stephan huller

I know but it seems so womanly to incessantly talk about yourself, your ideas and your beliefs in a public forum. ἀπάθεια is the only masculine ideal afforded us in the modern world. Squawking around promoting a theory's intrinsic worth merely because you came up with it is so effeminate. It seems utterly contemptuous - at least according to my aesthetic. But maybe I am wrong.

maryhelena

:banghead:

stephan huller

Mary Helena, it's like the song says:

If you want to say yes, say yes
And if you want to say no, say no
'Cause there's a million ways to go
You know that there are

And if you want to be me, be me
And if you want to be you, be you
'Cause there's a million things to do
You know that there are

Transient

What the heck?
You are nuttier than I first thought!
No wonder your theories are a bit way out.

stephan huller

From you that's a compliment Transvestient. What about all that stuff about you not liking to take out the man? I guess it's better than demonstrating your complete lack of knowledge to say anything about Mani and the topic at hand.

I am sorry but it does seem rather embarassingly degenerate to simply use this forum to promote a dogmatic belief system. It's even more embarassing when this dogmatic belief system was invented out of your own imagination. One can excuse those who were indoctrinated into a silly worldview. It's not so easy to do so when the enslavement to irrationality was entirely voluntary.

The point of the forum - I thought - was to engage in interesting discussions about a variety of topics. I think because there are so few people at this forum who actually have any real knowledge about ancient religion in all its forms things quickly degenerate into fixed positions associated with some of our least interesting members. Mary Helena wants to make the point that it is 'unfair' to Pete to nail down a specific date for Mani because that might hurt his theory. But he's the one that started this thread. He asked whether Mani might have been Christianized after his death. A few of us have stood up and said that there is absolutely no evidence to support this idea.

That doesn't mean it isn't true. It's just a very, very unlikely proposition.

There is a general tendency to feel sorry for Pete and that this forum should be a place where everyone can express their 'beliefs' and no one is right and no one is wrong. We all should help establish an echo chamber of imaginative ideas that have no basis in historical fact.

I think that is very effeminate. I think that characterization is accurate. If you want to establish a thread somewhere challenging my assertion that rigor and severity are typically conceived in literature up until the modern age as masculine virtues I would welcome it. I have never claimed to be politically correct. One of the most refreshing things that I found when I came over to the United States is that people speak their mind. There is a freedom of expression that I have learned to treasure. Political correctness never took hold here very deeply. I think women and men TRADITIONALLY engage in forums in very different ways. These things do remain true to some extent even today. There are of course great women scholars but in order to become great they have to rigorously and severly attack the weakness of their own theories and accept harsh criticism from detractors.

If this forum had as one of its rules that we have sit around holding hands while a number of uninformed participants propound irrational arguments I certainly wouldn't be here.

So the bottom line for me is. If you have absolutely nothing to add to the question of whether or not Mani was Christianized subsequent to his death - why don't you just keep your mouth shut? Why bother participating in a thread that you have absolutely no expertise.

The thread began with a question. I presume that the purpose of the thread is to answer this question with a 'yes' or 'no' rather than merely use every question as an opportunity to leave the door open for every ---- theory that comes into uninformed people's imaginations at this forum.

Surely there is a right and a wrong answer to each of the simple questions raised by mountainman:

was Mani Christianized - if you mean can all Mani's connection with Christianity by reduced a posthumous rewriting of history - no
was Mani crucified - probably not but his followers developed that line of argument anyway.
had Eusebius read Mani's Gospel - I don't think so but who cares?

maryhelena

Stephan

Below are my four posts to this thread. You will not find in them any reference to Pete or his theories. So - kindly retract your assertion, re your mind reading, that I ever wrote what you are stating above.

The point I was making was that you, Stephan Huller, are quite prepared to reject evidence that goes against your own theory re only one King Agrippa. ( ie the evidence of the Herodian coins that indicate that there was an Agrippa I and an Agrippa II). In so doing you are in no position to rain down condemnation against someone else, who for whatever reason, is questioning other ancient artifacts or documents. Sure, layout why you might want to disagree - but stop there. Don't let your disagreement get mingled up with efforts to chastise or browbeat someone for what you yourself are doing.

That was my point - it had nothing particularly to do with Pete.

Transient

"Transvestient"?????????????
Definition of transient:
"not lasting, enduring, or permanent; transitory, lasting only a short time; existing briefly; temporary"
Your word is bordering on a dam insult mate.
I have no time for transvestites or homosexuals for that matter and I don't like your inference.
There are many things that you have posted that you should be apologising for but that is beyond you - you are way to arrogant.

Sheshbazzar

Just to note;
These 'answers' represent Steven Huller's opinions and assertions.

Perhaps the fundamental problem with Stephan Huller's views on these matters is expressed most succinctly by Stephan himself in his final sentence;
"....but who cares?"
Rather obviously, not -him-, in being so arrogantly <self censored snip> disdainful and dismissive of questions, interpretations, views, and opinions of any poster not agreeing with, or kowtowing to his views.

Mountainman, (Pete) who opened this thread, is one who quite obviously cares, and cares enough to continue to endure and to ignore a lot of unjustified and uncalled for insinuations, put-downs, and verbal abuse.

And although it may come as an utter surprise to Stephan, there -are- other people participating within this Forum, who unlike him, DO CARE, and care very much to extensively discuss and seek substantive answers to these questions.

Stephan has quite succinctly stated his opinions, and desires no further discussion, dialog, or questioning of his opinions.
So now that we are all fully informed of Stephan's opinion, and apparently he has nothing more of any additional value to contribute, perhaps the discussion can move on with opinions of others who actually do 'care'.

If Stephan, or anyone else, doesn't 'care' to seriously discuss the questions, the issues, and any and all possible answers to the questions presented in the OP.
Then they are quite welcome to exit this particular discussion thread. ..........

Perhaps to open a thread on their own pet theory, as it appears that the real reason for posting in a thread, on matters that -they- don't 'care' about anyway is to...........Well, anyone who -cares-, can figure out the rest.
(After all, I didn't write it all out...so what wasn't written must not have existed,... right?)





.

stephan huller

I can defend my own theories at a thread specifically devoted to that subject. That should be obvious. The question of whether I am a nice guy or a kook has very little to do with the question at hand - whether Mani was Christianized after his death.

None of the usual geniuses at this forum have come up with a single argument to the contrary of the idea reflected in the earliest Manichaean literature - viz that Mani always claimed to be the menachem of Jesus. As such I consider the issue closed.

If anyone would like to develop a thread to challenge my hypothesis that the early Alexandrian cult of St Mark was connected with Marcus Agrippa I would welcome the opportunity to defend my theory.

As I see it Agrippa was likely the first person to claim to be the Paraclete of Jesus. Start the thread and I will explain why I was led to that conclusion.

Sheshbazzar

Its your own pet theory. You own it. You can pasture it, and feed it yourself.