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

Re: Peter, Paul and Mary! pt2

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    >>>First of all, where is the reference as to arguement that Manichaeism is simply a continuation of the Marccionite
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 6, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      >>>First of all, where is the reference
      as to arguement that "Manichaeism is simply a
      continuation of the Marccionite
      groups?"<<<<<br><br>I never said there were any, nor that Manicheans
      *ARE* a continuation of Marcionites. Look at my
      statement again.<br><br>>>>Even if in the West,
      Manichaeism absorbed the Marcionites population (and keeping
      in mind that that is only from the circumstantial
      evidence)<<<<br><br>And Cercumstantial evidence is in fact all I alluded
      to. YOu have written this whole series as if I had
      made some formal statement of a proven happening. I am
      very careful in my phrazing to say things like "It can
      be argued", "It has been postulated". Please Ernst,
      you are the first to complain when others assume a
      solidity to your arguements you don't intend.... son't do
      so to me.<br><br>>>>There is no such a
      thing as direct continuation of
      Hermetism.<<<<br><br>So what? Never said there was, and it is irrelevent
      to what I said.<br><br>>>>The question was
      more or less put to the rest by the Cologne Mani Codex
      verifiying the writing of
      al-Nad�m<<<<br><br>al_Nadim also states that Manicheans hated
      Jesus.<br><br>>>>Again if we are to take CMC at the face
      value<<<<br><br>*IF*, and how much legend should we take at face
      value?<br><br>>>>Gnostic Sethians (more on them later) and Valentinians
      came up with the cosmology within this matrix
      (supposely all on their own). Why not
      Mani?<<<<br><br>I don't believe ANY of them came up with the ideas
      on thier own. Why would I asuume such of Mani if not
      to Basilides who was before
      him?<br><br>>>>When you say "Sethian" there is STILL discrepency to
      what constitutes "Sethian."<<<<br><br>As I
      was the first in this club to point out, thank you
      very much.<br><br>>>Oort "Manichaeism" in
      _Gnosis and Hermeticism_ ed by van den Broek and
      Hanegraaff, p.37; Rudolf _Die Gnosis_ p.354 eng. edition
      p.329)<<<<br><br>Actually I thought most of this book was crap (with the
      exception of a few essays).<br><br>Anyways...... the main
      point comes down to this Ernst. I need not provide
      "sources" for things I state from the biginning are mere
      theoretic possibilities. Unlike the many socially retarded
      out there who simply ape scholastic dogma, I can
      actually make things up on my own and say "hmmm, what if?
      Well if it were true then!" etc. Please be more
      attentive to my statements of "It could be", they are a
      VERY important part of the English language that set
      the entire premise of all that follows. I simply took
      well known arguements like Cathar relation to the
      Bogimils (and even ones I disagree with like Marcionites
      and Manicheans as "Gnostics") and said "well, if it
      were true then ____ could proceed from this". Add to
      this certain things like the lack of evidence that
      Elkasites believed in a Gnostic cosmology (which, by the
      way, you sited no evidence for after insisting I do so
      on things that I only talk about the plausibility
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.