FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-09-2010, 06:08 AM   #81
avi
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Location: eastern North America
Posts: 1,468
Default a link, a link, my kingdom for a link....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto
This makes no sense at all. The Roman Empire after Constantine was as harsh on heretical Christians as on other religions.
Reference, please.....

Here's my evidence to the contrary, i.e. supporting the notion that Christianity after Constantine, was NOT persecuted, at least, within the Roman Empire:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia: The Great Persecution
Over 20,000 Christians are thought to have died during Diocletian's reign. However, as Diocletian zealously persecuted Christians in the Eastern part of the empire, his co-emperors in the West did not follow the edicts and so Christians in Gaul, Spain, and Britannia were virtually unmolested.

This persecution lasted, until Constantine I came to power in 313 and legalized Christianity. It was not until Theodosius I in the later 4th century that Christianity would become the official religion of the Empire. Between these two events Julian II temporarily restored the traditional Roman religion and established broad religious tolerance renewing Pagan and Christian hostilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia article on Manichaeism
When Christians first encountered Manichaeism, they deemed it a heresy, since it had originated in a heavily Gnostic area of the Persian empire. Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430) converted to Christianity from Manichaeism, in the year 387. This was shortly after the Roman Emperor Theodosius I had issued a decree of death for Manichaeans in AD 382 and shortly before he declared Christianity to be the only legitimate religion for the Roman Empire in 391. According to his Confessions, after nine or ten years of adhering to the Manichaean faith as a member of the group of "hearers", Augustine became a Christian and a potent adversary of Manichaeism (which he expressed in writing against his Manichaean opponent Faustus of Mileve), seeing their beliefs that knowledge was the key to salvation as too passive and not able to effect any change in one's life.
avi
avi is offline  
Old 11-09-2010, 06:35 AM   #82
avi
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Location: eastern North America
Posts: 1,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
As I understand it, Pete admits that Mani actually lived, taught, and died long before the time of this alleged 'Roman Conspiracy'.

And that it was only latter that the -Manichaeans-, for their own self protection, and in response to 'non-Christian' religions being penalized, disenfranchised, or outlawed, introduced the idea and teaching that their (long since gone) Mani was the Paraclete promised by the now (4th CE), idolized 'Jesus' as a means of legitimatizing their claim to being an 'acceptable' that is, 'Christian' sect.
...a very accurate summary, in my opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto
The Manicheans would not have bought any legitimacy by merely adding an element of Christianity.
Is there any evidence that they bought a bit of tolerance from the Persians, by introducing some elements of Zoroastrianism into their texts?

Quote:
Manichaeism claimed to present the complete version of teachings that were corrupted and misinterpreted by the followers of its predecessors Adam, Zoroaster, Buddha and Jesus. Accordingly, as it spread, it adapted new deities from other religions into forms it could use for its scriptures. Its original Aramaic texts already contained stories of Jesus. When they moved eastward and were translated into Iranian languages, the names of the Manichaean deities (or angels) were often transformed into the names of Zoroastrian yazatas.
Quote:
With the discovery of the Mani-Codex, it also became clear that he was raised in a Jewish-Christian baptism sect, the Elcesaites, and was influenced by their writings as well. According to biographies preserved by Ibn al-Nadim and the Persian polymath al-Biruni, he allegedly received a revelation as a youth from a spirit, whom he would later call his Twin (Aramaic Tauma (תאומא), from which is also derived the name of the apostle Thomas, the "twin"), his Syzygos (Greek for "partner", in the Cologne Mani-Codex), his Double, his Protective Angel or 'Divine Self'. It taught him truths which he developed into a religion. His 'divine' Twin or true Self brought Mani to Self-realization and thus he became a 'gnosticus', someone with divine knowledge and liberating insight. He claimed to be the 'Paraclete of the Truth', as promised in the New Testament: the Last Prophet and Seal of the Prophets finalizing a succession of figures including Zoroaster, Buddha, and Jesus.[9] In the Orthodox Tradition the title Paraclete was understood to refer to God in the person of the Holy Spirit.
avi
avi is offline  
Old 11-09-2010, 06:43 AM   #83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Italy
Posts: 708
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by avi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto
This makes no sense at all. The Roman Empire after Constantine was as harsh on heretical Christians as on other religions.
.
Reference, please.....

Here's my evidence to the contrary, i.e. supporting the notion that Christianity after Constantine, was NOT persecuted, at least, within the Roman Empire..
.
It seems to me that Toto has spoken of 'heretical Christians' and not 'tout-court' of Christians! ...


Greetings

Littlejohn

.
Littlejohn is offline  
Old 11-09-2010, 07:27 AM   #84
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

I have been reading the posts from Avi, Shesh and Pete looking for something of substance, something which might indicate that Mani was not who EVERYONE says he is (i.e. the Paraclete of Jesus). Instead - as Little John points out - we get the kind of logic that the pious put forward when their faith is put to the test.

Instead they ask people to 'prove' that Mani is who EVERYONE (i.e. the ancient texts) say he is.

This is not the way that rational people operate. You can't put up a belief system and then demand that anyone who disagrees with it 'prove' that it is wrong. What more can we offer up than the evidence itself? Mani died basically within a generation of the beginning of the fourth century. We have evidence dated from the fourth century which says acknowledge the idea that Mani was the Paraclete of Jesus.

I am really disappointed that the three believers in the fourth century conspiracy theory just want to continue to live in a kind of echo chamber. It makes me seriously question the value of anything that they have to say in this forum. Their logic is more akin to celebrity stalkers than people engaging in serious scholarship.

At some point John Hinckley should have realized that it was unlikely that anything he did was going to gain him the affection of Jodi Foster (other than perhaps a sex change operation). But nothing was going to change his mind because he was driven by an absurd misapplication of logic.

I don't think that anything is going to change your minds about the fourth century conspiracy dreamed up by Pete. You want there to be this 'evil conspiracy' and won't listen to any evidence to the contrary. Your methodology makes me very unlikely to take anything you say seriously in the future. I have only been participating at this site for a little while and am very disappointed to learn that irrationality and inflexibility is by no means exclusive to religious minded people.

You have merely created for yourselves a new Acts of the Apostles which describe the establishment of Christianity as a kind of two dimensional comic book. I have seen each of you throw away and pretend not to understand evidence which disproves your little fairy tale about Constantine and Eusebius. I am going to ignore your posts from now on as you refuse to engage the evidence with stands in the way of your beliefs.

You are no different than the very people you despise.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 11-09-2010, 07:42 AM   #85
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by avi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
As I understand it, Pete admits that Mani actually lived, taught, and died long before the time of this alleged 'Roman Conspiracy'.

And that it was only latter that the -Manichaeans-, for their own self protection, and in response to 'non-Christian' religions being penalized, disenfranchised, or outlawed, introduced the idea and teaching that their (long since gone) Mani was the Paraclete promised by the now (4th CE), idolized 'Jesus' as a means of legitimatizing their claim to being an 'acceptable' that is, 'Christian' sect.
...a very accurate summary, in my opinion.



Is there any evidence that they bought a bit of tolerance from the Persians, by introducing some elements of Zoroastrianism into their texts?



Quote:
With the discovery of the Mani-Codex, it also became clear that he was raised in a Jewish-Christian baptism sect, the Elcesaites, and was influenced by their writings as well. According to biographies preserved by Ibn al-Nadim and the Persian polymath al-Biruni, he allegedly received a revelation as a youth from a spirit, whom he would later call his Twin (Aramaic Tauma (תאומא), from which is also derived the name of the apostle Thomas, the "twin"), his Syzygos (Greek for "partner", in the Cologne Mani-Codex), his Double, his Protective Angel or 'Divine Self'. It taught him truths which he developed into a religion. His 'divine' Twin or true Self brought Mani to Self-realization and thus he became a 'gnosticus', someone with divine knowledge and liberating insight. He claimed to be the 'Paraclete of the Truth', as promised in the New Testament: the Last Prophet and Seal of the Prophets finalizing a succession of figures including Zoroaster, Buddha, and Jesus.[9] In the Orthodox Tradition the title Paraclete was understood to refer to God in the person of the Holy Spirit.
avi
From its inception, all evidence indicates Manichaeism was an extremely syncretistic religious movement, one that constantly incorporated, appropriated, absorbed, and blended ideas, 'beliefs', and 'names' of deities from every culture that the movement expanded into.

'Manichaeism', unlike the terms 'Judaism' or 'Christianity', as a whole was never defined or limited to any certain set of fixed inviolable overarching doctrinal beliefs, but was highly adaptable to the needs of each cultural situation, operating by rather than strongly disputing against other or previously held beliefs, seeking to incorporate and to syncretize all views into a one single peaceful universal whole.

As such there was never any such thing as a 'Manichean' religion. The term was invented and applied by the enemies of such freedom of religious belief and ready syncretism, as a convenient descriptive 'handle' for that large segment of religious beliefs and practices that refused to 'toe the line' with those imposed divisions demanded by the adherents the other 'named' religions. Each of which was horrified and threatened by the idea of such freedom of religious thoughts and practices, which could easily undermine their hold upon their particular religious franchise.
'Manichaeisim' had to be stomped out at any cost!
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 11-09-2010, 07:47 AM   #86
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by avi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto
This makes no sense at all. The Roman Empire after Constantine was as harsh on heretical Christians as on other religions.
Reference, please.....

Here's my evidence to the contrary, i.e. supporting the notion that Christianity after Constantine, was NOT persecuted, at least, within the Roman Empire:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia article on Manichaeism
....
avi
Read the rest of that article. "This was shortly after the Roman Emperor Theodosius I had issued a decree of death for Manichaeans in AD 382 and shortly before he declared Christianity to be the only legitimate religion for the Roman Empire in 391."

Constantine officially decreed religious tolerance, while favoring Nicene Christians. The official Christians were more concerned about stamping out alternative versions of Christianity such as Arianism than about pagans.

So you have a religion that was not centered in the Roman Empire, but you want to contend that it added a reference to Jesus because it might have bought some tolerance from a Roman emperor whose claim to fame was that he forced Christians to agree on an official doctrine? This just seems like a contrived theory to force the result that you want.

Quote:
Is there any evidence that they bought a bit of tolerance from the Persians, by introducing some elements of Zoroastrianism into their texts?
They didn't buy tolerance. ("After failing to win the favor of the next generation of Persian royalty, and incurring the disapproval of the Zoroastrian clergy, Mani is reported to have died in prison awaiting execution by the Persian Emperor Bahram I.") Manichaeism was a syncretic religion, and absorbing other religious figures was just what it did.
Toto is offline  
Old 11-09-2010, 07:52 AM   #87
avi
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Location: eastern North America
Posts: 1,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Littlejohn View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by avi View Post

Reference, please.....

Here's my evidence to the contrary, i.e. supporting the notion that Christianity after Constantine, was NOT persecuted, at least, within the Roman Empire..
.
It seems to me that Toto has spoken of 'heretical Christians' and not 'tout-court' of Christians! ...


Greetings

Littlejohn

.
Thank you Little John,
I believe that the conventional translation of "tout-court", may be 'orthodox', not sure, of course.

So, here's the point:
Persecution:
two forms: state organized, and sectarian.

With regard to state sponsored persecutions: My understanding is that there was little persecution of orthodox Christians following Constantine, and terrible persecution of various sects, particularly the Manicheaeans, particularly in the latter half of the fourth century, within the Roman Empire. Mani himself, as I understand, was killed by the Persians, so little love there for those Gnostics, in Persia, either.

The Muslims, three hundred years later, of course, followed in their Jewish ancestor's best traditions, and slaughtered anyone not saluting the great helmsman, Mohammed.

The Buddhists apparently put up with Mani's followers, probably because they offered them enough gold....

I have no clue why the silk route folks embraced the religion, maybe for the same reason as the Buddhists.

Thanks for this thread, Pete, I learned something about Mani, and his religion. Very interesting.

avi
avi is offline  
Old 11-09-2010, 08:00 AM   #88
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
I have been reading the posts from Avi, Shesh and Pete....
You are no different than the very people you despise.
I could point out the many errors of fact present in this rant, but for now will just settle for saying; We love you too Stephan!
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 11-09-2010, 08:05 AM   #89
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto
So you have a religion that was not centered in the Roman Empire, but you want to contend that it added a reference to Jesus because it might have bought some tolerance from a Roman emperor whose claim to fame was that he forced Christians to agree on an official doctrine? This just seems like a contrived theory to force the result that you want.
The Manichaean references to Jebus had already been syncretised in long before Constantine was even born.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 11-09-2010, 08:08 AM   #90
avi
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Location: eastern North America
Posts: 1,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto
So you have a religion that was not centered in the Roman Empire, but you want to contend that it added a reference to Jesus because it might have bought some tolerance from a Roman emperor whose claim to fame was that he forced Christians to agree on an official doctrine? This just seems like a contrived theory to force the result that you want.
Oops.
You have confounded me with Mountainman, a very big difference, since Pete knows something, while I am ignorant.

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.

I hope that the alliteration there, will not cause confusion, as you and Stephan seem to have considerable difficulty distinguishing my posts from those of far more learned and distinguished forum participants.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto
Read the rest of that article. "This was shortly after the Roman Emperor Theodosius I had issued a decree of death for Manichaeans in AD 382 and shortly before he declared Christianity to be the only legitimate religion for the Roman Empire in 391."
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.
avi is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:02 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.