maryhelena

Stephan
I'm not going to get into this discussion - just want to remind you that you yourself play fast and loose with historical evidence when it does not fit your own pet theories.

All historians, as far as I'm aware, accept that the Herodian coins relate to two Agrippa figures, Agrippa I and Agrippa II - and yet you seek to reject this with your insistence that there is only one King Agrippa. I just don't see any consistency here at all....

stephan huller

I have developed arguments for my Agrippa thesis. Pete should do the same for his new claims about Mani. Otherwise we accept the status quo.

Transient

That should read "Otherwise I accept the status quo" - you cannot speak for others.

stephan huller

You're right Transient. I should make a distinction but I didn't want to start another dispute. I should have said:

Otherwise we, rational observers - those unencumbered by unsupportable third rate conspiracy which has more in common with a Dan Brown novel than something resembling serious scholarship - will accept the status quo.

Anyone claiming that Mani was only 'invented' as a Christian by a Roman conspiracy over 3000 miles from the places he actually lived is not a serious scholar. This is getting absolutely absurd.

Sheshbazzar

Reviewing what mountainman actually has written within this thread, he has made no such claim regarding Mani.

As I understand it, Pete admits that Mani actually lived, taught, and died long before the time of this alleged 'Roman Conspiracy'.
And that it was only latter that the -Manichaeans-, for their own self protection, and in response to 'non-Christian' religions being penalized, disenfranchised, or outlawed, introduced the idea and teaching that their (long since gone) Mani was the Paraclete promised by the now (4th CE), idolized 'Jesus' as a means of legitimatizing their claim to being an 'acceptable' that is, 'Christian' sect.

Mani himself likely never knew any of of this, or in his lifetime ever even heard of this late invented 'Christian' character.

In short what mountainman is postulating is that the latter -Manichaeans- were forced by the prevailing bloody political and religious circumstances to 'cook their own books' in a desperate bid for survival.
Mani lived and taught Eastern mysticism, but simply was never originally a 'Jesus' freak...until he was reinvented wearing Christian garb.
This does not entail the engagement in any contrived conspiracies either by Imperial Rome or by the other competing 'Christian' sects.
The Manichaeans disciples desperately rewrote their own 'history', but in a manner that only further alienated and infuriated the 'orthodox' majorities.



.

Toto

This makes no sense at all. The Roman Empire after Constantine was as harsh on heretical Christians as on other religions. The Manicheans would not have bought any legitimacy by merely adding an element of Christianity.

Littlejohn

Once again I find myself in complete agreement with you! ..

There are few people here in the forum that address the topics with equal rationality! .. Finally now there is not longer any doubt about the fact that some people, absurdly, have turned their 'theory' about the non-historical existence of Jesus, in a true 'dogma', which they defend in an even more irrational way of like the believer catholics make the one with their dogmas!


Greetings

Littlejohn

.

mountainman

History is about evidence not sense. In this thread I am presenting and asking for evidence. Do you happen to understand what "evidence" is? What are our oldest Manichaean fragments, where were they found, in which century were they produced, and what does the text disclose, or not disclose, about whether in fact the "Buddhist-like" sage and Holy Man Mani made mention(s) in his original 3rd century writings - Mani's "Canon" of Books - any "Jesus".

Those Manicheans who remained in the Roman Empire after Nicaea (325 CE) may have had extremely little choice in the matter of how to maximise the preservation of their almost century old manuscript tradition of the "Canon of Mani" the Prophet. The plain and simple evidence of two anachronisms in the polemical christian anti-Manichaean writings of the early 4th century suggest to the reader that the claim that Mani made the claim of being the paraklete of Jesus came not with Mani in the 3rd century, but with the Manichaeans of the 4th century after Nicaea. They may have realised they had to either somehow conform or ADAPT to Constantine's "Holy Writ of Jesus" or be destroyed and perish. Either that or flee. "Our generation is fleeing" says a text in the Nag Hammadi Codices.

The fact that the Manichaeans also preserved the "Gnostic Gospel of Peter" also suggests that there was some organisation between the various groups of christian heretics and pagan heretics who found themselves opposed to the Draconic religious laws of Constantine, and his insistence that the Bible was to be regarded as the "Holy Writ" for everyone, from the slaves to the pagan priesthood (which he effectively dismissed and made redundant), and to the members of the "Academy of Plato".


At some stage in the 5th century, many generations after Nicaea, many of the Manichaeans gave up this attempted resistance against the oppressive persecution and intolerance of the imperial state Roman church, and set out on a one way treck down the Silk Road as far east as that road would take them, along with their manuscripts.

Toto

This non sequitur makes my head hurt.

Sheshbazzar

Ah, but at the beginnings of Constantine's 'reforms' Christianity was composed of myrid diverse and competing sects and factions.
Each accepting or rejecting a varity 'Gospels' and books', and promoting the vying claims of various authority figures.

No one knew at the beginning of Constantine's 'reforms' what ideas or doctrines would eventulally prevail and become the Imperialy enforced
'Orthodox' Christianity.

What form of Christianity the Roman Empire would eventually accept and promote, or how it would eventually deal with those who came to be deemed the 'heretics' was not readily apparent in advance of Nicaea, nor were those subsequent draconian measures that future synods would eventually enact.

In that pre-Nicene venue, the Manichaeians would have began simply joining in with, and taking advantage of the nascent 'Jesus' frenzy.
Just like the many other cults caught up and absorbed in it, their writings would begin to sprout the now popular 'Jebus' references, along with a newly made up and revised version of their sects 'history', One that of course served to place them at the top of the pile.

With no yet established 'standard' beliefs or dominating orthodoxy, just about anyone got away with claiming just about anything and everything in making up their particular versions of the gospel of Jebus.
Too bad for the Manichaeans, but Constantine & Co. just didn't buy their stories, but went on to write the story as they preferred.