Chili

The paraclete of Jesus is the angel of the Lord and that is Lucifer since Jeus was the sum total of Joseph's sin which was the cross he carried and on which he died and that was the best thing that ever happended to him as that ended the "he must increase and I must decrease" concept that he was working on.

So obviously, Mani was a Jesus worshiper (instead of a true Jesuit) and that qualifies him as Christian, . . . and possibly was crucified as self proclaimed Christian and perhaps even fed to the storks to help create the "new life comes from storks" legend.

Toto

We have examples of Christianized literature and historical figures that seem to have been turned into Christians. But the rule seems to be that stuff is Christianized to become orthodox. If Mani had been Christianized, one would expect that Mani would have been orthodox.

mountainman

I certainly dont think too many people will try and argue the case that Mani was an orthodox christian, on the basis that he and his followers have always been regarded by the 4th and 5th century Christian orthodoxy defining heresiologists as heretics. However I guess the term "Christianized" is pretty loosely used - and perhaps a better way to state the issue is by using your terminology.

"Was Mani an historical figure who has been turned into a Christian"?

One parallel case that I can think of at the moment for another historical figure who has been turned into a Christian is the Roman Emperor Philip the Arab, who ruled from 244 to 249 CE, curiously the same decade that Mani and Shapur came to a 30 year prominance in the Persian Empire.

So given the above example, we might say that the answer to the first question could be given as follows ....

(1) "Was Mani an historical figure who has been turned into a Christian"?

The Roman Emperor Philip the Arab was an historical figure whom it appears that Eusebius wishes to make "Christian" in order that a Christian dignity should head the celebrations of the Millenial Games of the Founding of Rome. Therefore, it is reasonable to suspect that the widely known Persian sage may have been similarly treated by Eusebius.. It is certainly not proof, but it certainly does provide a precedent for the suspicion.

How about the other two questions ...

(2) Was Mani crucified?
(3) Had Eusebius read the "Gospel of Mani"?

Toto

No, we're still stuck on one. You notice that when Philip the Arab was turned into a Christian, he was turned into a devout Christian who submitted to church authority.

This is not so unusual. Modern American religious right propagandists have turned George Washington into a Christian.

But Mani was not turned into a devout Christian who submitted to church authority.

I have no reason to care if Mani was crucified or not. What difference would that make?

mountainman

Mani is reported by Eusebius to be a Christian heretic who had 12 disciples.


That wasn't the question, but just for my own information do you have any reason to care if Jesus was crucified or not?

It might make a difference to the detailed possibilities of the answer to the 3rd question - had Eusebius read the "Gospel of Mani" during his research into the scanty materials of the previous few centuries.

Toto

You are making my point. The pattern for Christian forgers is to take prominent historical people and turn them into devout Christians who submit to orthodoxy. Eusebius describes a dirty heretic, barbarian in life, both in word and deed; and in his nature demoniacal and insane. ... puffed up in his madness, ... false and godless doctrines collected from a multitude of long-extinct impieties

Do you know of any examples of Christians turning a historical figure into a heretic who defied Christian doctrine?

The usual definition of the historical Jesus is a wandering preacher who was crucified and inspired the Christian church. Without a crucifixion, we can't be sure that we are dealing with the historical Jesus.

mountainman

A contraversial example might be Arius of Alexandria as described by Athanasius and Constantine very similar to the above extract. There have been heretics in large numbers ever since Nicaea. Another example might be the author Lucian the satirist, or whoever it was that authored the work "Philopatris" under Lucian's name, since as a result of this satire, Lucian during the 4th century became regarded as a heretic.

Whoever it was that authored the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" might fall into this category. Leucius Charinus is one name provided, and another person without a name, a "Presbyter in Asia" who had authored the "Acts of Paul" "out of love for Paul" according to Tertullian is another possible identity of an historical person. The problem is we dont know the person(s), but they must have been historical for us to have the evidence.

Emperor Julian was turned into an apostate instead of a heretic, but as the late 4th century progressed, historical figures either became orthodox or heretics.

But what if the your pattern of forgery is not just making everyone devout christians, but includes weaving a tapestry between the gnostic heretics (which includes Mani) and the orthodox flock as the "Saga of Early Christian Origins".


This may sound circular but at the end of the day do you have any reason to care if there was an historical crucified jesus or not?

Toto

It's not controversial. You are the only person who thinks that Arius was not a Christian. The rest of the world considers Arius a Christian who was on the losing side of the battle for control of the church.

Julian was raised as a Christian, then renounced Christianity for paganism. That's why he is called an apostate.

If you have any scintilla of evidence for this, just tell us.

I care less and less the more I read about this.

spin

I don't think this reflects reality other than in some nominal superficial way. One cannot say exactly how Julian was raised, especially as a young child, but he was in the hands of a tutor called Mardonius, who taught him the classics, before and after his father was murdered by Constantine's sons. The classics were a backbone of Julian's education and continued to be so despite the fact that his education was later given over to the control of Eusebius of Nicomedia. It was not long until Julian was able to get tuition from the great pagan thinkers of his time.

It is certain that Julian learned a great deal about christianity, having been under the influence of George of Cappadocia and Eusebius of Nicomedia, but, beside acquaintance, one cannot conclude that he was a believer at any time, hence the notion of him renouncing christianity is an assumption that seems to have no basis, as is the claim that he was in any meaningful sense an apostate. You need to have believed before you can renounce, to be an apostate.


spin

Toto

In any case, calling Julian an apostate is based on the idea that he had some Christian training and then actively rejected Christianity, which would not be unusual given that he was Constantine's nephew. There is no need to assume that he was turned into an apostate by some later historian.