tanya

Hi Stephan!

Are you convinced that I quoted Lieu, "out of context"?

Let us suppose that you are correct, and Lieu does believe that Mani thought of himself as a follower of Jesus of Nazareth. I don't know what Lieu thinks.

But, let us suppose that Dr. Lieu does agree with your statement, Stephan, that Mani had been a Christian.

Some questions then:

First: Why did Lieu juxtapose Mani with Christians and Muslims, rather than acknowledge that Mani was actually a member of a sect within the Christian family?

Stephan!!!

Would ANYONE on this forum, any native speaker, write that sentence, if they wished to convey the notion that Mani was actually a Christian?

Wouldn't it be far more logical to write, instead?

"The geographic spread of the sectarian movement led by Mani, over the Eurasian land-mass rivaled that of Islam and THE OTHER Christian sects of that era."

Second: Why do you accuse me of quoting out of context?

Would it not be more polite, and indeed, more scholarly, to illustrate the supposed infraction on my part, by providing another quote of Dr. Lieu's which not only repudiates the quote I provided, but clarifies and supports your contention, that Dr. Lieu, notwithstanding anything he may have written, nevertheless, earnestly believes that Mani was a Christian?

Third: If Dr. Lieu does believe that Mani was a Christian, since Dr. Lieu specifically references the Tarim basin, and various regions of China, has he, or anyone else, found any THIRD century evidence of Christianity in any of those places which he claims, Mani either visited, or exerted an influence, perhaps via his followers?

Finally, if Mani had been some sort of Christian, then, surely, in those areas like the Tarim basin, and regions of China, referenced by Dr. Lieu, one ought to have some kind of artifacts: coins, graffiti, paintings, pottery, SOMETHING to demonstrate the physical presence of a third century Christian enclave, rather than simply a "Manichaein" movement. An authentic Christian emissary would certainly not have touted himself, but rather, the divinity of Jesus. Do we find PHYSICAL evidence of Christian beliefs anywhere in the area claimed, according to Dr. Lieu, to have been a focus of activity of Manichaeism?

Clearly?

What is clear?

Do you have some reference to Mani's writings that suggest his having adopted the ideas of Marcion? That strikes me, at least as most bizarre.

So far as I am aware, we possess neither Marcion's writings, nor Mani's. I fail to understand how you arrived at this "clear" conclusion. But, if you are correct, then, why would you refer to Mani, as a "Christian", for surely, Marcion was viewed as an heretic, not a Christian?

Is this something else taught by Dr. Lieu? Is there some kind of evidence for such a thought?

stephan huller

I don't know how to continue to take someone seriously who consistently brings forward ridiculous objections the way you do. Have you actually read Lieu's book or did you just do a Google search and landed on that reference?

tanya

or do you just make it up, as you go along?

Give us a quote, to show how I MISQUOTED Lieu, or, how I QUOTED OUT OF CONTEXT.

Otherwise, you are just spewing out hot air.

stephan huller

Lieu consistently identifies 'Christianity' as a term meaning the 'mainstream religion of Christianity' and it is how it is used here. There is chapter on Christian gnostic influences on Mani. I suggest you read it. It will be impossible for me to continue this discussion until you do. I finally found someone who makes mountainman seem like a breath of fresh air.

tanya

Gnostica, Judaica, Catholica

That's quite a trick, Stephan, for a third century Persian follower of Zoroaster, Mani, to appear in a second century Mesopotamian enclave of Mandeans, (Harran), and discuss a Jewish topic with Marcion, a second century heretic, expelled by both the Jews and the Christians.

stephan huller

tanya,

It is always a good idea to familiarize yourself with primary source material rather than adopt opinions through Google search.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0616.htm

tanya

Hi Jake.

Couple of questions for you. Was Mani a writer of Greek, as well as Persian? Was his native language Syriac? So, was he trilingual? What about Coptic? Did he know that too, Jake?

According to Dr. Lieu, I believe, if I am not mistaken, Mani wrote some book in Persian, and presented it to the monarch on the throne in Persia. How did he travel to Egypt? Wasn't that Roman occupied territory in those days?

But, even more surprising to me, is that Mani could write on a papyrus document in the fifth century, having died a couple centuries earlier.....

In other words, Jake, I don't believe one word of the "cologne codex".

Eusebius? Really, Jake? You are going to rely on what he has written about Mani?

Coptic translations? Greek translations? Not terribly convincing. Sorry. I am not a true believer. Show me the wound, Jake. I need the Persian or Syriac original, else, it is all fake until proven to the contrary.

tanya

Thank you Stephan.

Allow me to return the favor.

Still looking forward to your quote from Lieu, explaining how I quoted Dr. Lieu out of context.

tanya

Are you certain that "Acta Archelai" (at the web site of the Catholics, for which, you kindly furnished a link, with advice on seeking primary sources before posting to the forum) represents a "primary source", and not primary propaganda?

stephan huller

I am losing my patience with this. I have an ongoing correspondence with Iain Gardner who is as interested in Marcion as a background for Mani as I am. He co-authored this book with Lieu http://books.google.com/books?id=7ww...20mani&f=false. No one doubts that Mani thought that he was the fulfillment of a pre-existent Christian messianic expectation. He wasn't 'Christian' in the sense of believing in Joel Olstein or the Pope but Mani did believe and see himself as the fulfillment of the tradition of Jesus, Paul and the apostles. This is universally accepted among Manichaean scholars. You just haven't read enough.