avi

Concur. Well written.
The experts could well be correct, as you point out, but, what we need, is to understand the basis for their opinions.

Regarding the original point, made by Pete, i.e. what do we know about Mani, that predates Eusebius, I think it is an excellent, and fruitful discussion. It highlights some of the problems with analysis of documents written before Nicea.

I acknowledge that I do not KNOW the answer, with certainty. Maybe there is some unequivocally pristine text, not unlike the material extracted in the 20th century in Jordan and Egypt, which clearly, without any doubt, attests to the veracity of the claim that Mani asserted his opinion that he was the Paraclete.

Absent such data, I for one, have no doubt that this assertion is a fabrication, post Constantine.

How easily we forget that Mesopotamia/Babylon was a hotly contested area between the Persians and the Romans. Terrible warfare, killing, and gruesome injury was the rule there, for at least a thousand years. I can't imagine Constantine blinking an eye, before instructing Eusebius to clean up the mess caused by Mani, lest there should exist NEW grounds for a messy divorce of the Eastern half of the empire, from the western half.

avi

stephan huller

We preach not three Gods; let the Marcionites be silenced; but with the Holy Ghost through One Son, we preach One God. The Faith is indivisible; the worship inseparable. [Cyril of Jerusalem Lecture XVI.4]

For Marcion, that most impious of men, who first asserted three Gods [ibid. 7]

And also Cyprian of Carthage:

let us examine in the meantime about Marcion alone, the mention of whom has been made in the letter transmitted by you to us, whether the ground of his baptism can be made good. For the Lord after His resurrection, sending His disciples, instructed and taught them in what manner they ought to baptize, saying, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." He suggests the Trinity, in whose sacrament the nations were to be baptized. Does Marcion then maintain the Trinity? Does he then assert the same Father, the Creator, as we do? Does he know the same Son, Christ born of the Virgin Mary, who as the Word was made flesh, who bare our sins, who conquered death by dying, who by Himself first of all originated the resurrection of the flesh, and showed to His disciples that He had risen in the same flesh? Widely different is the faith with Marcion (Letter 72:1, 3-26, To Jubaianus)

Sheshbazzar

I asked you to Please cite the exact documentary source(s) you employ for this assertion.
That is Stephan, what particular (exact) document are you trusting for your information.
What century is this exact document dated to?
In other words Stephan, what is the oldest 'copy' of your proof 'evidence' that you can actually produce?

Toto

You give the impression of trying to find a reason to reject the idea that Mani proclaimed himself the Paraclete. You do not appear to have found a good reason.

Mani came from a Christian background. He was not the only one to claim to be the Paraclete.

There is absolutely no basis for this. Why do you keep repeating it? There was no guaranteed safety in the 4th century for non-orthodox Christians.

This argument makes no sense. Mani was a syncretist, not someone claiming a unique association with the Greek New Testament.

Muslims claim that Mohammed was the Paraclete, but felt no need to write in Greek.

What part of syncretism do you not understand? and why do you refer to the Paraclete as Jewish? or a spirit?

Sheshbazzar

4th century church writer, who never even met Mani or Marcion. Again produce one actual manuscript from Cyril's own hand
We do not have one single manuscript from Cyprian's own hand, what we have are compositions which are attributed to him, but actually reflect 4th century theological controversies and positions.
Again exactly what document are you employing, and what is the oldest 'copy' of that document that you can actually produce.

It is not enough to simply throw some moldy old Catholic book on the table, saying; It is written right here.
Just because these old, and often invented Catholic 'saints' are alleged to have written some particular manuscript, does not make it a fact that they did write whatever it is that is attributed to them.
Forgery and writing under the 'name' of dead 'Saints' was common in the early Christian church. How many 'Paul's' had a hand in writting the NT?

And spare us the 6th Century Islamic crap, it is evidence of nothing from the 1st and 2nd centuries.

stephan huller

The antiquity of the Paraclete of Jesus concept is demonstrated by Montanus and Marcion. The longevity of the expectation is witnessed by Mohammed

stephan huller

There were still Marcionites in the fourth century. The testimonies are invaluable.

Transient

Still dodging and weaving - can't answer those direct questions can you?
Why don't you just admit that there is no original evidence and that those theories rely on the opinions and ideas of people living well after the death of Mani?
Do you think that you fool anyone here by dodging and weaving? - you must be joking.
How many times do we have to say this? - We have learned not to trust the so-called experts unless they have very good evidence. What you are asking us to accept is no better than all the crap dished up by the religious experts trying to get people into or to stay in their christian churches - GET IT? - IT IS NO DIFFERENT!!!
If you do not understand such a simple thing then you are hopeless.
GET IT?

Sheshbazzar

Hardly. You do not have any of Montanus's nor Marcion's writings. What you do have is 'copies' (and them often intropolated and corrupted by latter hands) of 4th century propaganda writings composed by latter religious enemies.
The testimonies of the 4th century Marcionites (if there be any that are genuine) may testify of 4th century beliefs, but prove nothing at all about what Marcion himself may or may not have believed, or may or may not have written some three hundred years before.

stephan huller

Dodging and weaving.

I would venture to say that we are blessed with the best possible sources for the Manichaean tradition. As we have literary material from the fourth century and Mani died a little over a generation before the beginning of the fourth century THAT'S INCREDIBLE. In order to have better information we'd almost have to have the original from Mani's own hand.

We don't have this kind of certainty with Plato, Aristotle, Sophocles, Euripides, the Books of the Old Testament, Philo of Alexandria or almost any other ancient writer or even the writings of Shakespeare for that matter.

You're objections are irrational. We don't need autographs to establish authenticity. The bottom line - as I have said time and again - is that your argument has more to do with your inability or unwillingness to take the time to make yourselves acquainted with the original material ('sour grapes' if you will) than anything substantive.