Transient

Look I have been thinking about this whole situation. I'm sure the mods don't like it and we don't either.
Wouldn't it be best, whenever Pete poses a question or idea that you personally don't think plausible but can't give good evidence to refute (which is the nature of dealing with the past), just to acknowledge the fact and say well I can't show evidence yet but I still think that your theory is unlikely but still possible.
That would be truthful and much better in my opinion instead of attacking the guy which takes away from your own believability.
There are quite a few of us here that don't have a theory or position to defend and are just sifting thru evidence as it is presented. We value any evidence that you would like to present. If you stop attacking us and Pete and just present evidence then we will all get along fine.
Our logical brains however will sift thru the evidence quite harshly because it is those same brains and methods that have enabled us to analyze the christianity that we have been able to leave behind us, no easy task.

stephan huller

No what separates is the fact that you don't have any knowledge about the subject matter. As such you should either (a) commit yourself to study what real scholars have to say on the subject or (b) avoid injecting yourself into a conversation where you acknowledge you aren't qualified to even have an opinion.

You might not have a pet theory but you are already prejudiced against hearing the actual information that has survived down to our age. I can't account for why someone would put forward opinions without knowing anything about the original subject matter. You seem quite comfortable with continuing to put the cart before the horse. Generally it is a good idea to develop opinions from knowledge rather than opinions from opinions or worse yet opinions from ignorance.

The earliest Manichaean scriptures were said to have been written by Mani himself. Why should we disbelieve the Manichaeans?

Transient

Ok so then let it be on your head then.
Your last statement is illogical. By that standard then we would believe that the gospels were written by the disciples of Jesus etc etc.
I do not like the insulting words you throw at myself and others and I will continue to throw them right back at you.
I held out an olive branch and you burnt it on your fire - let the fire rage then.

mountainman

One argument involves the identification by academics of two almost identical anachronisms in the two earliest accounts - both orthodox - from the 1st half of the 4th century. The two separate authors both represent that this claim - that Mani is the paraclete - first appeared over three hundred years after Jesus.

I understand that you dismiss this identified pair of anachronisms as a mere coincidence. Is that correct?

stephan huller

There always a possibility that the gospels were in fact written by people that saw and heard Jesus. You make it sound as if this would be like claiming that the gospels were written by chimpanzees. Assuming that there was a Jesus or someone who the Christian narrative was based on, he might - at least theoretically have had disciples and they might have been literate enough to write an account of his doings. The argument against that understanding is rather sophisticated. Yet there is nothing implausible about Jesus (a) having disciples and (b) they in turn writing a narrative about their master at least theoretically.

It's not like claiming that they were all driving motorcycles.

I happen to subscribe to the Marcionite understanding that the earliest Christian literature was written by a first century figure identified by the sect as 'the apostle' (we can argue over the actual name of the apostle in that tradition). It was undoubtedly claimed by the Marcionites that their apostle was a disciple of Jesus. I would argue that the gospel and the Apostolikon was understood to have been written after the destruction of Jerusalem but this is of course debatable.

There certainly was a person named Mani and he certainly did have disciples. The only difference with the Christian paradigm is that Mani is universally acknowledged to have written the core documents of the tradition. It would take an incredibly insightful argument by someone intimately familiar with the earliest Manichaean sources to overturn this understanding. I don't think you are that person, Transi

Toto

What does need have to do with it?

Trinitarians identified the Paraklete with the Holy Spirit. Non-trinitarians did not.

Notsri

It should be borne in mind that Menachem is not connected to the Jewish messiah for merely titular or epithetical value. It is supposed to be his actual given name, as in, e.g., Bavli Sanhedrin 98b:

Others say: His name is Menachem ben Hezekiah, for it is written, Because menachem that would relieve my soul is far.

(Incidentally, Menachem ben Hezekiah is also found in Yerushalmi Berakhot and Lamentations Rabbah, while the name Menachem ben Amiel is given in still later sources such as Sefer Zurabbabel and the Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer.)

avi

I agree with your assessment, and I am in accord with you regarding the Cologne document, i.e. 5th century, one must at least suspect/consider possible/probable interpolation.

Here's a summary of what I have learned today:

hmm.

"special kind", meaning, I would imagine, a gospel which did not support the fundamental tenets of Christianity, including death/resurrection of JC, and the spirit world i.e. Paraclete business....

I am struck by the obviously rose colored spectacles with which this chap has been analyzed. Mani studied Buddhism, and traveled to India/Afghanistan to learn more about Buddhism. Did he travel to Jerusalem to learn about Judaism? How about Rome, to study Trinitarianism? How can the man's demonstrated activity not be crucial to any claim about his ideology? What about his seventh volume written in Persian????

Does someone imagine that Mani was writing in Persian about JC, and Paracletes? I would suppose, as one who is profoundly ignorant, that Mani was writing, in that particular volume, something about Zoroastrianism.....

Certainly Buddhism, in the third century, CE, was not an insignificant ideology in the region, particularly along the silk route, presumably the route taken by Mani, on his travels to India/Afghanistan:

Instead of focusing on the supposed influence of Judaism, and its successors, Christianity and Islam, one ought instead, focus on Buddhism, in trying to understand the growth of Manicheaism (still unable to spell it!!!)

Where one probably should inject a dose of Christianity/Judaism/Islam into the discussion, is with regard, not to the growth, but rather to the destruction of Mani's creation, for those three infamous traditions each abhor heretical ideas, and subject the followers of such ideas to torture and death....

avi

stephan huller

And I have already argued that Mani is a well established abbreviation or diminutive of menachem. Mohammed is also taken to be a personal name which means menachem. The gospel's use of menachem demonstrates however that Jesus did not originally take this to be a personal name.

stephan huller

I defy any of you to find an acknowledged expert on Manichaeanism who would argue that Mani did not originally put forward the idea that he was the Paraclete of Jesus.