Sheshbazzar

I am not, and never have been arguing 'the idea that Christianity was manufactured by a fourth century conspiracy from scratch'
No, this is by no means over.

And it will not be 'over' until actual 3rd century -and- positively dated to -before 276 AD- Mani manuscripts are found, examined, and are indisputably -proven- to contain Christian sourced ideas, references, and 'Jesus Christ ' citations.

Neither Christian polemical, nor even actual 'Manichaen' late 3rd and 4th century documents can be counted as any actual evidence.

The witness -must- be contemporary first hand testimony.

And -until- this actual evidence is brought to light, it will remain an unresolved case.
Making assertions about what Mani believed or taught, at this time, is no more than boastfully blowing Christian generated smoke out yer ass.

This is not a life or death matter.
We know that the Christian religion has attempted to revise and to conceal the true facts of history.
There is no reason for any Skeptic to accept a Christian version of Manichaen 'history' BEFORE irrefutable -contemporary- (pre 276 AD) evidence is produced.

We Skeptic's are not the one making the unprovenanced claims, and are under no obligations to provide any 'plausible explanation' or any 'citation of supportive testimony' or produce any other such evidence. It is the responsibility of the party making the claim to have proof, to produce that proof.
Thus far you have miserably failed.

Skeptics reserve the right to wait until said eye-witness PROOF has been produced.
You got no contemporary witness or proof, You got no case.

If such -Corpus Delicti- is not ever found, or brought forth, the case remains open and unresolved.

Court is in recess until such time as credible -first hand witness- can be brought to the stand.


.

avi

Quite simply, this is perfectly written, and ought to be a sticky, for all forum members to read and acknowledge.

Outstanding. Thank you Shesh, and Pete, for such a terrific thread....

avi

stephan huller

Once again slapping each other on the back for collectively ignoring evidence. Don't you have any friends?

You asked me to provide evidence to demonstrate that Mani was Christian before Nicaea. That was not good enough to dispell your wishful thinking.
What is there left to do?

The testimony of third century manuscripts does nothing to shake your convictions (avi demonstrates this also by his continued "examination" of the third century Irenaeus fragment waiting perhaps until a fire or some natural disaster makes the physical evidence disappear).

Y'all remind me of Justin's quote that even if Jesus came down from heaven to testify his support for the heretics Justin wouldn't believe him

Oh the power of faith. Oh the uncertainty of reason.

Transient

Oh ye of little faith!
Let us all gather together and listen to our brother Stephan.
Who are we to question the wisdom of those placed in authority over us by god?
Who needs evidence - where is your faith Avi and Shez? Just believe on Stephan and you will be saved. Evidence is for the wicked and unfaithful.

I agree with Avi - that piece from Shez should be stickied, nailed to the front door and be mandatory reading here

stephan huller

I have found this a fascinating exercise. I don't understand the motivations of Shesh and Trans. My interest is in understanding how Pete and avi don't even have doubt about their hypothesis in the face of the third century evidence. The Ryland's Papyrus not only witnesses the incorrect Marcionite teaching of Paul on the issue of marriage, the author is a Christian bishop. No sensible explanation of Mani's own heretical literature has been forthcoming. No discussion about why Ephrem would not make reference to Mani's own heathen past if there was evidence to that effect. The early literature associated wih Mar Ammo.

Is there a magic number of third century witnesses that have to be produced in order for these TWO people to recant from their views or is their faith so strong that NO ARGUMENT, no amount of evidence would disuade them from their position?

This would illustrate quite clearly that there is no point engaging them in any discussion because they are only interested in putting forward a dogma. The two of them should start their own board - the 'fourth century conspiracy' discussion group.

As I said avi is still 'mulling over' the third century Irenaeus fragment. Now there is the Ryland's Papyrus. There is all the evidence that survives as a copy of the lost original from the second and third centuries.

Again is there a magic number we have to reach in order for them to abandon this untenable historical conspiracy theory or are they just here to put forward and agenda?

Sheshbazzar

The old 'divide and conquer' tactic won't work this time Stephan, we have seen it played out too many times, and are not falling into your net. (Pro 1:17)
Mountainman, avi, and anyone else here is equally entitled to their opinions, right or wrong.

You can preach and shout your 'Christian history' rhetoric as loud and as long as you want, till you croak of apoplexy, You can cite the works of five hundred 'experts',
but no one here is under any obligation to accept either your or their claims.
You are not proving your case by endless repetitions. You haven't persuaded us, and you will not persuade us unless you produce -contemporary evidence-.

Produce genuine Mani manuscripts or other -contemporary- witness conclusively dated to -before 276 AD-,
That is the evidence that you need to establish the validity of your claims.
Nothing less will do.

stephan huller

When I lump you all together you say I misrepresent you individually each of you claim that I am not appreciating the complexity of your respective positions. When I identify two people who accept the fourth century conspiracy theory suddenly you are all brothers.

Your interest should be with uncovering the truth but then again that's not something that someone that would reject third century evidence from Egypt would want to be told.

Why is that evidence unacceptable other than it contradicts the stated opinion of one of your friends?

stephan huller

I'm just trying to understand your argument against the third century evidence. If I was investigating whether Germans actually killed Jews and gypsies during WWII are you suggesting that if I couldn't produce German documents acknowledging that there was a Holocaust it would be fair to claim that the 'jury is out' with regards to whether it actually happened? There's enough evidence to prove that Mani claimed to be the Paraclete of Jesus.

stephan huller

Hi Professor Gardner (iain.gardner@sydney.edu.au):

I am sorry to bother you with a request which you will certainly feel is quite idiotic but I happen to be a member of a discussion board where your name has come up quite frequently in an week long conversation about Mani. There are three or four distinguished participants in this forum who are convinced that Manichaeanism only became Christianized after the death of Mani. Now I have to say right at the start that these people collectively might have as much as ten minutes of exposure to the writings related to Mani. Their opinions, in my estimation come from a desire to disprove Christianity as some 'made up religion' manufactured under the influence of Constantine.

Now you might wonder why I would bother to engage people who are capable of such an unlikely conspiracy theory. The truth is that I don't know what my own motivations are. I am interested in Mani only for his connection with Marcionitism and my belief that Mani is a dimuntive of menachem (a phenomenon witnessed in the rabbinic literature and confirmed by one of my dearest friends Professor Ruairidh Boid of Monash University). Indeed I happen to have relatives with the surname Menachem who are called 'Mani' or 'Meni' to this day (the phenomenon goes back to two Amorim named Mani I and Mani II).

In any event,. I know how busy you must be and how annoying my request for your expertise might appear, but I do think the fact that you are Australian more than anything else might appeal to the sensibilities of thes participants (who happen to be from your country). Any appeal to rational thought and likely probabilities certainly seems to have failed thus far.

They certainly aren't interested in the Ryland's papyrus (apparently because it isn't a third century witness from the Manichaeans themselves).

My question to you would be if you happened to be in a bar and a couple of drunken sailors asked you to prove what evidence from the Manichaean writings themselves proves that Mani actually claimed to be the Paraclete of Jesus or indeed had some association with Christianity what evidence would you point to you?

My knowledge of Manichaean literature is quite general. I have pointed to the Acts of Archelaus but the conflicting evidence of 'nearly three hundred' and 'more than three hundred' years from Jesus to Mani has these people in a tizzy. You would obviously have a much better idea where the evidence stands from within Manichaean community and whether any evidence can prove beyond the ability of someone to avoid it, that Mani was exactly the person described in the fourth and fifth century documents.

In case you want to see how I waste my time on weekends and late evenings the Manichaean discussion thread is here:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....287467&page=15

Thank you so much for taking the time to read this rather inane request.



Sincerely



Stephan Huller

Sheshbazzar

That is your assertion, that is not a material FACT.
It may become a FACT, IF and when -contemporary- material evidence is presented.
Until then you are only asserting a theory.
That theory may well be the strongest and most likely one, but it remains only a theory until actual material evidence conclusively from 276 AD or earlier is presented.

Your German documentation analogy is utterly inane, as there IS copious -contemporary- eye witness, and tangible physical evidence for the Holocaust.
Exactly what you are lacking to prove the validity your contentions and assertions.