stephan huller

That's exactly right Shesh and that's the very reason why I have not referenced the evidence to support the idea that the Semitic Christian interest in the menachem was started by Marcus Agrippa in the thread. The question is whether there is any evidence to support Pete's contention that we shouldn't believe the earliest Manichaean documents which emphatically put forward that Mani was the Paraclete of Jesus. No one has come up with any evidence to suggest the contrary. No expert in the field of Manichaean studies has ever doubted for a moment that Mani really did believe and claim these things or that they were believed and claimed by Manichaeans in the late third century. As such the argument stands and Pete's initimation that we should some how 'suspend' judgment should be (and will be) ignored.

stephan huller

I will say however that when speculating WHERE the Marcionite, Manichaean and Muslim idea that Jesus DID proclaim the coming of a messiah beside himself (cf. Origen's two advent theory as well as that of Justin, Clement etc) it would stand to reason that this idea went back as far as the Marcionite gospel. Whoever the Marcionites thought Paul was - and whether or not he was one and the same with 'Marcion' - will have a very important effect on the discussion.

In other words, the Marcionite apostle - whoever he was - must have claimed that Jesus heralded HIS advent as the messiah (menachem being a messianic title which interestingly has the gematria interestingly of tsemach). It would stand to reason that the consistent Marcionite emphasis that Jesus was not the messiah predicted by the Law and the prophets was explained that their apostle WAS the one who heralded by the Law and the prophets. Jesus after all was 'Chrestos.' The apostle must have been Christos.

This establishes a very important framework to help us identify who the historical Marcionite apostle was (and precursor of Mani). He must have been someone who lived up to the traditional Jewish expectations of what a messiah WOULD appear like in 'real historical space and time' (unlike the traditional Christian waffle about Jesus being 'another kind of messiah').

Sheshbazzar

Well then ignore it if that suits you. You have now had your say, call it a day.
I'll be glad to examine the basis of your pet theories and claims in a thread devoted to them.

Issues in this thread, that you consider as closed, may well be closed to you, and closed as far as you are concerned.
That however does not entail that these issues are closed to others whose questions have not been satisfied by your assertions.
You have presented your views, and assert it is a closed issue to you.
No one is forcing you to participate in any further discussion of matters pertaining to the OP.
This is mountainman's thread, I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to hijack it as a vehicle to promote your pet theory.

stephan huller

But if you were to engage a Christian believer on the subject of WHETHER IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE that Jesus could fly through the clouds in an angelic chariot claiming to be the Son of Man and he said to you 'well the issue isn't disproved' you'd take him to task to clinging on to an irrational faith.

I find it strange that you guys can't even muster so much as A SINGLE ARGUMENT in favor of the proposition that Mani might have been Christianized after his death. NOT A SINGLE ARGUMENT THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH CONSPIRACY WITHIN (or without) MANICHAEANISM WHICH WOULD ACCOUNT FOR MANI APPEARING TO CLAIM THAT HE WAS THE PARACLETE OF JESUS.

Avi, thought we were talking about the Parakeet of Jesus. I doubt you are any better informed. Pete I know hasn't a clue what he is talking about. Transient, well that's another story entirely. Mary Helena doesn't even try to venture an opinion on the topic because all she does is promote her own theories and a general belief in the 'mythical Jesus.'

But nothing - absolutely nothing - of any substance has been put forward by anyone. What you have is a bunch of haters hatin' on the Lord (as they say).

And by the way all the silly references to Cat Stevens, misogyny and the like - all the jokes - are just put out there because it is so utterly boring to have a discussion about SOMETHING OF SUBSTANCE with people who know absolutely NOTHING about ANYTHING RELATED TO THE SUBJECT. Why don't you people just learn to finish a book from end to end instead of just cherry picking arguments to suit your own prejudices?

I doubt that any of the esteemed men of the academy have so much as read a single book - let alone article - on the Manichaeans or Mani or Semitic Christianity or even the meaning of the word Paraclete in Aramaic (at least avi is honest). How then the radical voices all squawking in unison that 'maybe' Mani might have been Christianized? Could it be that these opinions ALWAYS develop from ignorance? Could it be that these people never have a clue what they are talking about. Me thinks so.

Sheshbazzar

<edit>

stephan huller

I am still waiting for a single rational argument for the claim that Mani's claims about being the menachem of Jesus were made up by a bunch of white people.

avi

So we have a guy, a gnostic, apparently well educated in three languages, including Greek, Persian, and his native language, Syriac.
Further, he is well acquainted, apparently, with both the Silk Route, and Buddhism, implying a knowledge of Sanskrit.

His teachings apparently angered several powerful groups:
1. Persians (Zoroastrianism), they killed him, in the end, though we observe many elements of zoroastrianism in his religion;
2. Romans: he evidently did not accept the Roman/Greek mythological "gods".
3. Jews: That he even read about the teachings of Siddhartha, would condemn him as heretic, in Jewish eyes.
4. Christians: such as they were, in the second century.....Mani would have been another "heretic" in their eyes.

Mani had no need to be a παράκλητος of the nascent Christian religion, a force which, in his time, in the third century, CE, was of insignificant magnitude, particularly, in his neck of the woods, Tigris River basin, modern day Baghdad.

Moreover, the term παράκλητος, really had no relevance in Mani's era. But Trinitarianism was the hot point on the Christian agenda during the early decades of the fourth century, three quarters of a century after Mani's death.

In modern terms, this would be comparable to explaining the Civil War in the USA, in terms of the need to grant women the right to vote. The hot button issue in 1850's in USA was SLAVERY, not female suffrage--an issue which did not gain momentum until five or six decades after the end of the Civil War.

In my opinion, any claim that Mani's writings reference some aspect of trinitarian doctrine, ought to be viewed with extreme skepticism.

avi

stephan huller

Thank you avi

That was the first attempt at an argument. The problem is that you are following the Catholic definition of the term which follows from a misrepresentation of the original Aramaic.

Menachem was always a messianic title. The Jews used the term that way and Mani spoke Aramaic rather than Greek.

The Marcionite community at Osrhoene already applied the messianic meaning to Paul. Mani's appearance there was to apply the term to himself.

Your presumption that the Catholic terminology was universally appliird at the time is explicitly refuted by the Marcionites as well as the Montanists already in the mid second century

stephan huller

Cyril of Jerusalem also makes explicit that the Marcionites rejected the trinity. This seems to have been passed on to all menachem claimants especially Mohammed. Familiarize yourself with the anti-Trinitarian arguments of early Islam

Transient

Well I hope your ability to read and absorb information is better than what you display here. It was me not Avi that introduced the word parakeet lol.
I was so sick of your arrogant and abusive words that I joked using the word parakeet (a flaming bird here mate) to lighten things up a bit.
Stone the crows mate but you are a piece of work aren't you. We may not all be as highly versed in these thin gs as you but we can smell a rat better than you and at least we read and absorb stuff better than you.
So far you have provided nothing at all to establish that Mani was associated with christianity - anything that is that was not written way after his life time.
I couldn't give a crap whether he was or wasn't - you see, unlike you, I don't have a pet theory at all. I am here to actually try to understand what really happened back then not to develop or defend some particular theory.
As regards our knowledge - knowledge isn't all there is mate - logical analysis is equally important and that seems to be quite often missing amongst people who think they know it all.
Have a nice day.