Freethought & Rationalism Archive

avi · 11-09-2010, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I could point out the many errors of fact present in this rant, but for now will just settle for saying.....

Just shows what a kindhearted gentleman you are. Here's hoping he will follow spin's practice, and simply place my submissions to the forum on "ignore".

avi

Toto · 11-09-2010, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

...

I do not make any claims whatsoever, about the origins of Christianity, or Manicheaeism--I can't even spell it correctly.

I certainly, as I write this, have no clue what a "Paraclete" is.
I know what a Parakeete is, though, as a lifelong supporter of the Audubon society.

...

This whole thread is about the Paraklete. It's easy to google.

Quote:

When, several hours ago, earlier this morning, I had read this sentence, I could scarcely believe my eyes, for it convincingly disputes the notion, expressed by Toto, that there was equal persecution of all non-orthodox sects, in the Roman Empire, post Constantine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The Roman Empire after Constantine was as harsh on heretical Christians as on other religions.

You have this habit of taking snips of posts in ways that distort the meaning.

The point is that the Manicheans has no reason to think that they were buying tolerance by borrowing a bit of Christianity.

Sheshbazzar · 11-09-2010, 08:36 AM

What is Ecumenism?

avi · 11-09-2010, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The point is that the Manicheans has no reason to think that they were buying tolerance by borrowing a bit of Christianity.

Thank you Toto.
I acknowledge that you may be correct, here, and I may be in error, (again!)

However, I do not agree that one should discount the impact of "borrowing a bit of Christianity" to stay alive....

I think the evidence is too strong, documenting countless incidents of torture, imprisonment, and death, for those who were regarded as not "orthodox", i.e. insufficiently Catholic....

I believe, maybe without sufficient evidence, that MANY people, especially Jews, (perhaps including my own ancestors), "converted" to Christianity, in order to survive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The point is that the Manicheans has no reason to think that they were buying tolerance by borrowing a bit of Christianity.

I lack sufficient knowledge of history to refute this contention, but I would be amazed to encounter a link affirming this notion's validity.

avi

stephan huller · 11-09-2010, 10:11 AM

How could the Manichaeans have thought that 'making up' the idea that Jesus predicted the coming of Mani the Persian prophet and Paraclete would win them favor with the Imperial sponsored Church? Come on, think about how incredible what you are putting forward is. There were other heretics who claimed to be the Paraclete of Jesus - the Marcionites, the Montanists for instance. Things didn't go well for them. Why would the Manichaeans have thought 'if we just imitate those who were persecuted and rejected by the Church we might be allowed to survive in the Empire!' This is absurd.

stephan huller · 11-09-2010, 10:17 AM

For Avi:

Chrisitan societies that claimed to follow 'the Paraclete' (i.e. a historical individual 'predicted' by Jesus to be the awaited messiah of the Law and prophets):

the Marcionites thought he was 'the apostle' aka 'Paul'
the Montanists thought that he was Montanus
the Manichaeans thought that he was Mani (a title which is likely derived from menachem = 'the paraclete')
the Muslims thought that he was Mohammed (a name derived from the Arabic equivalent of menachem).

All these traditions can be argued to derive from a form of Christianity actively suppressed by the official church since the late second century. One can argue that the Roman involvement in Christianity was to make Jesus 'the Christ' so as to smother anyone else claiming to be his messiah.

Sheshbazzar · 11-09-2010, 11:24 AM

I offer my apologies to Avi, as it was my statements made in post #75 that led into this, and Avi is under no obligation to try to defend a position that I failed to fully elucidate within that initial post.
My subsequent posts have repeatedly addressed that initial lack (or blunder), pointing out and stressing that the Manichaeans had already 'adopted' and syncretised Jebus into their religion prior to Nicaea. And indeed, as I clearly stated in another place,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The Manichaean references to Jebus had already been syncretised in long before Constantine was even born.

Post #89 above

Just as your above post alleges these other 'Christian' societies did. All were vying for the claim to be presenting the one 'true' version of the 'Christian' faith. Come Constantine, Nicaea, and the 'Orthodox', everything else was soon officially proclaimed 'heretical' by the 'Holy Roman Church' and the Roman Imperial government.

It is a false accusation that I support mountainman's 'Constantinian conspiracy theory', I have also engaged mountainman in long disputations over the flaws inherent in that position. And my rejection of said 'theory' has also been clearly expressed within this thread;

Quote:

Mani lived and taught Eastern mysticism, but simply was never originally a 'Jesus' freak...until he was reinvented wearing Christian garb.
This does not entail the engagement in any contrived conspiracies either by Imperial Rome or by the other competing 'Christian' sects.
The Manichaeans disciples desperately rewrote their own 'history', but in a manner that only further alienated and infuriated the 'orthodox' majorities.

As you ignored this while composing your personal attack rant I'll post it again for your consideration.

Quote:

at the beginnings of Constantine's 'reforms' Christianity was composed of myrid diverse and competing sects and factions.
Each accepting or rejecting a varity 'Gospels' and books', and promoting the vying claims of various authority figures.

No one knew at the beginning of Constantine's 'reforms' what ideas or doctrines would eventually prevail and become the Imperially enforced
'Orthodox' Christianity.

What form of Christianity the Roman Empire would eventually accept and promote, or how it would eventually deal with those who came to be deemed the 'heretics' was not readily apparent in advance of Nicaea, nor were those subsequent draconian measures that future synods would eventually enact.

In that pre-Nicene venue, the Manichaeians would have began simply joining in with, and taking advantage of the nascent 'Jesus' frenzy.
Just like the many other cults caught up and absorbed in it, their writings would begin to sprout the now popular 'Jebus' references, along with a newly made up and revised version of their sects 'history', One that of course served to place them at the top of the pile.

With no yet established 'standard' beliefs or dominating orthodoxy, just about anyone got away with claiming just about anything and everything in making up their (own) particular versions of the gospel of Jebus.
Too bad for the Manichaeans, but Constantine & Co. just didn't buy their stories, but went on to write the story as they preferred (it to be written).

Care to take this on and discredit it point by point?

Sheshbazzar

.

stephan huller · 11-09-2010, 11:55 AM

I am sorry for suggesting that you bought into this conspiracy theory. Now we are just down to mountainman and avi. If avi doesn't know what the word menachem meant for Semitic Christians I apologize to him as well. It is obvious that I shouldn't be angry with someone who just doesn't know anything other than the European paradigm of Christianity (i.e. 'Jesus Christ'). Avi my advice is to learn about Mohammed's use of a Diatessaron. Spend some time on Islamic websites and see why it is that they believe that Mohammed rather than Jesus was the one prophesied by Moses (i.e. Deut 18:18) etc. Then go back and familiarize yourself with the Manichaean paradigm which is closely related. Then read Origen's statement that the Marcionites and Valentinians thought Paul was the Paraclete followed by a reading of the debate between Mani and Archelaus (through 'little Mark' i.e. Marcellus/Marcion as a medium) to determine whether Paul really claimed to be the Paraclete (as the Marcionites held) or whether he really was holding out for Mani. Then do a google search for the word menachem (or menahem) as a title of the messiah.

When you do all this you will find it impossible to subscribe to Pete's fourth century conspiracy theory. There was a nexus of Christian sects in the East which debated the issue of who was the guy Jesus predicted would come as the messiah. The original orthodoxy again was that it was Marcion/Paul. Then some broke away and decided to follow Mani (the Marcion/Mark connection helps explain why Manichaeanism became so popular in Egypt in particular - interestingly Severus quotes the story of the Acts of Archelaus in the History of the Coptic Church) and finally Marcionites and Manichaeans must have went over to the belief that Mohammed was the true Paraclete.

This is a completely different branch of Christianity that was untouched by the reforms of Constantine.

Toto · 11-09-2010, 12:04 PM

avi (who took his handle from Avicenna IIRC) does not follow Pete's 4th century invention hypothesis. But for some reason he wants to just make sure that no one criticizes Pete too strongly.

I have given up trying to understand the motivations of the posters here.

Sheshbazzar · 11-09-2010, 12:16 PM

While I don't accept Pete's 'theory' in toto, I do share his skepticism regarding the integrity of Eusebius and the 'version' of Christian 'history' presented within his writings.

Actually....I wonder if -anyone- accepts as being absolutely true, and accurate, -everything- that 'ol Eusebius wrote?
Do you?

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

11-09-2010, 08:36 AM	#93
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	What is Ecumenism?

11-09-2010, 10:11 AM	#95
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	How could the Manichaeans have thought that 'making up' the idea that Jesus predicted the coming of Mani the Persian prophet and Paraclete would win them favor with the Imperial sponsored Church? Come on, think about how incredible what you are putting forward is. There were other heretics who claimed to be the Paraclete of Jesus - the Marcionites, the Montanists for instance. Things didn't go well for them. Why would the Manichaeans have thought 'if we just imitate those who were persecuted and rejected by the Church we might be allowed to survive in the Empire!' This is absurd.

11-09-2010, 10:17 AM	#96
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	For Avi: Chrisitan societies that claimed to follow 'the Paraclete' (i.e. a historical individual 'predicted' by Jesus to be the awaited messiah of the Law and prophets): the Marcionites thought he was 'the apostle' aka 'Paul' the Montanists thought that he was Montanus the Manichaeans thought that he was Mani (a title which is likely derived from menachem = 'the paraclete') the Muslims thought that he was Mohammed (a name derived from the Arabic equivalent of menachem). All these traditions can be argued to derive from a form of Christianity actively suppressed by the official church since the late second century. One can argue that the Roman involvement in Christianity was to make Jesus 'the Christ' so as to smother anyone else claiming to be his messiah.

11-09-2010, 11:55 AM	#98
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I am sorry for suggesting that you bought into this conspiracy theory. Now we are just down to mountainman and avi. If avi doesn't know what the word menachem meant for Semitic Christians I apologize to him as well. It is obvious that I shouldn't be angry with someone who just doesn't know anything other than the European paradigm of Christianity (i.e. 'Jesus Christ'). Avi my advice is to learn about Mohammed's use of a Diatessaron. Spend some time on Islamic websites and see why it is that they believe that Mohammed rather than Jesus was the one prophesied by Moses (i.e. Deut 18:18) etc. Then go back and familiarize yourself with the Manichaean paradigm which is closely related. Then read Origen's statement that the Marcionites and Valentinians thought Paul was the Paraclete followed by a reading of the debate between Mani and Archelaus (through 'little Mark' i.e. Marcellus/Marcion as a medium) to determine whether Paul really claimed to be the Paraclete (as the Marcionites held) or whether he really was holding out for Mani. Then do a google search for the word menachem (or menahem) as a title of the messiah. When you do all this you will find it impossible to subscribe to Pete's fourth century conspiracy theory. There was a nexus of Christian sects in the East which debated the issue of who was the guy Jesus predicted would come as the messiah. The original orthodoxy again was that it was Marcion/Paul. Then some broke away and decided to follow Mani (the Marcion/Mark connection helps explain why Manichaeanism became so popular in Egypt in particular - interestingly Severus quotes the story of the Acts of Archelaus in the History of the Coptic Church) and finally Marcionites and Manichaeans must have went over to the belief that Mohammed was the true Paraclete. This is a completely different branch of Christianity that was untouched by the reforms of Constantine.

11-09-2010, 12:04 PM	#99
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	avi (who took his handle from Avicenna IIRC) does not follow Pete's 4th century invention hypothesis. But for some reason he wants to just make sure that no one criticizes Pete too strongly. I have given up trying to understand the motivations of the posters here.

11-09-2010, 12:16 PM	#100
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	While I don't accept Pete's 'theory' in toto, I do share his skepticism regarding the integrity of Eusebius and the 'version' of Christian 'history' presented within his writings. Actually....I wonder if -anyone- accepts as being absolutely true, and accurate, -everything- that 'ol Eusebius wrote? Do you?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.