Originally Posted by mountainman

That citation is possibly itself a double edged sword, the author presenting "the Saviour" sitting in the temple around the time of Nicaea - three hundred years after the covenant between the founder of christianity and his earthly apostles - and making disparaging comments about the authenticity and authority of the Nicaean church, bending under imperial leadership, and about the bishops as "dry canals".




You must have missed my disclaimers about not being in possession of absolute and infallible knowledge.



Imagine that you and your internet friends were part of a post Nicaean Manichaean community which was dragged in front of Constantine to plead the case of special dispensation over and against Constantine's recent law "Religious privileges are reserved for Christians". Are you telling me that you would simply say No - Mani was not a follower of Constantine's Jesus".


I dont think so. Rather, would you not be inclined to exclaim the opposite - that " YES - Mani was indeed a follower of Constantine's Jesus"!


For the 4th or 5th time, the Cologne Mani-Codex is a post Nicaean manuscript and tells us the state of the Manichaean literature in the 5th century, not the 3rd century.

The entire (mainstream) premise, that this 5th century manuscript is an accurate reflection of the original 3rd century Syriac sources is at the end of the day, without evidence, a postulate, a hypothesis, an assumption.

I think you should be at least honest and open enough acknowledge this.

Originally Posted by Transient

....

This is certainly one very hot topic - have no idea why - out of all proportion if you ask me.

Originally Posted by Toto

I guess it's a territorial thing. Pete has been spamming this forum for years with his off beat theory that Eusebius forged the entire history of Christianity. It brings discredit on this whole board.

Originally Posted by Transient

hmm well I don't see this board discredited by it at all - I see this board as very tolerant of a wide range of theories and that is very important.
Even christians should feel welcome here provided they aren't just evangelising but are defending their faith.
Insults should not be tolerated but diversity in ideas should be.
I think that the mods here are doing an excellent job in quite difficult circumstances at times.

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I feel like Pete is pretending to be a teacher "instructing" the rest of us about a subject he just started thinking about yesterday and the day before

It must be amazing to emerge as an expert on Manichaean literature from a single Wikipedia article.

I can't wait for his lecture on how to perform open heart surgery from watching episodes of ER

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Say what one will about Pete and about his theory, his posts generate more heated debate, and more searching of ancient texts, and more discussion of arcane subjects, than that of virtually anyone else in this Forum.
Most of the time, the longest and most informative threads are a direct result of Pete's presence. As for the charge of 'spamming' the board, Pete answers questions to the best of his ability and contributes fresh material and insights on a daily basis, in my book that is not spamming.
Far far from 'discrediting this whole board', his provocative statements, his dogged pursuit of his goal, keeps up a lively and enlightening exchange of views, making what would otherwise be a dull and boring place come to life, and interesting to visit every day.

I for one say; THANK YOU PETE! It's been a great ride!

Originally Posted by Transient

I agree entirely.
It may well be that his entire theory is proven wrong by some new documentary evidence as yet undiscovered. In the mean time he deserves some respect for his polite persistence under extreme provocation at times.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Most of the time, the longest and most informative threads are a direct result of Pete's presence. As for the charge of 'spamming' the board, Pete answers questions to the best of his ability and contributes fresh material and insights on a daily basis, in my book that is not spamming.
Far far from 'discrediting this whole board', his provocative statements, his dogged pursuit of his goal, keeps up a lively and enlightening exchange of views, making what would otherwise be a dull and boring place come to life, and interesting to visit every day.

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Please read the writings of Ephrem. You will see he routinely says eye opening things. There is little possibility that Ephrem's writings were changed by any Roman editor. Opinions should follow from familiarity with the subject matter. Please familiarize yourself with Ephrem's writings.

The argument stands. Ephrem doesn't say that Mani really wasn't the believer in Jesus. This argument would decimate the contemporary Manichaean Church if it were true.

Instead Ephrem treats Mani as if he always claimed to be a believer in Jesus and that his coming fulfilled the original expectation for a Paraclete. This certainly means that Mani believed that Mani really did claim to have some sort of association with 'Christianity.'

Now let's consider the implausibility of the 'Manichaeanism was changed by the Imperial government after Nicaea' argument.

The dates of Ephrem (ca. 306 – 373).

Nicaea 325 CE

So when Ephrem was nineteen years old or within a few years of that date either Manichaeanism transformed itself from a non-Christian to a Christian heresy (for reasons that have never been explained by anyone).

There is some sense among those with whom you associate that this was done either by Eusebius or to escape punishment from the Imperial government. I don't understand the argument. Perhaps someone can lay it out for me.

The point is that in order to understand Ephrem's writings you have to accept that orthdooxy was a minority position in the east. As Bauer notes Marcionitism was likely the orthodoxy at Edessa. This is one reason why he likely does not cite from the Acts of Archelaus. Archelaus was a Marcionite Bishop.

Now back to this wonderful theory developed to rescue Pete's theory from destruction. At some point between 325 and 337 (Constantine's death) Manichaeanism was supposedly changed from a non-Christian religion to one which accepted Christianity. How did the converts from non-Christian Manichaeanism influence the non-Christian Manichaeans in Persia and Osrhoene? Why did these people who lived outside the control of Rome feel the need to submit to Nicaea? This especially when the dominant orthodoxy OUTSIDE the Roman Empire did not submit to the Imperial sponsored religious orthodoxy.

It doesn't make sense.

Indeed we see the exact opposite phenomenon happening in the example of Ephrem - i.e. he was adapting Nicene orthodoxy to the customs and practices of the heretics beyond the borders of the Empire:

I keep saying to you guys when you actually become familiar with the evidence from the period, Pete's theory doesn't make sense.

I don't know why the obvious answer isn't the right one - i.e. that Mani was exactly who he, his followers and his enemies all acknowledge he claimed to be viz. someone claiming to be the Paraclete of Jesus.

Perhaps you can explain this a little better to me without having the benefit of any knowledge of what you are talking about.