to deny that western medicine is completely filled with useless and unreliable doctors who know absolutely nothing about human health.

I have my issues with scholars and scholarship. I tend to chose my battles. To argue however that someone who works as a plumber by day and a dad by night and spends a couple of hours on this forum AND WHO HAS NEVER SO MUCH AS READ A SINGLE BOOK ON THE MANICHAEAN RELIGION is in a position to claim that EVERYTHING that has ever been written about the Manichaeans is just completely off base is utterly implausible.

We humans have roughly the same mental capacity. If one person devotes himself completely to a subject - it is almost certain that he would be in a better position to evaluate whether Manichaeanism was only Christianized by a Roman conspiracy 3000 miles away from any place Mani ever set foot. Only a madman would take the authority of Joe the Plumber and Jim the Shoe Salesmen and Kim the cafeteria worker over a formerly trained scholar who specialized in the study of Manichaeanism. That would have to stand to reason.

Why doesn't this make sense to Joe the Plumber and Jim the Shoe Salesman and Kim the cafeteria worker?

maryhelena

Stephan, the issue is not how much knowledge one person has or does not have - the issue is communication. What is that old saying - you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar...

Of course there are fields in which having the top knowledge is vital - medicine and science for instance. But when one gets into the non-life threatening areas of knowledge some give is necessary. In those areas we should be able to enjoy the give and take, the speculation and the fantasy, without kicking each other in the belly.

As for early christian history - yes, it's a fascinating topic but unless some new discovery comes our way re archaeology or documents there is going to be continual debate. Why does one theory appeal more to some and not to others - goodness knows. We all bring our past baggage along - but as long as we are appreciative of the nature of what we are trying to do - there should be no need for claiming the high ground belongs to us alone.

Sure, Stephan, I appreciate that you are you.... - but I'm me also.....:wave: So, what's needed in order for us to have a meaningful exchange of ideas is to drop the hammer and offer a hand...

Ideas are important but so is a meaningful and mutually beneficial human interaction.

Littlejohn

Hoping to add a little 'light to the problem, I would submit the following.

From a purely literary point of view, there were THREE Agrippa: Agrippa I, Herod Agrippa I and Herod Agrippa II

Agrippa I, who died prematurely around the year 44, unlike by its cousins he NEVER chose to add to his name the family's 'mark', namely the name of the grandfather Herod, probably because he hated him, inasmuch the latter had killed Aristobulos, his father, son of the same Herod and of the hasmonean Mariamne

On the death of Agrippa I, his brother, named Herod, decided to add to his name also that of Agrippa I (evidently in his memory), thus becoming he Herod Agrippa I.

Agrippa II, son of Agrippa I, to the death of his uncle Herod (who died without having had children) inherited the domain of the latter (kingdom of Chalcis), and added to his name that of the uncle Herod, becoming he Herod Agrippa II

The ex nazi Pope Ratzinger, few years ago wrote a book which quickly became a 'best-seller' (obviously among Catholics!). In this work, based on the reviews that circulated at the time of publication of his book, he committed the egregious error (and not only him, but also his publisher!) to exchange Herod Agrippa I with Agrippa I, thinking, probably, that too him, like his cousins, had added to his name that of the grandfather Herod the Great, as was customary at the Herodians. In fact, as mentioned above, Herod Agrippa I and Agrippa I were two brothers: ergo, two quite separate people!

Keep in mind that even the author of Acts committed the same error, in calling Herod the person that was simply Agrippa I! ...

Now, because Agrippa I and his son Herod Agrippa II both died a natural death, it goes without saying that if there really was a herodian named Agrippa, which was executed or killed in a dramatic way, he could not have been that Herod Agrippa I, the brother of Agrippa I.


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

maryhelena

Hi, Littlejohn

The subject of Agrippa came up in this thread only as a means to contrast the position of Stephan with that of Pete. ie both have theories that are not in keeping with the consensus position. That's all - apart from suggesting that Stephan should not be calling the kettle black....

So, I don't think this is the thread to actually discuss Agrippa - one, two, or three.....

Some time ago I did post a thread on this subject - in which Stephan did participate.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....34#post6442834

avi

I think a Christian would be better placed here, to respond to this idea. As one who adheres to the idea that JC is a pure myth, I am ill-suited to give an intelligent response, however, in my unlearned opinion, 99.9% of the world's practicing Christians, would reject the idea of including Ebionists, or the even more eccentric Elcesaites, among the faithful.

In my opinion, the Elcesaites and Ebionists represent nascent Islam, not Christianity. Surely you would not include Islam among the family of Christian believers?

When is the last time you met a "Christian" who denied that Mark, Luke, John, Acts, or Paul represented legitimate authorities, whose texts ought to be studied? Jews and Muslims make such pronouncements. Christians do not. When was your last encounter with a practicing Christian, of any flavour, who rejected the account given by Matthew, of JC's birth?

The monotremes lay eggs. That doesn't make them birds. This is a thread about Parakeets, not mammals.

a. trinitarianism = Holy Spirit aka Paraklete, is the third component of the triune god.
b. The topic of this thread is to discuss the existence, if any, of Pre-Nicean documentary evidence supporting the fictional notion that Mani claimed to be the Paraklete.
Thus far, in the discussion, I have found no links to any source, in any language, representing Mani's own attestation of such a crazy idea.
c. In my opinion, DEATH as a consequence of failure to accept trinitarianism is somewhat relevant to the question of whether or not Mani proclaimed himself Paraklete (or, alternatively, since this declaration followed Mani's death by a century, perhaps the notion may have been introduced, not by Mani, but by someone else, either to discredit him, or to render his ideas more palatable to the authorities.

Another possibility, certainly, is that OUR definition of Paraklete, representing "the Holy Spirit" of trinitarianism, is NOT the same definition that was understood in the Third Century CE. Maybe Mani did write that he was Paraklete of truth, someone to comfort those seeking knowledge, as would be characteristic of the practice of Gnosis.

I find the Muslim recording of Mani's life to be instructive in this debate:
So, if this summary is accurate, Mani claimed to have procured his "sacred" text by traveling to "Heaven". This account parallels the Muslim fable of Mohammed traveling to Heaven riding on the back of the Buraq, winged horse with the head of a woman.

So, should we then, argue that Mani claimed to have gone to heaven, and returned with his tome, because some Muslim historians have written this nonsense somewhere, at some time?

avi

Littlejohn

Ok!..

It seemed to me that there was divergency of opinions concerning the 'Agrippa' aspect, and so I thought to intervene..


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Sheshbazzar

I'm sure you would like to so easily squrim out of the responsibilty of having to defend those now obvious voids that are present in your methods.

But -first-, it would be polite of you to admit that it is a fact that in reality you do not have any have any genuine 2nd through 4th century codices or documents, in your possession or "have some of them right here on my (your) bookshelves."

YOU posed these questions to me;
I replied with quotation of these 'Testimonies' of the earliest followers of Joseph Smith', and addressed specific questions to you regarding your belief of, and position on the validity of these Mormon Testimonies.
Sorry Stephan, but your personal response to these questions is very relevant to the matter of how you, personally, go about investigating, or establishing the the validity, the truth of, or the historical accuracy of any allegedly 'surviving' Manichaean writings, or any 'ancient testimonies'.

No matter how learned or experienced you may be as to the interpreting of the content of these 'written' Manichaean materials, that expertise does not translate as having any capability of rendering said documents into being true to their claimed origins, nor as proving or establishing the integrity or originality of their contents.

Waiting for you to honestly address the questions and points raised in my above post.


Sheshbazzar.

Song of Erra

The wonderful thing about internet culture is the absolute irrelevance of who you are in “real life”. People can get together, have interesting discussion, and not be judged by anything besides the substance of their words. If the words are deemed to have no substance, they're easy enough to avoid—it doesn't have to be awkward. Is someone utterly beneath you? Ignore them. It's not a crime.

It is ceaselessly amusing that amateurs are begrudged for being amateurs. Taking an interest in something you don't have the means to make a career of, now that's some serious gall right there. Having some thoughts and typing them out—very bad. Getting defensive over a half-baked opinion—it's human, so don't do it.

I'm not a professional electrician, but I'll argue from dawn till dusk that “conventional current” shouldn't be taught any more. Maybe that really bugs someone somewhere, and maybe it would bug them even more if I said “I guess you've never worked with vacuum tubes”—since neither have I.

Does it make it less interesting for me to be a categorical know-nothing? Most of the people reading probably are as well. They'll read, they'll learn something. Huge loss, right? Maybe it'd be an improvement to just have the professionals talk, so the discussion can be over the heads of most. There'd be no clarification of the technical, since the professionals don't need it. They could stop taking their blood-pressure meds. All would be well in the world.

That only leaves the question of what to do with all the amateurs. Maybe they could start a forum identical to the one they already have... just without those who think they're too good for it.