stephan huller

Shesh

Tertullian was a Montanist. Please don't tell me that some fourth century editor deliberately went out of his way to make Tertullian sound like a Montanist. This detective story has ceased to have any credibility a thousand pages ago.

There is no plausible reason on this earth why Eusebius would forge Tertullian, the father of Latin Christianity, into a Montanist OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT HE REALLY WAS A MONTANIST.

There are no surviving originals in the Jewish or Samaritan tradition. No original Torahs. No original writings of Isaiah, Daniel etc. The Mimar Marqe survives only in late manuscripts. By this logic these traditions too were invented out of scratch?

I am sorry if I lose track of which genius is associated with which bizarre misinterpretation of the evidence. The bottom line is that no one in their right mind would take the collective opinion of you folks over my grandmother's opinion of matters here. You can't just dismiss what the experts have to say WITHOUT FORMULATING SO MUCH AS A COHERENT ARGUMENT.

I cite Transi's interest in the truth here - Can you really claim that you really care to find out the truth about Mani?

The Manichaean evidence is the most compelling evidence we could possibly hope for. Pete has cited a book which attributes the existence of third century witnesses to Manichaeanism. Does he now take that back? Is this now an unreliable expert merely because he disagrees with the rest of Pete's master thesis?

Manicheanism was a development from contact with Marcionitism which must then have come before Mani. This should have ended a hundred posts ago were it not for the fact that the participants have no serious interest in the truth. No one could argue that Mani didn't claim to be the Paraclete if they were truthful witnesses. That's like claiming that George Washington wasn't the President of the United States.

Transient

My objections may annoy you but they are certainly not irrational.
Your huffy puffy pronouncments of the "truth" as you see it sound just like those of the people in christianity trying to force people to believe that and no doubt it is the same with the Jewish and muslim faiths.
I have heard all too often "Who are you to dispute what thousands of more learned scholars have found to be the case?" The bullying gets very tiring and looks so foolish after you stand up to it.
Unfortunately for you and the many others people trying to peddle their theories and religions, the next generation is going to want hard proof.
Even the crap about global warming due to Co2 is coming unravelled, but not before it has done enormous damage to the reputation of science.
Your expectation that we will somehow swallow your theories because they sound good is pathetic.
I do not trust the writings of human beings unless their is very very very good reason to do so - you have built your theories on sand - in the future they must be built on hard evidence or don't bother.
If you attack Pete because he has little evidence for his theory and yet your theories are also not backed by anything more believable.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
You don't need to knock down everybody else's sandcastle just to show how good yours looks - let it stand or fall on it's own merit.

stephan huller

As it stands not a single coherent argument (aside from avi's attempt to argue that because Mani's formulation wasn't Nicene - i.e. trinitarian - it wasn't 'real') has been put forward here. Just a lot of hatin' on the Lord as I noted before. I would argue that the haters should embrace Mani because it proves that the Catholic formulation wasn't the only possible one. Indeed it is difficult to argue whether the belief in Jesus Christ was older than the belief that Jesus came to announce someone else as his Christ. That should be invaluable to the haters.

Sheshbazzar

Steph, I have no reason to believe that 'Tertullian' was an actual anything.
Outside of 4th century Roman Catholic Church religious writings there is no evidence at all that there ever was such a person.
Not 'out of scratch' but certainly not as they are claimed to have came into being.
The Torah shows evidence of being composed 6th -7th C. BCE.
Ever heard of Deutero-Isaiah? Trito-Isaiah?
The book of Daniel pretends too be earlier, and the writing of 'the prophet Daniel', but internal evidence shows it late, and the hands of several 'Daniel's' at work.

Again just because a moldy old book claims to be something, that is no evidence that it -is- what it claims to be, or was actually written when, or by whom it is claimed to be written.
We don't buy that line of crap here.

Sheshbazzar

If this is valid of 'reasoning', you also accept the tradition and testimony of Joseph Smith and of his 'witnesses', along with the authenticity of The Book of Mormon.

Toto

I request that all of the participants take it down a notch.

Pete is the one asserting the proposition that Mani was Christianized. I think we should wait for him to come up with the evidence that he says he is examining.

stephan huller

Why should I distrust contemporary followers of Mani when they say that he said that he was the Paraclete of Jesus. Mani said so in his surviving literature. They said so in their reports about Mani. Even his opponents witness that Mani said these things.

How can anyone reject this kind of agreement in all our sources? These people hated one another. Why do they agree on the basic claims of Mani?

Sheshbazzar

Produce the original from Mani's hand, and perhaps you will have something tangible to talk about.
4th century Roman Catholic Church religious writings and polemic are nothing to hang your hat on.

Transient

Ok that is the second time we have been accused of "Just a lot of hatin' on the Lord".
Just what the heck do you mean? It certainly is rubbish but I will give you the option to apologize and defend that statement - the first time I let it go but not this time.
My apologies to Toto but this has gone way too far.
As to the OP - he merely asked questions and not as Stephan has said - he doesn't have to prove anything - this has been turned upside down on purpose and I smell a rat.

Transient

Exactly. It does not mean that what Stephan has said about Mani is not true it means that it just remains an unproven possiblility - like all these theories - they are possibilities and they vary a great deal in their probability.
Sometimes I wonder whether certain people have reputations to defend or achieve and they let that get in the way of good judgement - it certainly is the case in religions and some of these theories here seem to be held almost with religious fervour - something I find stupid and irrelevant and easy to see thru.