Sheshbazzar

What does 'contemporary' mean to you here?
You have no writings by followers that lived contemporary with Mani.
Why should you trust 4th century followers of Mani?
not hard to accept when Manichaeism has been demonstrated to have been the most syncretive of religions. Of course they would.
Mani has no 'surviving literature', not one paragraph can be demonstrated to have originated with his own hand.

'They said....' hearsay, written long after his death. and products of continuous and intensive syncretisim.

And of course its not possible that these 4th century religious opponents would put any words in his mouth?
Quite easily.
When one looks at who wrote the history, one doesn't need to wonder.

avi

No, I disagree, Toto, his family followed the Elchasists, a flavour of Ebionism, folks who rejected MOST of what is today regarded as Christianity. In particular, they denied that JC was the son of God. They were, in my opinion, a sect of Jews, with messianic beliefs, but entirely hostile to trinitarianism, which they viewed, (correctly, in my opinion), as polytheism. {emphasis avi}

an irrelevant non-sequitur. The thread is not about paracletes, it is about Mani, and in particular, whether or not there exists evidence, prior to Nicea, in which Mani writes, by his own hand, a claim to represent the (or a)παράκλητος.

avi

stephan huller

So you would suggest that the testimonies of the earliest followers of Joseph Smith are utterly worthless? There is no information that can be drawn from them to understand the beginning of the religion? Really? Once you become a religious believer your testimony is rendered nul and void?

There are surviving Manichaean documents and testimonies. I have some of them right here on my bookshelves. Come on. This is getting incredibly frustrating. How can I have a conversation about Monet with someone who has never seen a Monet painting. If it wasn't for the fact that my domestic life is even less entertaining than this I would be watching Top Chef right now.

Transient

Not worthless but should be viewed thru skeptical glasses as all writings should be.
I see you are not apologising for calling us a bunch of Jesus haters
It is beyond you to apologise.
You cannot see things as we see them because if you were as skeptical as us you would not to be able to be so forceful with your own theories and would have to admit that they remain just possibilities.

stephan huller

I thought that 'hatin' on the Lord' would be taken as the highest complement. I am sorry for ridiculing your faith.

mountainman

Stephan and Toto,

As far as I understand it you are dismissing the previously identified pair of anachronisms as mere coincidence. Is this a correct or fair representation of your opinion(s) about these two instances of anachronisms?

Have you thought through at all about the relative probability of finding two such glaring anachronisms in the literature of two separate independent sources from the same epoch?


One argument involves the identification by academics of two almost identical anachronisms in the two earliest accounts - both orthodox - from the 1st half of the 4th century. The two separate authors both represent that this claim - that Mani is the paraclete - first appeared over three hundred years after Jesus. This does not involve any argument from conspiracy, but rather involves a simple logical analysis of the occurrence of the same anachronistic reference to Mani in extant literature.

Transient

No you didn't, you meant it as an insult.
At least be honest.
As far as faith is concerned I have none, neither am I tied to a theory as you yourself are.
So you see you are not really apologising - I see thru you like glass - you are attempting to ridicule again by saying " I am sorry for ridiculing your faith"
Instead you should be saying "I am sorry for calling you a bunch of Lord haters"
That is worlds apart but you are blind.

Toto

Ebiobites and Elchasists and Marcionites are Christian for the purposes of this discussion. Trinitarianism is irrelevant here.

Sheshbazzar

And;
So here it is, blue on grey. Do you believe these accounts?

What 'information' do you draw from these Mormon 'Testimonies'?

Are they factual and true simply because they claim to be? and because those who 'testified' of these things were believers?

So you have to accept and believe what was written and what they testified to, because.... it is in writing! and these 'believers' testified! to it, so it has to be true! ??? :banghead:

I seriously doubt your claim that you have any genuine 2nd through 4th century codices or documents sitting right there on your bookshelf.
(If you really do, you really ought to return them to whatever Museum it was that you stole them from)
What you may have are translations and versions of early writings that were edited by legions of Roman Catholic clerics.
All the more suspicious when these same religionists were notorious for the burning and destruction of any writings that did not serve the interests and purposes of The Holy Roman Catholic Church.
Yeah, your naivety is at least as frustrating to us, when you can't even discern the difference between owning an original document, and a Roman Catholic edited and interpolated 4th through 18th century forgery.
We have seen a few Monet paintings, and one hell of a lot of forgeries. And here the manuscripts that we have been discussing are certainly no Monets. They got fake and forgery written all over them.
Sorry to hear about your dull domestic life, perhaps you ought to devote a little more attention to it than to your keyboard?

Transient

Well put. You and Avi seem to be able to hold your own quite well. I might butt out a bit - my words might be a bit borderline for the mods anyway. Keep up the good work.