Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Transient · 11-01-2010, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

There is absolutely no substance to these arguments. To even consider that Mani did not consider himself to be the Paraclete of Jesus is akin to suggesting that George Washington might not have been American or that we should pause and consider whether or not England has a monarchy. Can you imagine that? Having a debate as to whether England has or ever had a monarchy? Or whether there is such a thing as gravity?

When someone argues that a wood can't float or that water is really a flammable substance or that dogs really have the capability to speak Japanese or that levitation is a documented phenomena or that the German language is properly classified as a dialect of Chinese or that pizza was really first developed by prehistoric man or that one can get high smoking banana peels or that children really are actually delivered by storks or that the Soviet Union was a historical myth or that human beings only started wearing clothing fifty years ago or that the moon is really a manmade object or that a tribe in the Amazon had their own version of the Santa Claus story or that douching with Coca Cola will prevent pregnancy it isn't the responsibility of outsiders to consider the propagation of nonsense.

Mani is only known to us through documents which present him as a late Christian heretic. If you or magicman have any evidence to suggest that this might not be true I would be happy to consider it. However all magicman has done is raise the possibility as a distraction from the fact that the existing evidence would torpedo his ----- theory.

As it stands Mani disproves the idea that Christianity was wholly invented in the fourth century.

:constern01: That was 99% waffle.

"(1) Was Mani "Christianized"?
(2) Was Mani crucified?
(3) Had Eusebius read the "Gospel of Mani"?

Would you please please try and address the OP here.
These are 3 simple questions. A Yes or a no will be acceptable
but a more detailed response would be more than welcome. "

No answers to these questions?
More waffle?

stephan huller · 11-01-2010, 04:40 PM

Waffle? magicman has presented an argument which dismisses all of the textual evidence related to Christianity before Nicaea in order to prove that there was no Christian religion before Nicaea. Mani is universally acknowledged to have presented himself as the Paraclete of Jesus and to have fulfilled an expectation set up by Jesus in the gospel narrative of the early Eastern Church (in the Diatessaron?). Mohammed is a much later figure to have claimed to have fulfilled this Paraclete expectation so the tradition was very real, very influential and far reaching outside of the Roman Empire.

Mani lived before Nicaea. If magicman has any evidence to suggest that this understanding of Mani as the Paraclete (menachem) of Jesus is secondary to some other doctrine the onus is upon him and his disciples to provide that evidence. As it is - given his refusal to hear textual, archaeological and other evidence related to pre-Nicaean Christianity WITHIN the Roman Empire - Mani and Manichaeanism as it is universally understood by scholarship disproves his theory.

Transient · 11-01-2010, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Waffle? magicman has presented an argument which dismisses all of the textual evidence related to Christianity before Nicaea in order to prove that there was no Christian religion before Nicaea. Mani is universally acknowledged to have presented himself as the Paraclete of Jesus and to have fulfilled an expectation set up by Jesus in the gospel narrative of the early Eastern Church (in the Diatessaron?). Mohammed is a much later figure to have claimed to have fulfilled this Paraclete expectation so the tradition was very real, very influential and far reaching outside of the Roman Empire.

Mani lived before Nicaea. If magicman has any evidence to suggest that this understanding of Mani as the Paraclete (menachem) of Jesus is secondary to some other doctrine the onus is upon him and his disciples to provide that evidence. As it is - given his refusal to hear textual, archaeological and other evidence related to pre-Nicaean Christianity WITHIN the Roman Empire - Mani and Manichaeanism as it is universally understood by scholarship disproves his theory.

Ok then who has written that the character Mani considered himself to be the Paraclete of Jesus?
What pre Constantine evidence is there?
Hard evidence that is not some later dude writing what he thinks may be the case.
Remember the motto "What men write is not to be trusted unless there is good evidence to support it".
That is where all good historians should start.

stephan huller · 11-01-2010, 05:34 PM

Mani is who THEY say he is until y'all come up with a coherent argument to the contrary

Transient · 11-01-2010, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Mani is who THEY say he is until YOU come up with a coherent argument to the contrary. That has been out forward therefore the claim that Christianity was invented in the fourth century is rendered implausible (as if that wasn't already the case).

Epic fail!
Mani is not who they says he is until there is enuf evidence to back it up lol.
Your methodology would have me believing every other crackpot religion and conspiracy theory around mate.
Been there done that - not fooled anymore - case closed till further evidence.

stephan huller · 11-01-2010, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Mani is not who they says he is until there is enuf evidence to back it up lol.

Yes we are supposed to chose between on the one hand - what the Manichaean documents themselves say, what the opponents of the Manichaeans said and the analysis of countless qualified scholars who have studied the material for centuries - and on the other some guy on an internet forum who admits to having no knowledge about anything related to the topic of Manichaeanism. Tough choice.

Transient · 11-01-2010, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Mani is not who they says he is until there is enuf evidence to back it up lol.

Well I can see what made you a devotee of mountainman. And that's the interesting part of it all. You claimed (unless I have you confused with another academic at this forum) that you did believe that Christianity was entirely invented in the fourth century. It is strange that you would become so obsessive about a point which doesn't contradict your stated position but utterly demolishes mountainman's ----- theory.

Of course Pete can maintain such maintaining such decorum at the site. He has a 'transient' - i.e. an 'illusory' namesake - doing all the name calling.

Sheesh man you are totally up the creek.
I don't even think it likely that Mountainman is correct - sheesh I have stated that a few times already.
If this is as good as your analyzing powers go then I'm not interested in your way out theories either.
As I have said in the past! - I have never met nor corresponded with Mountainman whoever he is.
You are as sucky as politicians and religious leaders in evading the questions, sidetracking and playing the man instead of the ball.

Transient · 11-01-2010, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Mani is not who they says he is until there is enuf evidence to back it up lol.

Yes we are supposed to chose between on the one hand - what the Manichaean documents themselves say, what the opponents of the Manichaeans said and the analysis of countless qualified scholars who have studied the material for centuries - and on the other some guy on an internet forum who admits to having no knowledge about anything related to the topic of Manichaeanism. Tough choice.

Look, I asked you for good evidence that this Mani dude was some parakete bird of the other dude called "Jesus", Yahushua or whatever you want to call him.
Telling me that everyone else thinks something just doesn't cut it with me at all - I've seen too many religious people and other nut cases trying to pull the same stunt.

Sheshbazzar · 11-01-2010, 07:40 PM

Big old problem that always comes up when dealing with Christianity, and the proponents of Christian 'history'.
Some unknown in the 5th, 7th, or 11th century claims to have come across some otherwise unknown and unattested to manuscript, and provides 'quotations' with accompanying Christian arguments and rebuttals. and based upon this allegedly authentic 'testimony', the church's religious 'scholars' decide that this alleged but 'lost' and unavailable document presents true church history, and so incorporating it as being 'history', proving that this mysterious 'lost' manuscript actually existed way back in the 2nd or 3rd century.
Provenanced by nothing more or other than such alleged 'evidence'.

We have lately in this Forum been hearing about the existence of 'The Martyrium of St Mark' and what an important archaeological find it is, and what it proves........
Except for the minor problem that this 'find', has not really yet been found!
As of this day, the only 'evidence' for the existence of this Martyrium is what is related in a medieval manuscript, it has not yet been positively located, much less archaeologically investigated, nor the time period of any Christian employment of it actually established.

mountainman · 11-01-2010, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Mani is not who they says he is until there is enuf evidence to back it up lol.

Yes we are supposed to chose between on the one hand - what the Manichaean documents themselves say, what the opponents of the Manichaeans said and the analysis of countless qualified scholars who have studied the material for centuries.

Stephan's assertion claims the analysis of countless qualified scholars have studied the material for centuries is unquestionable, but such an assertion is immediately refuted on the introductory WIKI page for the Source Manuscripts on Mani. All sources available until very recently are very late hagiographical accounts.

This is exactly analogous to the source documents of the Gnostics, which only began turning up in large amounts with the Nag Hammadi Codices, published c.1970 widely. This is 40 years ago, not centuries. Please deal with the evidence itself, its provenance and most meticulously, with its estimated chronology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Mani and his Sources

Until the 20th century, no reliable information on Mani's biography was known. Such medieval accounts as were known, are either legendary or hagiographical, such as the account in Fihrist by Ibn al-Nadim, purportedly by al-Biruni, or anti-Manichaean polemics, such as the 4th century Acta Archelai. Among these medieval accounts, Ibn al-Nadim's account of Mani's life and teachings is generally speaking the most reliable and exhaustive. Notable in this account is the near-complete absence of the "Third Ambassador", who is merely mentioned with the name bašīr "messenger of good news", and the absence of the topos of "Mani the Painter" (which in other Islamic accounts almost completely replaces that of "the founder of a religion").[4]

In 1969 in Upper Egypt a Greek parchment codex of ca. 400 AD was discovered. It is now designated Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis because it is conserved at the University of Cologne. It combines a hagiographic account of Mani's career and spiritual development with information about Mani's religious teachings and contains fragments of his writings.

This very recent item of evidence is dated to the end of the 4th century, and I would like to know what is the oldest manichaean manuscript, or papyrus fragment that has been discovered, and what the text on such a manuscript discloses, or does not disclose.

The Chinese Manichaean literature is very late, and curiously seems to be somehow source-related to Nestorius in the Roman Empire of the early 5th century. As an aside, the controversy and hereticism was levelled at the arch-bishop of Constantinople for his written accounts, by the great Christian anathemetizer Cyril of Alexandria.

But all this is diversionary to the OP: Mani is most certainly an historical figure.

About Mani

He was a sage and author of a canon of texts and attracted many followers, who spread out into the Roman Empire (in Egypt and Rome) between the years of 242 and 276 CE - for a period of perhaps 30 years. He was executed c.276 CE after a change of political government in the Persian state, and his apostles and followers were severely persecuted. Diocletian persecuted the cult of the Manichaeans in the east (Egypt) at the end of the 3rd century, but the monasteries in Rome are not mentioned.

Mani comes across as a follower of Buddha. Coins minted in Persia by Shapur's brother Peroz mid 3rd century depict Buddha on the obverse. Academic assessment also points to Mani being some form of transmitter of Buddhist teachings. The sources being examined are still quite late - and between the earliest date of the sources that we do have (late 4th?) in regard to the writings of Mani and the Manichaeans, we have the rise of the Roman Christian state in the empire from c.324 CE -- the very same regime that was responsible for the preservation of polemical hagiographic accounts of Mani (eg: Socrates Scholasticus "Church History" - see WIKI for refs)

Hence the questions:

(1) Was Mani "Christianized"?
(2) Was Mani crucified?
(3) Had Eusebius read the "Gospel of Mani"?

(1) Was Mani "Christianized"?

Yes or no or perhaps?

(2) Was Mani crucified?

Yes or no or perhaps?

(3) Had Eusebius read the "Gospel of Mani"?

Yes or no or perhaps?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-01-2010, 04:40 PM	#12
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Waffle? magicman has presented an argument which dismisses all of the textual evidence related to Christianity before Nicaea in order to prove that there was no Christian religion before Nicaea. Mani is universally acknowledged to have presented himself as the Paraclete of Jesus and to have fulfilled an expectation set up by Jesus in the gospel narrative of the early Eastern Church (in the Diatessaron?). Mohammed is a much later figure to have claimed to have fulfilled this Paraclete expectation so the tradition was very real, very influential and far reaching outside of the Roman Empire. Mani lived before Nicaea. If magicman has any evidence to suggest that this understanding of Mani as the Paraclete (menachem) of Jesus is secondary to some other doctrine the onus is upon him and his disciples to provide that evidence. As it is - given his refusal to hear textual, archaeological and other evidence related to pre-Nicaean Christianity WITHIN the Roman Empire - Mani and Manichaeanism as it is universally understood by scholarship disproves his theory.

11-01-2010, 05:34 PM	#14
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Mani is who THEY say he is until y'all come up with a coherent argument to the contrary

11-01-2010, 07:40 PM	#19
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Big old problem that always comes up when dealing with Christianity, and the proponents of Christian 'history'. Some unknown in the 5th, 7th, or 11th century claims to have come across some otherwise unknown and unattested to manuscript, and provides 'quotations' with accompanying Christian arguments and rebuttals. and based upon this allegedly authentic 'testimony', the church's religious 'scholars' decide that this alleged but 'lost' and unavailable document presents true church history, and so incorporating it as being 'history', proving that this mysterious 'lost' manuscript actually existed way back in the 2nd or 3rd century. Provenanced by nothing more or other than such alleged 'evidence'. We have lately in this Forum been hearing about the existence of 'The Martyrium of St Mark' and what an important archaeological find it is, and what it proves........ Except for the minor problem that this 'find', has not really yet been found! As of this day, the only 'evidence' for the existence of this Martyrium is what is related in a medieval manuscript, it has not yet been positively located, much less archaeologically investigated, nor the time period of any Christian employment of it actually established.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.