Sheshbazzar

<edit>
I do not know what 'Google' translate may have told you Toto, but the Hebrew sentence that I posted was not an 'off topic insult' but an instruction to take, and to increase an already present action. In other words, for Mr Huller to continue to proceed upon his present course.
And was intended, as the context clearly illustrates, only to demonstrate that Mr Huller's bombast and braggido is without substance.

Toto

This is a discussion of history, not theology. If you think that Ebiobites are nascent Islam, centuries before Mohammed or someone like him, then Islam would be included.

You can't find a consensus among modern Christians as to who is a True Christian.

As noted, all of Mani's writings were destroyed.

Please stop repeating this until you can show some evidence that this would make Mani more palatable to any authorities.

Yes - why dismiss this?

:huh:

Muslims assimilated all previous prophets, including Jesus. What they write tells you only about what Muslims wanted to believe.

Sheshbazzar

Here is an innocuous Hebrew sentence;

מבין אתה הדברים האלה׃ שקר הסוס לתשועה וברב חילו לא ימלט׃
?

Given Stephan's great erudition, mastery of ancient documents, and expertise in the proper interpretations of ancient religious words,
Perhaps Steven would care to demonstrate his skills to all by translating, and telling everyone reading this thread exactly what the above Hebrew sentence says?
And perhaps expound eruditely upon the what these anciently chosen and penned idioms might reflect about the value of Jebus and Christianity as it has came to be?


ששבצר העברי
Sheshbazzar The Hebrew

.

stephan huller

The idea that Islam was influenced by Manichaeanism is an established position within scholarship. I don't know if I necessarily agree with that position. I tend to think that the favor Islam showed Edessa down through its early period has something to do with an indebtedness to Marcionitism but this is only a suspicion. I can't formulate anything resembling a 'proof' yet.

The important thing for us to keep in mind is exactly what Toto has referenced in his last post. In order to posit that 'Christianity' as such was fabricated by Constantine you have to imagine that it was a monolithic tradition c. 325 CE. This certainly was not the case. Julian mentions the persecution of Valentinians in his day, Egypt clearly had a number of sectarian groups, Osrhoene had Marcionitism as its orthodoxy according to Bauer (this is reflected in the Acts of Archelaeus).

I am every bit the skeptic. I am of the opinion that the Ebionites represent the remnants of the original cult of Polycarp of Smyrna. I have a lot of very different and strange ideas. But that's not the point.

It is impossible to make sense of eastern Christianity, Manichaeanism and Islam by exporting the Byzantine orthodoxy. Long before Constantine the Semitic landscape seems to be dominated by an expectation that a messiah would appear - the menachem predicted by Jesus.

I have taken Notsri's analysis that the rabbinic literature emphasizes that the messiah would be NAMED Menachem very seriously. This would help explain why Mani and Mohammed HAD THE NAME Menachem rather than being merely messianic 'comforters.' This was a very astute observation and deserves more attention.

Nevertheless the fact that (a) the received texts all have Jesus use menachem as a title 'another Paraclete' or perhaps a description of the individual to come, (b) the fact that Origen says the Manichaeans and Valentinians argued that 'Paul' was the Paraclete and there is no evidence that these sects ever held that the Apostle was named Menachem and (c) the fact that obvious inference (I don't know if it is ever explicitly stated) re: Mani's argument to the bishops of Osrhoene in the Acts of Archelaus that Jesus predicted someone NAMED 'Menachem' (i.e. Mani) is rejected by the bishops and Marcion (viz. Marcellus) himself all seem to suggest that a transformation happened to the Semitic gospels changing the reference from Jesus predicting the coming of 'another menachem' to someone named Menachem.

I don't know whether this already took place in some copies of the Diatessaron (the preferred text of non-Marcionites in the region) or whether Mani's Living Gospel made the switch (obviously for self-serving reasons). Whatever the case if the second answer is the correct answer that that would go a long way toward eventually proving that Mohammed was influenced by Manichaeanism.

For those interested here are the opening lines of Mani's Living Gospel penned by Mani's own hand:

The most Beloved Son, the Savior Jesus, the head of all these gifts,
Who is a refuge for the holy and a blessing for the wise, is exalted.
May he be praised!

The Maiden of Light, the chief of all wisdom, is exalted.
May she be praised!

The Holy Religion, by the power of the Father,
by the blessing of the Mother and by the wisdom of the Son, is exalted.
May it be praised!

Well-being and blessing to the sons of goodness
and to the speakers and hearers of the true Word!
Praise and honor to the Father and the Son
and the Holy Spirit and to the holy recollection!

He (Mani) teaches the word of the Living Gospel
for Eye and Ear, and he preaches the fruit of righteousness.

I, Mani, the Apostle of Jesus the Friend, by the will of the Father,
the true God, of Him, by whom I have become ...
Everything that is and everything that was and will be is by His Power.
The blessed ones will receive this message,
the wise ones understand it,
the strong ones will take on the wisdom of the wise ....

Sheshbazzar

Except as has been pointed out repeatedly, there is absolutely NO evidence at all that these words were ever actuality in the original mss. of Mani's Living Gospel,
or were ever 'penned by Mani's own hand'.

stephan huller

A king is not saved by his great army; a warrior is not delivered by his great strength. The war horse is a vain hope for victory, and by its great might it cannot save. Truly the eye of the Lord is on those who fear him, on those who hope in his steadfast love, to deliver their soul from death, and to keep them alive in famine.

stephan huller

Who then do you propose wrote them? Eusebius?

Sheshbazzar

Hmmm.. Stephan why did you not translate the entire statement as I wrote it?

But then you didn't actually read it, or yourself, 'translate' a single word did you ?

You have provided far many more words than what I actually wrote, yet for all that you missed, and -failed- to properly translate a significant portion of the words that I actually DID write. Why would that be???
Care to try it again?

stephan huller

Alright people here is the end of the discussion. I have just about had it with this. As we used to say Chinese water torture but maybe that's politically incorrect now.

A real scholar - not a plumber or a baker - had identified fragments of the Living Gospel to 400 CE:

http://books.google.com/books?id=7ww...page&q&f=false

In case you have conveniently forgotten how to add and substract that is 24 years after the death of Mani and 25 years before Nicaea. Can we stop with this now? Why isn't having a collection of manuscripts purporting to be from Mani's hand dated to within a generation after his death problematic? If we had documents from Jesus dated to within 25 years of the crucifixion I WOULD BE A BELIEVER.

stephan huller

I provided the context from the original source to end any speculation about what it means. If you want to hire me as a translator I charge $100 an hour. Could we please stick to the topic at hand I have the proof which effectively ends the discussion. Please read my previous post:

This is the end of the question as to whether or not Mani really claimed to be the Paraclete of Jesus. Unless one of you geniuses can actually come up with a rational argument.