Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 10-13-2011, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The idea does appear in the Acts of Archelaus alongside the traditional heretical view that Paul alone was the Paraclete:

Quote:

For he has given out that he is that Paraclete whom Jesus on His departure promised to send to the race of man for the salvation of the souls of the faithful; and this profession he makes as if he were somewhat superior even to Paul, who was an elect vessel and a called apostle, and who on that ground, while preaching the true doctrine, said: Or seek yea proof of that Christ who speaks in me? [AA 26]

Yet this man is now in our presence, and falls to produce any of the credentials which we have summarized in what we have already said, and declares that he is the Paraclete whose mission was presignified by Jesus. And by this assertion, in his ignorance perchance, he will make out Jesus Himself to be a liar; for thus He who once said that He would send the Paraclete no long time after, will be proved only to have sent this person, if we accept the testimony which he bears to himself,
after an interval of three hundred years and more .......

The idea in the 4th century heresiological Acts of Archelaus refers to the claim that Mani (not Paul) is being claimed the paraclete in the 4th century, after an interval of more than 300 years. Mani wrote more than 200 years, not more than 300 years after Jesus ascended through the clouds. It is an anachronism. We have discussed this before, although "discussed" may not be the appropriate verb.

This same "more than three hundred year" anachronistic dating of Mani is repeated in Ephrem Syrus, Against Mani: "MANI, WHO THEY SAY IS THE PARACLETE THAT COMES AFTER 300 YEARS." Mitchell/Burkett, eds, vol. 2, xcv11 xcix). Ephrem otherwise shows no knowledge of the AA.

stephan huller · 10-13-2011, 09:03 AM

Your points are predictably monotonous. Mani lived in the third century and was clearly a student of a radicalized form of Marcionitism. His appearance at Harran to convince “Marcellus” (= Marcion) that he was the Paraclete. Not only does Mani appear to be aware of Marcionite Paraclete interpretations of the gospel and Apostolikon but moreover he exploits the deliberate ambiguity in those texts (= that Paul never openly announces that he is the messiah/Paraclete). It is also interesting that both Marcellus/Marcion and Mani are diminutives (of Mark and Menachem = Paraclete respectively). Muhammad is the Arabic equivalent of Paraclete although it isn't a diminutive. Islam is the historical heir to this ORIGINAL Christian tradition which may account why Harran was left untouched and allowed to persist in their belief system

mountainman · 10-13-2011, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Your points are predictably monotonous. Mani lived in the third century and was clearly a student of a radicalized form of Marcionitism. ........

Clearly ... Manichaeans monotonized Marcionitism. And BTW they are not "my points" - I am simply citing the points of others. Have a good weekend when it arrives.

Sloncha !

stephan huller · 10-13-2011, 11:27 AM

There isn't a single knowledgeable observer who puts forward that Mani wasn't a Christian except for you mountainman and the reason you put forward this untenable view is because Mani is the 1,114th proof that disproves your fourth century conspiracy theory. Indeed if you acknowledge that Mani developed his ideas from Marcionitism how isn't that proof #1115 that Christianity - Marcionite Christianity - was pre-existent to Nicea?

tanya · 10-13-2011, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

There isn't a single knowledgeable observer who puts forward that Mani wasn't a Christian except for you mountainman

May I offer this scholar's opinion:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manichaeism in the later Roman Empire and medieval China, by Samuel N.C. Lieu pages 7-8

In the East, Manichaeism had established a firm base in eastern Iran by the end of the fourth century and from there it would eventually be conveyed even further eastwards along the Silk Road to Bactria, Tochara and the Tarim Basin. In the eighth century it became the state religion of the Uighur Turks, one of the main military powers on the northern frontiers of china. Under their patronage the religion enjoyed greater diffusion in China. After the eclipse of the first Uighur empire in the ninth century, the religion continued to thrive in the Tarim Basin until the rise of Genghis Khan. In China it also survived as a secret religion in the southern coastal regions and traces of it can be found in the province of Fukien as late as the sixteenth century. The geographic spread of Manichaeism over the Eurasian land-mass rivals that of Islam and Christianity and its success is all the more remarkable in that it was achieved without military conquest and enforced conversions or the accompaniment of more advanced technology.

At least one other person considers Manichaeism to be a religion distinct from Christianity, else why write, "Islam and Christianity"?

Lieu's last point, is the nail in the coffin, from my point of view, in other words, unlike the Jewish/Christian/Muslim military conquests/subjugation, convert or die mentalities, Mani's religion spread by a method entirely distinct from the ancient Judaic practices.

But, let us suppose that Lieu is writing incorrectly here. How many Christian congregations were there in the Tarim basin, or in Eastern Persia, for that matter, at the end of the fourth century? As I recall, the Romans no longer exerted much influence in that neck of the woods, after the end of the third century? Am I wrong? How could Mani, and his successors, go about his/their business as Christian bishops/presbyters/priests/apostles or whatever, while living/traveling in a geographic locale entirely hostile to Roman law/culture/religion? So far as I am aware, by the fourth century, the point furthest east, still retaining a semblance of Roman authority, was Armenia.

No, I think one needs to reassess the notion that mountain-man is alone in his belief that Mani was not a christian. I suppose that this attribution of Mani as a christian missionary, arises much later, well after Mani's death.

stephan huller · 10-13-2011, 01:13 PM

I think you should learn to read better

tanya · 10-13-2011, 01:26 PM

?
What have I misread?

stephan huller · 10-13-2011, 02:07 PM

Lieu accepts that Mani and his followers thought they were Christians. 'Christianity' in quote means 'Roman-centered Christianity.' You have to read a book before you start quoting it out of context!!!

stephan huller · 10-13-2011, 02:08 PM

Hi Jake

We already already know that Mani thought he was the 'perfect Paraclete' as opposed to Paul as the 'not-so-perfect Paraclete' from the Acts of Archelaus. But thanks for the reference. It does sound like Paul.

mountainman · 10-13-2011, 02:50 PM

Hi Jake,

Although the codex mentions "Jesus Christos", it is from the 5th century. Other late 4th century Manichaean mss mention "Jesus Chrestos". The earliest evidence from the early 4th century, texts by the orthodox heresiologists Hegemonius and Aphrem Syria are now regarded as distorted pseudo-histories. We do not have any of Mani's original texts from the 3rd century.

Discussions on this subject have already taken place, and if you'd like to catch up on the data and arguments have a look through this thread: Was Mani "Christianized", was Mani crucified, and had Eusebius read Mani's "Gospel"? .

Stephan has to date failed to explain the two ANACHRONISMS found in the heresiologists' texts, that I have highlighted above, that "MANI comes after 300 years". You do your own arithmetic.

The way I read this is that the 4th century heresiologists were refering to this "more than 300 years" are reporting a BRAND NEW CLAIM from the 4th century Manichaeans, that Mani was the paraclete of Jesus. I see this as the 4th century Manichaeans attempting to compromise with the new official centralised state monotheistic Jesus from the Constantine Bible, by saying (when Christianity was deemed the only religious privilege) that Mani was OK because he was a spiritual follower of Constantine's Jesus.

Otherwise explain the anachronism.

Best wishes

Pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

In 1969 a Greek parchment codex (dated on on paleographical evidence to 5c. CE) was discovered in Upper Egypt, now designated Cologne Mani-Codex (Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis). It contains an account of Mani's career along with accounts of Mani's religious teachings..

Here is a brief excerpt from “On the Origin of His Body” The Cologne Mani Codex (P.Colon inv. Nr. 4780). It is from the beginning of the Mani letter to Edessa.

Quote:

“The truth of the secrets that I speak—about the laying on of hands that is mine—not from people have I received it nor from fleshly creatures, not even from studies in the scriptures. But when my most blessed father, who called me into his grace, saw me, since he did not wish me and the rest who are in the world to perish, he felt compassion, so that he might extend well- being to those prepared to be chosen by him from the sects. Then, by his grace, he pulled me from the council of the many who do not recognize the truth and revealed to me his secrets and those of the undefiled father of all the cosmos. He disclosed to me how I was before the foundation of the world, ….”

Written in the gospel of his most holy hope,

Quote:

“I, Mani, a messenger of Jesus Christ through the will of god, the father of truth, from whom I was born, who lives and abides forever …. The truth of ages that he revealed I have seen, and that truth I have disclosed … this immortal gospel that I have written, including in it these eminent mysteries … These things that he revealed I have shown to those who live from the truest vision, which I have seen, and from the most glorious revelation revealed to me.”

This can be found in “The Gnostic Bible” by Willis Barnstone and Marvin Meyer.

Best,
Jake

10-13-2011, 01:26 PM	#7
tanya Banned Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: middle east Posts: 829	readin, writin, and rithmatic ? What have I misread?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-13-2011, 09:03 AM	#2
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Your points are predictably monotonous. Mani lived in the third century and was clearly a student of a radicalized form of Marcionitism. His appearance at Harran to convince “Marcellus” (= Marcion) that he was the Paraclete. Not only does Mani appear to be aware of Marcionite Paraclete interpretations of the gospel and Apostolikon but moreover he exploits the deliberate ambiguity in those texts (= that Paul never openly announces that he is the messiah/Paraclete). It is also interesting that both Marcellus/Marcion and Mani are diminutives (of Mark and Menachem = Paraclete respectively). Muhammad is the Arabic equivalent of Paraclete although it isn't a diminutive. Islam is the historical heir to this ORIGINAL Christian tradition which may account why Harran was left untouched and allowed to persist in their belief system

10-13-2011, 11:27 AM	#4
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	There isn't a single knowledgeable observer who puts forward that Mani wasn't a Christian except for you mountainman and the reason you put forward this untenable view is because Mani is the 1,114th proof that disproves your fourth century conspiracy theory. Indeed if you acknowledge that Mani developed his ideas from Marcionitism how isn't that proof #1115 that Christianity - Marcionite Christianity - was pre-existent to Nicea?

10-13-2011, 01:13 PM	#6
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I think you should learn to read better

10-13-2011, 02:07 PM	#8
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Lieu accepts that Mani and his followers thought they were Christians. 'Christianity' in quote means 'Roman-centered Christianity.' You have to read a book before you start quoting it out of context!!!

10-13-2011, 02:08 PM	#9
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Hi Jake We already already know that Mani thought he was the 'perfect Paraclete' as opposed to Paul as the 'not-so-perfect Paraclete' from the Acts of Archelaus. But thanks for the reference. It does sound like Paul.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.