Sheshbazzar

How do you know this? Please cite the exact documentary source you employ for this assertion.
How do you know this? Please cite the exact documentary source you employ for this assertion.
How do you know this? Please cite the exact documentary source you employed for this assertion.
How do you know this? Please cite the exact 2nd century documentary source that you employ for this assertion.
How do you know this? Please cite the exact documentary source you employed for this assertion.

stephan huller

Notsri,

For what it is worth Jesus speaks of 'another Menachem.' Menachem was a king of Israel. It is difficult to say why such a deep messianic interest in Menachem developed. The only reason I can come up with is that the name has the same numerological value as tsemach.

Whatever the case Jesus's declaration that he will send 'another Menachem' does not mean that the individual had to actually be named 'Menachem.' He would be 'another Menachem' presumably a king of Israel.

stephan huller

The Acts of Archelaus. Marcellus is the Latin equivalent of the Greek diminutive Marcion. If you don't see the idea that community accepted the Marcionite belief (Origen Hom. Lucam) that Paul was the Paraclete in almost every page, let me know and I will show you how to use the search function.

avi

Mani is inventing a new religion. He is incorporating a bit of this and a tad of that, mixing and stirring. Some folks want to insist that at the end of the day, Mani proclaimed himself the Paraclete.

Such folks cite various texts, ostensibly representing Mani's own writing, claiming authenticity.

I doubt such claims.

Why?

I do not think that the guy traveled all the way to India/Afghanistan, seeking to learn about Buddhism, because he saw himself as a Jewish Paraclete.

That notion--Mani's claim to be the Paraclete, looks, to me, at least, like some sort of 4th/5th century interpolation, else a novel, fourth century introduction to the text of Mani's gospel, implemented for the purpose of avoiding wholesale slaughter of the devotees of Mani's new religion, by the Roman authorities post Constantine.

Mani could have written in some other languages, not Persian, not Syriac. He probably studied Buddhism in Sanskrit. Who knows, maybe he even read Latin? His followers certainly did, they set up shop in Rome, right after his death.... Why did he not write in Greek, then, if he wanted to attest to having some unique association with the Greek books of the new Testament?

He had no NEED, for the Jewish/Christian myths, he was too busy creating his own myths, an activity which required his travel on the Silk Route, an undertaking by no means trivial. It is silly to posit that this scholar would hang on to some old fashioned Jewish nonsense like Paraclete, when he was obviously willing to risk his life and fortune, by traveling to India/Afghanistan, looking for answers. If he simply wished to claim to be some kind of spirit, not a human, then, surely, he would not have wasted time and talent(s) traveling to the East.

avi

stephan huller

Acts of Archelaus. Again read the document or if you can't hold your attention long enough (it is quite boring) use the find feature and search for 'Paraclete.'

stephan huller

Use Google books and search for "Origen Homilies on Luke." You should get a limited preview. Then enter 'Paraclete' for the search or 'Paraclete' 'Marcion.' You will find this information.

I can't believe that I have to prove that the Montanists held that their leader Montanus was the Paraclete. Use Wikipedia.

As I said this will all prove very useful for you. You will see that Christianity wasn't as monolithic as you were led to believe. As a result the idea that the Roman government falsified all the second and third century documents from scratch should ultimately appear as an unlikely possibility given that there would be no reason for Eusebius or Constantine to invent such an un-Nicaean concept as this.

Transient

It is not important what these so-called experts think but rather what their opinions are based on and how reliable that evidence is. I do not trust the opinions of experts at all and require to see hard evidence.
That is where we differ remarkably and it is that methodology that has allowed me to escape the grasp of 50 years in christianity - I don't let go of that methodology, not for you, not for anyone.
Show me the documents that were written before constantine about Mani - links to them online would be best - not people's opinions.

Transient

Use wikipedia?
You rubbished someone for using it a while back

stephan huller

They know more than you or I do. Authority on a subject has to be earned. A virgin can't be an expert on how to make love to a woman. Why suggest that someone who knows nothing about Mani could know more than someone who studied the subject for most of his life.

Would you get open heart surgery from someone who never went to medical school? Why would this be any different?

stephan huller

I suggested Wikipedia because it was easy to read. Unfortunately they don't have Dora the Explorer book on the early Church Fathers.