Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Gnostic claims to Paul of Tarsus for PMCV

Expand Messages
  • Marina
    ... let ... hmmm..I will add something to this converstation, but it will have to wait until tomorrow, it is late and I have to get up early for work in the
    Message 1 of 12 , Mar 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Tsharpmin7@a... wrote:
      > Golly, that was long *lol*. I guess I should rest a bit here and
      let
      > other people jump in.
      >
      > PMCV
      >
      >
      > hi PMCV... yes, very long, and i've enjoyed every second. but,
      > PLEASE, someone else jump in here!
      >
      > your friend,
      >
      > Crispin Sainte III


      hmmm..I will add something to this converstation, but it will have to
      wait until tomorrow, it is late and I have to get up early for work
      in the morning.

      Marina
    • Mike Leavitt
      Hello pmcvflag ... Actually I have read somewhere that there are actual Manacheans still active in the Malabar part of India, original ones, not neos. How
      Message 2 of 12 , Mar 4, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello pmcvflag

        On 03/04/05, you wrote:

        > There is a new movement attempting to recreate Manichaeism (probably
        > a few). However, Manichaeans aren't technically Gnostic.
        >
        > Golly, that was long *lol*. I guess I should rest a bit here and let
        > other people jump in.
        >
        > PMCV

        Actually I have read somewhere that there are actual Manacheans still
        active in the Malabar part of India, original ones, not neos. How
        true to the original tradition they are at this point and how
        influenced by Hinduism (even the Packistani Sufis are), I don't know.

        Regards
        --
        Mike Leavitt ac998@...
      • elmoreb
        ... let ... Sure, Ill jump in ;) I was actually wrestling with the problems of Paul not long before this thread started. I think I mentioned it in my last
        Message 3 of 12 , Mar 4, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Tsharpmin7@a... wrote:
          > Golly, that was long *lol*. I guess I should rest a bit here and
          let
          > other people jump in.
          >
          > PMCV
          >
          >
          > hi PMCV... yes, very long, and i've enjoyed every second. but,
          > PLEASE, someone else jump in here!
          >
          > your friend,
          >
          > Crispin Sainte III

          Sure, Ill jump in ;) I was actually wrestling with the problems of
          Paul not long before this thread started. I think I mentioned it in
          my last thread.

          I was just looking at a few different versions of the Bible. I
          looked at 4 different translations: NIV, KJV, Revised standard
          edition, and the Darby version. The Revised Std didnt have any
          references to Gamaliel at all. The wording in the NIV and KJV seem
          to disagree on this matter.


          from the NIV Acts 22:3
          "I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in
          Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and
          taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers,
          and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. "

          It seems to attribute the city to Gamaliel, not Pauls education.

          from the KJV Acts 22:3

          "I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in
          Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and
          taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers,
          and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day."

          Sounds alot like he was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel. Seeing
          as how the KJV is nearly useless, I dont think I would pay it too
          much attention.

          I'm more willing to go with the NIV translation. As mentioned
          before, a student of Gamaliel wouldnt be out to quell
          the "Christian" uprising. On top of that, there isnt alot of
          information saying the he specifically persecuted followers of
          Christ. Acts says he persecuted people according to the jewish laws.
          If he WAS a student of Gamaliel, this wouldnt be too odd. Gamaliel
          was a lawyer so to speak ( according to acts) and it would make
          sense his student would also be in the same business. However, most
          Christians take this to mean that he persued the "Christians" at
          Damascus to bring them to Jerusalem to be punished. Which makes no
          sense, because Im fairly sure there were many more "Christians" in
          Jerusalem than Damascus at the time.

          Acts itself is a bit odd. It's most likely written by the same
          Author who wrote Luke. And its authenticity is proven by " the voice
          of tradition." Meaning that the orthodox Church agreed that it was
          authentic because it agreed with them. It also Coincided with the
          Gospels ( same writer as luke.. it better coincide). Which is the
          exact same reason the Gospels were chosen. Sounds like circular
          reasoning to me.

          Before I draw any conclusions, is there any extra-biblical evidence
          of Paul/Sauls travels?
        • elmoreb
          As a correction to my last post, the Revised std edition does mention gamaliel and it agrees with the NIV version. I was using a bible/version search and got a
          Message 4 of 12 , Mar 4, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            As a correction to my last post, the Revised std edition does
            mention gamaliel and it agrees with the NIV version. I was using a
            bible/version search and got a little careless :P My apologies.
          • pmcvflag
            Hey Mike Well, I was aware that Malabar was one of the later outposts, but last I heard it was still around the 1500s when they were last spotted there. If you
            Message 5 of 12 , Mar 5, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Hey Mike

              Well, I was aware that Malabar was one of the later outposts, but
              last I heard it was still around the 1500s when they were last
              spotted there. If you are talking about some new discovery that I
              had not heard about, I am unable to find anything about it.... and
              no one else I know seems to have heard about it either. Can you give
              us some more info? It would certainly be extremely interesting.

              PMCV

              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
              > Hello pmcvflag
              >
              > On 03/04/05, you wrote:
              >
              > > There is a new movement attempting to recreate Manichaeism
              (probably
              > > a few). However, Manichaeans aren't technically Gnostic.
              > >
              > > Golly, that was long *lol*. I guess I should rest a bit here and
              let
              > > other people jump in.
              > >
              > > PMCV
              >
              > Actually I have read somewhere that there are actual Manacheans
              still
              > active in the Malabar part of India, original ones, not neos. How
              > true to the original tradition they are at this point and how
              > influenced by Hinduism (even the Packistani Sufis are), I don't
              know.
              >
              > Regards
              > --
              > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
            • Mike Leavitt
              Hello pmcvflag ... I wish I could, but some guy at church was talking about a journal article he had read, and I was not part of the conversation. My older
              Message 6 of 12 , Mar 5, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Hello pmcvflag

                On 03/06/05, you wrote:

                >
                >
                > Hey Mike
                >
                > Well, I was aware that Malabar was one of the later outposts, but
                > last I heard it was still around the 1500s when they were last
                > spotted there. If you are talking about some new discovery that I
                > had not heard about, I am unable to find anything about it.... and
                > no one else I know seems to have heard about it either. Can you give
                > us some more info? It would certainly be extremely interesting.

                I wish I could, but some guy at church was talking about a journal
                article he had read, and I was not part of the conversation. My
                older son Tom may know something too. I'll cc: him in on this, just
                in case. Not being into Manacheanism that much, I did not retain
                much of what I heard or read about it.

                Regards
                --
                Mike Leavitt ac998@...
              • Thomas Leavitt
                Hmm... the Gnosis Archive has a page on Manicheanism that references it surviving up to the present century in the Orient .
                Message 7 of 12 , Mar 6, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hmm... the Gnosis Archive has a page on Manicheanism that references it
                  surviving up to the present century in the "Orient".

                  http://www.gnosis.org/library/manis.htmv

                  Unfortunately, I can't recall, at this point, exactly where I heard that
                  either.

                  It may not be correct... the Catholic Encyclopedia, which unfortunately
                  seems to be the primary source for most site's information about
                  Manicheanism, says that:

                  Within a generation after Mani's death his followers had settled on the
                  Malabar Coast and gave the name to Minigrama, ie "Settlement of Mani".

                  ... someone may have assumed that they continue to survive there.

                  This article,

                  Mani: Gnostic Prophet of Dualism
                  http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/040712mani.html

                  on a Mormon site of all things, says:

                  says: "Manicheism was most successful among the nomads of Central Asia,
                  where it was declared the official religion by the king of the Uigur Turks
                  in 762, and survived until the sixteenth century."

                  Unfortunately, without citing a source. However, the authors seem to be
                  reasonably authoritative.

                  According to this essay, "During the Yuan (Mongol) period Manichaeism
                  experienced something of a revival in China, only to be outlawed as a
                  heretical Buddhist sect under the Ming legal code of the fourteenth
                  century."

                  http://depts.washington.edu/uwch/silkroad/exhibit/religion/manichaeism/essay.html

                  the source cited here is (1) Richard Foltz, Religions of the Silk Road
                  (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999).

                  Another essay states:

                  "It survived in Southern China as the "Religion of the Venerable Light"
                  until the 17th century e.v."

                  http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/religion.htm

                  again, without footnoting a specific source (though a list is appended at
                  the bottom)

                  I dug farther, and found this item on Manicheanism in China (the Iranians
                  seem, logically enough, given the tradition's origin there, very eager to
                  claim Manicheanism as theirs, and to document its history).

                  It ends with this item (lots of good/interesting stuff before it):

                  http://www.iranica.com/articles/sup/Manicheism_in_China.html

                  The religion probably finally died out in the first decades of the
                  Twentieth Century. The temple on Hua-paio Hill, termed by the local
                  worshippers as a chao-an (ca'ao-an) i.e. a "thatched nunnery", is still
                  used as a Buddhist temple where Mani is worshipped as a Buddha with
                  special powers. UNESCO made the site of the Manichean chao-an a World
                  Heritage Site in 1991 as a unique relic of an extinct world religion.

                  There is a Manichean temple in Quanzhou, China, and this guy

                  http://www.amoymagic.com/Quanzhoupage.htm

                  claims that "the Persian Manichean religion survives today only in
                  Quanzhou", although it is not clear from other entries whether actually
                  means there are practicing Manicheans there... on the other hand, as a
                  resident foriegner, he appears as likely as any non-native to know that.

                  Other data:

                  Mani and Manichean seems to be a common word in India, without any direct
                  relation to the religious tradition of that name.

                  ... on balance, I can't find any evidence to support the conclusion that
                  there are Manicheans practicing today that have a direct line of
                  historical descent. On the other hand, the religion was very widespread,
                  Central Asia is still very much "off the grid", so who knows what may
                  survive in pocketes as a local traditionnnn that no Westerner has ever
                  become aware enough of to investigate?

                  Regards,
                  Thomas Leavitt

                  P.S. On a political note, here's an interesting rebuttal to claims that
                  Bush's worldview is "Manichean".

                  http://hnn.us/articles/7202.htm

                  This is kind of amusing... apparently, an author has listed Mani as the
                  world's 83rd most influental person in history (right ahead of Lenin).

                  > Hello pmcvflag
                  >
                  > On 03/06/05, you wrote:
                  >
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> Hey Mike
                  >>
                  >> Well, I was aware that Malabar was one of the later outposts, but last
                  >> I heard it was still around the 1500s when they were last
                  >> spotted there. If you are talking about some new discovery that I had
                  >> not heard about, I am unable to find anything about it.... and no one
                  >> else I know seems to have heard about it either. Can you give us some
                  >> more info? It would certainly be extremely interesting.
                  >
                  > I wish I could, but some guy at church was talking about a journal
                  > article he had read, and I was not part of the conversation. My
                  > older son Tom may know something too. I'll cc: him in on this, just in
                  > case. Not being into Manacheanism that much, I did not retain
                  > much of what I heard or read about it.
                  >
                  > Regards
                  > --
                  > Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                • lady_caritas
                  Thomas, thank you for all your research. I look forward to reading your information. Also, I ll correct and repost the first and last links from your reply
                  Message 8 of 12 , Mar 6, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thomas, thank you for all your research. I look forward to reading
                    your information.

                    Also, I'll correct and repost the first and last links from your
                    reply that I couldn't initially access:

                    http://www.gnosis.org/library/manis.htm

                    http://hnn.us/articles/7202.html

                    Thanks again!


                    Cari


                    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomas@t...>
                    wrote:
                    > Hmm... the Gnosis Archive has a page on Manicheanism that
                    references it
                    > surviving up to the present century in the "Orient".
                    >
                    > http://www.gnosis.org/library/manis.htmv
                    >
                    > Unfortunately, I can't recall, at this point, exactly where I heard
                    that
                    > either.
                    >
                    > It may not be correct... the Catholic Encyclopedia, which
                    unfortunately
                    > seems to be the primary source for most site's information about
                    > Manicheanism, says that:
                    >
                    > Within a generation after Mani's death his followers had settled on
                    the
                    > Malabar Coast and gave the name to Minigrama, ie "Settlement of
                    Mani".
                    >
                    > ... someone may have assumed that they continue to survive there.
                    >
                    > This article,
                    >
                    > Mani: Gnostic Prophet of Dualism
                    > http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/040712mani.html
                    >
                    > on a Mormon site of all things, says:
                    >
                    > says: "Manicheism was most successful among the nomads of Central
                    Asia,
                    > where it was declared the official religion by the king of the
                    Uigur Turks
                    > in 762, and survived until the sixteenth century."
                    >
                    > Unfortunately, without citing a source. However, the authors seem
                    to be
                    > reasonably authoritative.
                    >
                    > According to this essay, "During the Yuan (Mongol) period
                    Manichaeism
                    > experienced something of a revival in China, only to be outlawed as
                    a
                    > heretical Buddhist sect under the Ming legal code of the fourteenth
                    > century."
                    >
                    >
                    http://depts.washington.edu/uwch/silkroad/exhibit/religion/manichaeism
                    /essay.html
                    >
                    > the source cited here is (1) Richard Foltz, Religions of the Silk
                    Road
                    > (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999).
                    >
                    > Another essay states:
                    >
                    > "It survived in Southern China as the "Religion of the Venerable
                    Light"
                    > until the 17th century e.v."
                    >
                    > http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/religion.htm
                    >
                    > again, without footnoting a specific source (though a list is
                    appended at
                    > the bottom)
                    >
                    > I dug farther, and found this item on Manicheanism in China (the
                    Iranians
                    > seem, logically enough, given the tradition's origin there, very
                    eager to
                    > claim Manicheanism as theirs, and to document its history).
                    >
                    > It ends with this item (lots of good/interesting stuff before it):
                    >
                    > http://www.iranica.com/articles/sup/Manicheism_in_China.html
                    >
                    > The religion probably finally died out in the first decades of the
                    > Twentieth Century. The temple on Hua-paio Hill, termed by the local
                    > worshippers as a chao-an (ca'ao-an) i.e. a "thatched nunnery", is
                    still
                    > used as a Buddhist temple where Mani is worshipped as a Buddha with
                    > special powers. UNESCO made the site of the Manichean chao-an a
                    World
                    > Heritage Site in 1991 as a unique relic of an extinct world
                    religion.
                    >
                    > There is a Manichean temple in Quanzhou, China, and this guy
                    >
                    > http://www.amoymagic.com/Quanzhoupage.htm
                    >
                    > claims that "the Persian Manichean religion survives today only in
                    > Quanzhou", although it is not clear from other entries whether
                    actually
                    > means there are practicing Manicheans there... on the other hand,
                    as a
                    > resident foriegner, he appears as likely as any non-native to know
                    that.
                    >
                    > Other data:
                    >
                    > Mani and Manichean seems to be a common word in India, without any
                    direct
                    > relation to the religious tradition of that name.
                    >
                    > ... on balance, I can't find any evidence to support the conclusion
                    that
                    > there are Manicheans practicing today that have a direct line of
                    > historical descent. On the other hand, the religion was very
                    widespread,
                    > Central Asia is still very much "off the grid", so who knows what
                    may
                    > survive in pocketes as a local traditionnnn that no Westerner has
                    ever
                    > become aware enough of to investigate?
                    >
                    > Regards,
                    > Thomas Leavitt
                    >
                    > P.S. On a political note, here's an interesting rebuttal to claims
                    that
                    > Bush's worldview is "Manichean".
                    >
                    > http://hnn.us/articles/7202.htm
                    >
                    > This is kind of amusing... apparently, an author has listed Mani as
                    the
                    > world's 83rd most influental person in history (right ahead of
                    Lenin).
                    >
                  • pmcvflag
                    Hey Thomas, thanks for all the info. I am looking in to the Quanzhou angle to see whether this looks like perhaps a wide liguistic sweep (like the page
                    Message 9 of 12 , Mar 7, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hey Thomas, thanks for all the info. I am looking in to the Quanzhou
                      angle to see whether this looks like perhaps a wide liguistic sweep
                      (like the page concerning Bush's "Manichaeism" *lol*), or if there
                      is something more there. It would certainly be an important link,
                      and an interesting study.

                      PMCV

                      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomas@t...>
                      wrote:
                      > Hmm... the Gnosis Archive has a page on Manicheanism that
                      references it
                      > surviving up to the present century in the "Orient".
                      >
                      > http://www.gnosis.org/library/manis.htmv
                      >
                      > Unfortunately, I can't recall, at this point, exactly where I
                      heard that
                      > either.
                      >
                      > It may not be correct... the Catholic Encyclopedia, which
                      unfortunately
                      > seems to be the primary source for most site's information about
                      > Manicheanism, says that:
                      >
                      > Within a generation after Mani's death his followers had settled
                      on the
                      > Malabar Coast and gave the name to Minigrama, ie "Settlement of
                      Mani".
                      >
                      > ... someone may have assumed that they continue to survive there.
                      >
                      > This article,
                      >
                      > Mani: Gnostic Prophet of Dualism
                      > http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/040712mani.html
                      >
                      > on a Mormon site of all things, says:
                      >
                      > says: "Manicheism was most successful among the nomads of Central
                      Asia,
                      > where it was declared the official religion by the king of the
                      Uigur Turks
                      > in 762, and survived until the sixteenth century."
                      >
                      > Unfortunately, without citing a source. However, the authors seem
                      to be
                      > reasonably authoritative.
                      >
                      > According to this essay, "During the Yuan (Mongol) period
                      Manichaeism
                      > experienced something of a revival in China, only to be outlawed
                      as a
                      > heretical Buddhist sect under the Ming legal code of the fourteenth
                      > century."
                      >
                      >
                      http://depts.washington.edu/uwch/silkroad/exhibit/religion/manichaeis
                      m/essay.html
                      >
                      > the source cited here is (1) Richard Foltz, Religions of the Silk
                      Road
                      > (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999).
                      >
                      > Another essay states:
                      >
                      > "It survived in Southern China as the "Religion of the Venerable
                      Light"
                      > until the 17th century e.v."
                      >
                      > http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/religion.htm
                      >
                      > again, without footnoting a specific source (though a list is
                      appended at
                      > the bottom)
                      >
                      > I dug farther, and found this item on Manicheanism in China (the
                      Iranians
                      > seem, logically enough, given the tradition's origin there, very
                      eager to
                      > claim Manicheanism as theirs, and to document its history).
                      >
                      > It ends with this item (lots of good/interesting stuff before it):
                      >
                      > http://www.iranica.com/articles/sup/Manicheism_in_China.html
                      >
                      > The religion probably finally died out in the first decades of the
                      > Twentieth Century. The temple on Hua-paio Hill, termed by the local
                      > worshippers as a chao-an (ca'ao-an) i.e. a "thatched nunnery", is
                      still
                      > used as a Buddhist temple where Mani is worshipped as a Buddha with
                      > special powers. UNESCO made the site of the Manichean chao-an a
                      World
                      > Heritage Site in 1991 as a unique relic of an extinct world
                      religion.
                      >
                      > There is a Manichean temple in Quanzhou, China, and this guy
                      >
                      > http://www.amoymagic.com/Quanzhoupage.htm
                      >
                      > claims that "the Persian Manichean religion survives today only in
                      > Quanzhou", although it is not clear from other entries whether
                      actually
                      > means there are practicing Manicheans there... on the other hand,
                      as a
                      > resident foriegner, he appears as likely as any non-native to know
                      that.
                      >
                      > Other data:
                      >
                      > Mani and Manichean seems to be a common word in India, without any
                      direct
                      > relation to the religious tradition of that name.
                      >
                      > ... on balance, I can't find any evidence to support the
                      conclusion that
                      > there are Manicheans practicing today that have a direct line of
                      > historical descent. On the other hand, the religion was very
                      widespread,
                      > Central Asia is still very much "off the grid", so who knows what
                      may
                      > survive in pocketes as a local traditionnnn that no Westerner has
                      ever
                      > become aware enough of to investigate?
                      >
                      > Regards,
                      > Thomas Leavitt
                      >
                      > P.S. On a political note, here's an interesting rebuttal to claims
                      that
                      > Bush's worldview is "Manichean".
                      >
                      > http://hnn.us/articles/7202.htm
                      >
                      > This is kind of amusing... apparently, an author has listed Mani
                      as the
                      > world's 83rd most influental person in history (right ahead of
                      Lenin).
                      >
                      > > Hello pmcvflag
                      > >
                      > > On 03/06/05, you wrote:
                      > >
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >> Hey Mike
                      > >>
                      > >> Well, I was aware that Malabar was one of the later outposts,
                      but last
                      > >> I heard it was still around the 1500s when they were last
                      > >> spotted there. If you are talking about some new discovery that
                      I had
                      > >> not heard about, I am unable to find anything about it.... and
                      no one
                      > >> else I know seems to have heard about it either. Can you give
                      us some
                      > >> more info? It would certainly be extremely interesting.
                      > >
                      > > I wish I could, but some guy at church was talking about a
                      journal
                      > > article he had read, and I was not part of the conversation. My
                      > > older son Tom may know something too. I'll cc: him in on this,
                      just in
                      > > case. Not being into Manacheanism that much, I did not retain
                      > > much of what I heard or read about it.
                      > >
                      > > Regards
                      > > --
                      > > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.