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

Re: Peter, Paul and Mary! pt2

Expand Messages
  • ErnstStrohregenmantelrad
    >>>I never said there were any, nor that Manicheans *ARE* a continuation of Marcionites. Look at my statement again.<<< This is what
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 8 5:20 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      >>>I never said there were any, nor that
      Manicheans *ARE* a continuation of Marcionites. Look at my
      statement again.<<<<br><br>This is what you
      wrote.<br><br>>>>It can be argued that Manicheaism is simply a
      continuation of the Marcionite groups they came from (and
      completely absorbed. I'm aware of no evidence of Non -Mani
      Marcionites after the absorbtion)...<<<<br><br>And I
      say it can't not be argued. The key wording here is
      *simply*. Again, I will state that neither Marcionites nor
      Manichaeans were monolithic and static in time. One can't say
      simply this or that because it is not "simple" thing. If
      you take what you wrote at the face value we are then
      assuming many conjuctures and in turn ignoring many
      important data as well. In short it is an arguement NOT
      EVEN worth bring it up if one sees the total picture.
      The statement like that will only cause confusion to
      anyone who is not familiar with the field.
      <br><br>>>>And Cercumstantial (sic) 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".<<<<br><br> No, what you wrote was not allurement of
      anything. It is a speculation totally based upon the
      limited knowledge of the subject, not taken into accounts
      from the vast array of data. Really, your statement
      betrays reason for your accertion. "Manichaeans can be
      argued to be simple continuation of Marcinotes" All I'm
      saying is please tell WHY? UPON WHICH DATA THIS
      ASSERTION IS BASED UPON? You never came up with it. It was
      me that produced the (circumstantial) evidence (and
      even with that the case could ONLY be made about the
      Western Manichaeans NOT Manichaeans in whole.) Again your
      statement does state your ignorence on the subject as you
      pointed out that *you* didn't know any instance of
      non-Manichee Marcionites after "absorbtion" (but as I pointed
      out there were those group).<br><br>>>>
      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>No, I
      complain when people don't take the time to answer evey
      assertions that I made. I don't care what other interpret my
      argument as long as that person took my whole idea and
      every point in that argument. This is not true. Every
      so often people will only base their thought on
      partial point that I made. Pick and choose and quote me
      out of the context to suit their own argument. This
      is why I often state whether a person who's
      responding really did read my post complitely.<br><br>cont.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.