Toto

From that link

mountainman

Because I see the question as being open, just like the question was Mani a Christian. I am not the one selling an authoritarian ticket that Mani was this or that. I am interested in the evidence.

How does contemporary scholarship view the "orthodox testimonies" of the 4th century anti-Manichaean heresiogists "Hegemonius" and "Ephrem". It sees them as fabricators of historical material.

avi

Thank you Von Bek. I largely concur with what you have written.

Here's my position. In accord with your sentiment, I agree that we know very little. I believe, (by faith, not data) that Mani's religious movement was very large in the third century. I believe, (by faith, not data) that the support for his movement came from Persia, NOT the Jews. I believe that his effort, traveling to India, long before the Orient Express existed, demonstrated a sincerity and leadership potential that was appreciated by his followers.

I do not think that Mani was a Buddhist, but I believe that he studied with the followers of Siddhartha. He was not a Zoroastrian, but I think he read and admired Zarathustra, his written teachings, and his successors as teachers. I doubt, entirely, that he accepted any part of Judaism, as being in complete conflict with even the simplest aspect of Buddhism. He may well have admired what was recorded in the third century about John the Baptist.

The key point, to my way of thinking, about Mani's philosophy, the point which for me, eliminates Judaism/Christianity as having any influence on Mani, is his strict prohibition against killing. This idea is very clearly compatible with Buddhism, and alien to, and entirely contradicted by Judaism, which not only supports killing "non-believers", it encourages it.

As far as I am concerned, as one who has lived many years in Asian countries which practice Buddhism, Pete's idea that Mani's supposed christianity is a myth, created by Eusebius/Constantine, seems RIGHT ON TARGET. All, 100%, of the documents trotted out by various forum members, supposedly repudiating this notion, DATE FROM post Nicea. I know of not even one papyrus morsel, dealing with Mani, uncontaminated by Nicea. Everything Eusebius wrote about Mani, convinces me that the supposed history of Mani is a lie. As for the others, like the Syrian chap, who wrote AFTER Eusebius, just more garbage, in my opinion. I don't trust the jews to teach us anything honest about buddhism.

avi

mountainman

G'Day avi and Compliments of the season,

It's good to know that at least a few people are skeptical of the received "tradition" (to use spin's word) of the "church" in relation to its registered heretics (such as Mani), and while the cost of keeping an open mind may involve hostile retorts from the close-minded, at the end of the road, I am glad to see you still retain a sense of humor.


We might also add Christians. I dont trust the 4th century christians to teach us anything honest about Manichaeanism or Buddhism or Neoplatonism or Neopythagoreanism or the Gnostic traditions, etc, etc, etc. 4th century Christianity prevailed by a method of dividing and ruling over the heretics, and was ultimately defined by its imperial heresiologists such as the author of "Tha Panarian".


Was Mani crucified?

The Manichaean sources histories (in contrast with the Christian preserved accounts) suggest that Mani was actually crucified c.276 CE in the Persian capital city. If this is a fact, how sure can we be that the christians did not borrow the crucifixion event from Mani, and persecution of his Apostles, and the preservation of his Gospel and his Epistles, and the Acts of his Apostles (ie: widespread conversion and establishment of monasteries in the Roman Empire (between 242 CE and 276 CE) ?

mountainman

More 4th century orthodox christian heresiological fraud over Mani.

The 'Teachers' of Mani in the "Acta Archelai" and Simon Magus - Eszter Spät, Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Feb., 2004) (pp. 1-23)