Mani-Apostle of Jesus Christ

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

I think Augustine always wanted to be a Christian.

I think so. He was certainly a restless seeker.

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

I don't think he saw Mani as non-Christian.

I fail to see how he could not see otherwise.

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

The Manicheans are/were the underdogs in all of this. They were the ones who were exterminated by the Roman church and other movements. In fairness to them, we should give them more "air time".

This is very poor scholarship. bordering on typical propaganda — there was no 'Roman church' at the time of Augustine, the Church of that era was dominated by Alexandrian thought and Greek authority for another 150 years. The 'Latin Fathers' were a minority ...

But on Mani, as I understand it:
— He proclaimed himself the Paraclete promised by Jesus;
— He rejected the Hebrew Scriptures;
— He accepted some Christian Scriptures that suited him;
— He rejected the Acts of the Apostles, because it identifies the Paraclete;
— He rejected the Incarnation as the Son of God — rather he was an aeon;
— He rejected the historical Jesus of Nazareth entirely as:
a — "The son of a poor widow"
b — "the Jewish Messias whom the Jews crucified"
c — "a devil who was justly punished for interfering in the work of the Aeon Jesus"
— His Christology is purely Docetic.

I fail to see, such being the case, how any contiguity between Christianity and Manichaenism can be maintained.

Similarly, if one throws out the Old Testament, picks selectively from the New, then one can present any doctrine you fancy as 'Christian'.

Thomas

[Bruce Michael]

Hi Br.Thomas,
>This is very poor scholarship. bordering on typical propaganda — there >was no 'Roman church' at the time of Augustine, the Church of that era >was dominated by Alexandrian thought and Greek authority for another >150 years. The 'Latin Fathers' were a minority ...

The persecutions did continue into the 12th and 13th centuries, whether the movements were called Cathar or Albigenses- both of which were identified with the Manichees.

In the seat of Rome:

St Gregory the Great, {64th P.} thought it wrong to force people into Faith:

* In the same letter which orders the severe persecution of Manicheans, he directs Jews to be attracted to the faith,

>But on Mani, as I understand it:
>— He proclaimed himself the Paraclete promised by Jesus;

Yes, I will comment on that later.

>— He rejected the Hebrew Scriptures;
>— He accepted some Christian Scriptures that suited him;

Some groups did reject the Old Testament. The Bible certainly was not in the state we know it today. The Ebionites, for instances just followed the Gospel of Matthew.

>I fail to see, such being the case, how any contiguity between >Christianity and Manichaenism can be maintained.

One mustn't confuse later movements with the original teachings.
Scholars are still trying to piece together what historical records we have.

For example:
The Manichaean Body: In Discipline and Ritual
Jason Beduhn

Format: Hardcover, 354pp.
ISBN: 0801862701
Publisher: Johns Hopkins University Press
Pub. Date: April 2000

Synopsis
Extinct since the 14th century, the ancient religion of Manichaeism, once extended from western Europe to China. BeDuhn (religion, Northern Arizona U.) attempts to reconstruct the Manichaean disciplinary and ritual complex as a system and explain how the Manichaeans interpreted this system from the viewpoint of their own cultural moment. He argues that the reconstruction of such ritual as the daily sacred meal (a variation of which still exists in Zoroastrian practice) reveals charges of gnosticism and other popular conceptions of Manichaeism to be false. Annotation c. Book News, Inc., Portland, OR

From the Publisher
Reconstructing Manichaeism from scraps of ancient texts and the ungenerous polemic of its enemies (such as the ex-Manichaean Augustine of Hippo), BeDuhn reveals for the first time the religion as it was actually practiced. He describes the Manichaeans' daily ritual meal, their stringent disciplinary codes (intended to prevent humans from harming plants and animals), and their surprising religious procedures designed to transform the cosmos and bring about the salvation of all living beings." "BeDuhn's conclusions revolutionize our understanding of the Manichaeans, clearly distinguishing them from Gnostics and other early Christian heretics and revealing them to be practitioners of a unique world religion. Along the way, he argues for the priority of practice over doctrine in determining religious identity, raises central questions about the modern methods of studying religions, and proposes ways to address the challenge of conveying ancient and alien realities to the modern world.

So you see it is distinct from Gnosticism.


>Similarly, if one throws out the Old Testament, picks selectively from the >New, then one can present any doctrine you fancy as 'Christian'.

Christianity has its foundation in Christ, not books.

Cheerio,
Br.Bruce

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

The persecutions did continue into the 12th and 13th centuries...

That's what I mean ... you're talking about the 3rd century, then into the 13th, jumping a millenia without informing your reader, which allows for all manner of erroneous assumption.

wiki:
"The extent of influence that the Manichaeans actually had on Christianity is still being debated ... It has been suggested that the Bogomils, Paulicians, and the Cathars were deeply influenced by Manichaeism. However, the Bogomils and Cathars, in particular, left few records of their rituals or doctrines, and the link between them and Manichaeans is tenuous."

In making such statements, people like Steiner do not follow academic practice, but assume a similar authority. This allows one to make fast and loose suggestions, implications and allusions which, in the course of normal academic and philosophical practice, one would be obligfed to validate.

to continue:
"Regardless of its historical accuracy the charge of Manichaeism was levelled at them by contemporary orthodox opponents, who often tried to fit contemporary heresies with those combatted by the church fathers."

So I readily admit that the accusers likewise 'stretch the point'.

"The Paulicians, Bogomils, and Cathars were certainly dualists and felt that the world was the work of a demiurge of Satanic origin (Cross), but whether this was due to influence from Manichaeism or another strand of Gnosticism is impossible to determine."

Of course, Steiner can insist on anything he chooses, because he is not obliged to show evidence for his theses.

"Only a minority of Cathars held that the evil god (or principle) was as powerful as the good god (also called a principle) as Mani did, a belief also known as absolute dualism. In the case of the Cathars, it seems they adopted the Manichaean principles of church organization, but none of its religious cosmology. Priscillian and his followers apparently tried to absorb what they thought was the valuable part of Manichaeaism into Christianity."

In short I would suggest that wherever one sees dualism, one also sees Manichaenism, which is far from the case, but a very easy interpretation to make amongst an audience not fully informed.

In short I think the presentation of material relies on the ignorance of the reader, rather than the argument of the thesis itself.

But on Mani, as I understand it:
He proclaimed himself the Paraclete promised by Jesus;

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Yes, I will comment on that later.

No need to. 'Yes' is enough to place him outside Christian doctrine. However he chooses to define 'paraclete' is immaterial, except when he assumes that such is what Christ meant, in which case he is wrong.

He rejected the Hebrew Scriptures;
He accepted some Christian Scriptures that suited him;

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Some groups did reject the Old Testament.

Yes they did. So do Jews, Buddhists, etc., but mainstream Christianity didn't, and that's my point.

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

The Bible certainly was not in the state we know it today. The Ebionites, for instances just followed the Gospel of Matthew.

Another example of a group with its own agenda.

This does not validate Mani as a Christian, rather it shows him among those who chose to believe other than the Apostolic Message. You can't defend one by showing others made the same or similar mistakes.

I fail to see, such being the case, how any contiguity between Christianity and Manichaenism can be maintained.

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

One mustn't confuse later movements with the original teachings.
Scholars are still trying to piece together what historical records we have.

But we know enough to know that Mani was not a Christian in any sense other than lip service.

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

For example:
The Manichaean Body: In Discipline and Ritual

Your quotes present manichaenism as a religion, which I do not dispute. All I'm saying is that it is not Christian.

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

So you see it is distinct from Gnosticism.

But has many gnostic tendencies — there was no such thing as 'Gnosticism' as a Doctrine, that was a catch-all invented by German theologians in the 19th century. There were numerous dualist sects which borrowed from hither and yon with an eclectic disregard for philosophy to a greater or lesser degree. Some were pseudoChristian, some were not ... but if they share anythig in common, it is dualism, and Manichaenism is dualistic.

Similarly, if one throws out the Old Testament, picks selectively from the New, then one can present any doctrine you fancy as 'Christian'.

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Christianity has its foundation in Christ, not books.

Christianity has its foundation in the Immanent Trinity, the Incarnation, and Apostolic Tradition ... any departure from Apostolic Tradition is a departure from Christianity ... and Mani's departure is evident, and his reasoning.

Whatever it is, it's self-serving syncretism, I think every source I've looked at implies as much.

Thomas

[Bruce Michael]

Hi Thomas,

>But on Mani, as I understand it:
>He proclaimed himself the Paraclete promised by Jesus;

Yes that makes Mani the representative of the redeemed Lucifer. This is the "Holy Spirit"- the pentecost spirit identified by Steiner, not the Holy Spirit of the Trinity. Lucifer and all other adversarial spirits can only live within the Holy Spirit- all life is encompassed by it.

Here is his quote:
Deed of Christ: Lecture 2: The Deed of Christ and the Opposing Spiritual Powers. Lucifer, Ahriman, Asuras.

"That man is capable of this, that he is capable of understanding Christ, that Lucifer, resurrected in a new form, can unite with Christ as the good Spirit — this, as prophecy still, was told by Christ Himself to those around Him, when He said: “Ye shall be illumined by the new Spirit, by the Holy Spirit!” This “Holy Spirit” is none other than the Spirit through whom man can apprehend what Christ has wrought. Christ desired not merely to work, but also to be apprehended, to be understood. Therefore the sending of the Spirit by whom men are inspired, the sending of the “Holy spirit”, is implicit in Christianity.

"In the spiritual sense, Whitsuntide belongs inseparably to Easter. This “Holy Spirit” is none other than the Lucifer-Spirit, resurrected now in
higher, purer glory — the Spirit of independent understanding, wisdom-inwoven. Christ Himself foretold that this Spirit would come to men
after Him, and in the light of this Spirit their labors must proceed. What
is it that works onward in the light of this Spirit? The world-stream of
spiritual science, if rightly conceived! What is this spiritual science? It
is the wisdom of the Spirit, the wisdom that lifts into the full light of
consciousness that in Christianity which would otherwise remain in the
unconscious. The torch of the resurrected Lucifer, of the Lucifer now
transformed into the good, blazons the way for Christ. Lucifer is the bearer
of the Light — Christ is the Light! As the word itself denotes, Lucifer is
the “Bearer of the Light”. That is what the spiritual scientific movement
should be, that is implicit in it. Those who know that the progress of
mankind depends upon living apprehension of the mighty Event of Golgotha are they who as the “Masters of Wisdom and of the Harmony of Feelings” are united in the great Guiding Lodge of mankind. And as once the “tongues of fire” hovered down as a living symbol upon the company of the apostles, so does the “Holy Spirit” announced by Christ Himself reign as the Light over the Lodge of the Twelve. The Thirteenth is the Leader of the Lodge of the Twelve. The “Holy Spirit” is the mighty Teacher of those we name the “Masters of Wisdom and of the Harmony of Feelings”. It is through them that his voice and his wisdom flow down to mankind in this or that stream upon the earth. The treasures of wisdom gathered together by the spiritual scientific movement in order to understand the universe and the Spirits therein, how through the “Holy Spirit” into the Lodge of the Twelve; and that is what will ultimately lead mankind step by step to free,
self-conscious understanding of Christ and of the Event of Golgotha Thus to ‘cultivate’ spiritual science means to understand that the Spirit has been
sent into the world by Christ; the pursuit of spiritual science is implicit
in true Christianity. "

I think we can say that possibly our Mani is "thirteenth" and the Leader of the Lodge of the Twelve.

We find in "Parzifal" that his mother, the pregnant Herzeleide, nurses a young dragon in a dream:

"For she did nurse a dragon, that
forth from her body sprung,
And its dragon-life to nourish awhile
at her breast it hung,
Then it fled from her sight so swiftly.."

This is how the redeemed Lucifer Spirit, Mani, appears to his new mother.

Of course it had to be. The ultimate redemption of Evil through Good appears in Mani himself.

The Manichaean faith spread throughout the countries once covered by Mithraism throughout the Mediterranean and Asia and eventually China to North Africa, Spain, and Southern France.

Mani was given the title 'The Seal of the Prophets' . He was also called the Bagh, or the Lord to succeed Mithras. This is a Persian name, the word "Bagh-dad" meaning: "Given by God".

This is interesting because in consideration of him being the incarnation of the Paraclete (the holy spirit), whom Jesus promised to send as his successor to guide and care for and comfort us.

Also, to the Buddhists he was believed to be the incarnation of Amithaba Buddha, the Buddha of the land of light.

The extant works we have are still in bits and pieces. The Book of Giants has a connection with the Book of Enoch. I am interested also in the teaching of the four elements in the Gospel of Mani.

I believe that there were about seventy sects of varied belief. Steiner states that the Lucifer-Gnostic teachings were not the original teachings of Mani.

Another name for the Holy Spirit is the Bride of Christ, whose name is Sophia. This is discussed in Steiner's lectures on St.John. He also discusses the Pistis Sophia there.

The Holy Ghost is also implicated in the birth of Jesus:
Matthew 1:18

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

So "Holy Spirit" has more than one meaning.

>Your quotes present manichaenism as a religion, which I do not dispute. >All I'm saying is that it is not Christian.

Manicheanism reincarnated as Grail Christianity.

>any departure from Apostolic Tradition is a departure from Christianity ... >and Mani's departure is evident, and his reasoning.

Mani did say he was an Apostle of Jesus Christ.


Hearty Greetings,
Br.Bruce

[Bruce Michael]

Hi Thomas,

>But on Mani, as I understand it:
>He proclaimed himself the Paraclete promised by Jesus;

Yes that makes Mani the representative of the redeemed Lucifer. This is the "Holy Spirit"- the pentecost spirit identified by Steiner, not the Holy Spirit of the Trinity. Lucifer and all other adversarial spirits can only live within the Holy Spirit- all life is encompassed by it.

Here is his quote:
Deed of Christ: Lecture 2: The Deed of Christ and the Opposing Spiritual Powers. Lucifer, Ahriman, Asuras.

"That man is capable of this, that he is capable of understanding Christ, that Lucifer, resurrected in a new form, can unite with Christ as the good Spirit — this, as prophecy still, was told by Christ Himself to those around Him, when He said: “Ye shall be illumined by the new Spirit, by the Holy Spirit!” This “Holy Spirit” is none other than the Spirit through whom man can apprehend what Christ has wrought. Christ desired not merely to work, but also to be apprehended, to be understood. Therefore the sending of the Spirit by whom men are inspired, the sending of the “Holy spirit”, is implicit in Christianity.

"In the spiritual sense, Whitsuntide belongs inseparably to Easter. This “Holy Spirit” is none other than the Lucifer-Spirit, resurrected now in
higher, purer glory — the Spirit of independent understanding, wisdom-inwoven. Christ Himself foretold that this Spirit would come to men
after Him, and in the light of this Spirit their labors must proceed. What
is it that works onward in the light of this Spirit? The world-stream of
spiritual science, if rightly conceived! What is this spiritual science? It
is the wisdom of the Spirit, the wisdom that lifts into the full light of
consciousness that in Christianity which would otherwise remain in the
unconscious. The torch of the resurrected Lucifer, of the Lucifer now
transformed into the good, blazons the way for Christ. Lucifer is the bearer
of the Light — Christ is the Light! As the word itself denotes, Lucifer is
the “Bearer of the Light”. That is what the spiritual scientific movement
should be, that is implicit in it. Those who know that the progress of
mankind depends upon living apprehension of the mighty Event of Golgotha are they who as the “Masters of Wisdom and of the Harmony of Feelings” are united in the great Guiding Lodge of mankind. And as once the “tongues of fire” hovered down as a living symbol upon the company of the apostles, so does the “Holy Spirit” announced by Christ Himself reign as the Light over the Lodge of the Twelve. The Thirteenth is the Leader of the Lodge of the Twelve. The “Holy Spirit” is the mighty Teacher of those we name the “Masters of Wisdom and of the Harmony of Feelings”. It is through them that his voice and his wisdom flow down to mankind in this or that stream upon the earth. The treasures of wisdom gathered together by the spiritual scientific movement in order to understand the universe and the Spirits therein, how through the “Holy Spirit” into the Lodge of the Twelve; and that is what will ultimately lead mankind step by step to free,
self-conscious understanding of Christ and of the Event of Golgotha Thus to ‘cultivate’ spiritual science means to understand that the Spirit has been
sent into the world by Christ; the pursuit of spiritual science is implicit
in true Christianity. "

I think we can say that possibly our Mani is "thirteenth" and the Leader of the Lodge of the Twelve.

We find in "Parzifal" that his mother, the pregnant Herzeleide, nurses a young dragon in a dream:

"For she did nurse a dragon, that
forth from her body sprung,
And its dragon-life to nourish awhile
at her breast it hung,
Then it fled from her sight so swiftly.."

This is how the redeemed Lucifer Spirit, Mani, appears to his new mother.

Of course it had to be. The ultimate redemption of Evil through Good appears in Mani himself.

The Manichaean faith spread throughout the countries once covered by Mithraism throughout the Mediterranean and Asia and eventually China to North Africa, Spain, and Southern France.

Mani was given the title 'The Seal of the Prophets' . He was also called the Bagh, or the Lord to succeed Mithras. This is a Persian name, the word "Bagh-dad" meaning: "Given by God".

This is interesting because in consideration of him being the incarnation of the Paraclete (the holy spirit), whom Jesus promised to send as his successor to guide and care for and comfort us.

Also, to the Buddhists he was believed to be the incarnation of Amithaba Buddha, the Buddha of the land of light.

The extant works we have are still in bits and pieces. The Book of Giants has a connection with the Book of Enoch. I am interested also in the teaching of the four elements in the Gospel of Mani.

I believe that there were about seventy sects of varied belief. Steiner states that the Lucifer-Gnostic teachings were not the original teachings of Mani.

Another name for the Holy Spirit is the Bride of Christ, whose name is Sophia. This is discussed in Steiner's lectures on St.John. He also discusses the Pistis Sophia there.

The Holy Ghost is also implicated in the birth of Jesus:
Matthew 1:18

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

So "Holy Spirit" has more than one meaning.

>Your quotes present manichaenism as a religion, which I do not dispute. >All I'm saying is that it is not Christian.

Manicheanism reincarnated as Grail Christianity.

>any departure from Apostolic Tradition is a departure from Christianity ... >and Mani's departure is evident, and his reasoning.

Mani did say he was an Apostle of Jesus Christ.


Hearty Greetings,
Br.Bruce

[Bruce Michael]

We know that Mani was inspired by the Angel, Twin or Syzygos, as it is in Greek. Catholic commentators declared that Mani thought he was the Holy Spirit, but this is incorrect:

It seems certain that Mani himself came to understand his Twin to be the Paraclete, foretold by Jesus, the ‘comforter’ and ‘Spirit of Truth’ who would be sent afterwards according to the divine will. Since Mani asserts that with the Paraclete, ‘I have become a single body, with a single Spirit! (Keph. 15: 23–24)’, he himself came to be proclaimed as the Paraclete. This then became one of the most characteristic assertions of the Manichaeans, and one of the most offensive to their catholic opponents; however, it was not intended to mean that Mani was the Holy Spirit, as that equation is part of catholic not Manichaean tradition.

It is quite clear that he termed himself the "Apostle of Jesus Christ". There is plenty of evidence for that.

Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire - Cambridge University Press

The Gnostics had the idea of the world being created by an evil Demiurge. This according to Steiner is the Lucifer/Gnostic doctrine, and not really part of the teaching of Mani.

Manicheism is not in conflict with Anthroposophy, but its emphasis is different. Anthroposophy is or should be, a Rosicrucian current. Albert Steffen - a Manichean - who was the first leader of the Anthroposophical Society after Steiner's death, did find it difficult to be in that role- or so I have read.

There are some books out by Richard Seddon and Andrew Welburn that look at Mani from the Anthroposophical view.

Steiner's Gospel of St. Matthew series helps you get an idea of just how much of Mani's teaching comes from the Persian Mysteries.

In Mithraism and Zoroastrianism, before all comes Zervan, the god of uncreated time. From him spring Ormuzd and Ahriman- so there is your Trinity.

Some authorities state that all Christians bore the name of "Ebionite" in the early days. Eventually just one group ended up with the name- which means "poor men". This sect was composed of Jewish Christians. Their gospel was the Gospel of the Hebrews (Matthew)and they practiced the water Communion. This gospel was written in "Chaldee" (Aramaic) (a language picked up during the Babylonian captivity).

There is some evidence, which I have picked up from the web, that Matthew himself and the Ebionites were vegetarian as well.

Anyway, Jerome used the above Gospel of Matthew for his translation, and had no end of difficulty in trying to understand it.

The Ebionites denied the divinity of Christ and viewed Him more as a great Master. Steiner explains that this is what the Gospel of Matthew is about- Jesus the man. It describes the birth of the reincarnated Zarathustra, and is full of wisdom from the Persian Mysteries (according to Steiner). I'm guessing that non-violence and a positive view of what one might
call evil, are aspects of the Persian Mysteries.

Dr. Steiner often mentioned a Persian legend about Christ passing a
dead dog and remarking on the beauty of the animal's teeth, while His
disciples recoiled in disgust.

If you look up Christ's exhortation to non violence-
and where is it? Yeah, St. Matthew.

So a lot of the teachings of Mani - of non violence, gentleness, tolerance and looking for the Good, have their origin in the Persian Mysteries.


-Br.Bruce

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

In Mithraism and Zoroastrianism, before all comes Zervan, the god of uncreated time. From him spring Ormuzd and Ahriman- so there is your Trinity.

Not in the slightest. Zervan is the principle of time, whilst Ormuzd and Ahriman are opposed as good and evil — so you have a cosmology, and a classic dualistic teaching common to the region ... a triune, yes, but nothing like the Christian understanding of The Trinity. About the only thing in common is 'three'.

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Some authorities state that all Christians bore the name of "Ebionite" in the early days.

Who? Many would say they called themselves ... Jews ... The scholarly view, which is unchallenged, is that the Ebionites were a Jewish sect who utilised parts of Matthew's Gospel to promote a form of 'brotherhood of the poor life' ...

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Anyway, Jerome used the above Gospel of Matthew for his translation, and had no end of difficulty in trying to understand it.

Another error, I think ... the Gospel of Matthew was in Greek before the year 100. The earliest reference to an Aramaic Matthew is by Papias in 125, and that was only hearsay ... nowhere in the Fathers are there any references to the Aramaic Matthew other than that — Irenaeus, Eusebius and Origen all refer to it, but they could all be using Papias as a source.

My personal view is that AramM, as scholars call it, was a logia, a sayings document, which is the foundation of the Matthew we have, built upon by scribes in the JudeoChristian community in the Matthean tradition. Whatever, Canonical Matthew was 'in place', as it were, by 125, Clement of Rome quotes from it around 95AD — no one quotes from AramM.

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

The Ebionites denied the divinity of Christ and viewed Him more as a great Master. Steiner explains that this is what the Gospel of Matthew is about - Jesus the man.

Every gospel is about Jesus the man ... this is typical obfuscation. Jesus the man, who is the Son of God, the Deity Incarnate and Second Person of the Trinity.

If you mean Steiner says that Jesus is merely a man according to Matthew, then any scripture scholar will tell you that Steiner is just flat wrong and obviously is very ill-informed with regard to Jewish history, scripture, and tradition ... and I can demonstrate such easily. Matthew's main thrust was to show that Jesus was everything the prophets had foretold, and more ... this is what the Parables of the Kingdom are all about.

You should try and get up to date with other sources besides Steiner ... I think you might be surprised ... check out C.H. Lohr on the internal composition of Matthew, as an esoterist, you'll love it.

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

It describes the birth of the reincarnated Zarathustra, and is full of wisdom from the Persian Mysteries (according to Steiner). I'm guessing that non-violence and a positive view of what one might call evil, are aspects of the Persian Mysteries.

More supposition. It's a shame ... we have three families of friends who's kids go to a Steiner schools and I have nothing but praise for their method. One comes from a farming family who use Steiner's methods with good results. I have a high regard for the Steiner ideal, but when it comes to Scripture and Christianity, then he just out of his depth and piles superficial errors one atop the other ... you really need to broaden your studybase, Bruce, the limitations of his theories are evident to those who have studied Scripture ...

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

If you look up Christ's exhortation to non violence - and where is it? Yeah, St. Matthew.

... and Mark, and Luke, and John, and Paul, etc.,

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

So a lot of the teachings of Mani - of non violence, gentleness, tolerance and looking for the Good, have their origin in the Persian Mysteries.

As I undersatand it, Mani took from whatever he fancied.

Thomas

[Bruce Michael]

Hey Thomas,
My reply to you was lost.


>Who? Many would say they called themselves ... Jews ... The scholarly >view, which is unchallenged, is that the Ebionites were a Jewish sect who >utilised parts of Matthew's Gospel to promote a form of 'brotherhood of >the poor life' ...

That was from my Chambers encyclopedia- I quoted it before.


<Another error, I think ... the Gospel of Matthew was in Greek before the <year 100. The earliest reference to an Aramaic Matthew is by Papias in <125, and that was only hearsay ... nowhere in the Fathers are there any references to the Aramaic Matthew other than that — Irenaeus, Eusebius <and Origen all refer to it, but they could all be using Papias as a source.

That's not what is says in your Catholic encyclopedia- read the last summing up.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gospel of St. Matthew

Clement, 16:17 = Matthew 11:29; Clem., 24:5 = Matthew 13:3), but it is possible that they are derived from Apostolic preaching, as, in chapter xiii, 2, we find a mixture of sentences from Matthew, Luke, and an unknown source. Again, we note a similar commingling of Evangelical texts elsewhere in the same Epistle of Clement, in the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, in the Epistle of Polycarp, and in Clement of Alexandria. Whether these these texts were thus combined in oral tradition or emanated from a collection of Christ's utterances, we are unable to say.

The early Christian writers assert that St. Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew;

According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 111, xxxix, 16), Papias said that Matthew collected (synetaxato; or, according to two manuscripts, synegraphato, composed) ta logia (the oracles or maxims of Jesus) in the Hebrew (Aramaic) language, and that each one translated them as best he could.

As there is nowhere any allusion to numerous Greek translations of the Logia of Matthew, it is probable that Papias speaks here of the oral translations made at Christian meetings, similar to the extemporaneous translations of the Old Testament made in the synagogues. This would explain why Papias mentions that each one (each reader) translated "as best he could".

St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., III, i, 2) affirms that Matthew published among the Hebrews a Gospel which he wrote in their own language.

Eusebius tells us that Origen, in his first book on the Gospel of St. Matthew, states that he has learned from tradition that the First Gospel was written by Matthew, who, having composed it in Hebrew, published it for the converts from Judaism.

However all ecclesiastical writers assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and, by quoting the Greek Gospel and ascribing it to Matthew, thereby affirm it to be a translation of the Hebrew Gospel.

In Zahn's opinion, Matthew wrote a complete Gospel in Aramaic; Mark was familiar with this document, which he used while abridging it. Matthew's Greek translator utilized Mark, but only for form, whereas Luke depended upon Mark and secondary sources, but was not acquainted with Matthew. According to Belser, Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, a Greek translation of it being made in 59-60, and Mark depended on Matthew's Aramaic document and Peter's preaching. Luke made use of Mark, of Matthew (both in Aramaic and Greek), and also of oral tradition. According to Camerlynck and Coppieters, the FirstGospel in its present form was composed either by Matthew or some other Apostolic writer long before the end of the first century, by combining the Aramaic work of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke.

>If you mean Steiner says that Jesus is merely a man according to >Matthew, then any scripture scholar will tell you that Steiner is just flat >wrong and obviously is very ill-informed with regard to Jewish history, >scripture, and tradition ... and I can demonstrate such easily. Matthew's >main thrust was to show that Jesus was everything the prophets had >foretold, and more ... this is what the Parables of the Kingdom are all >about.

The man in whom the Christ Being incarnated. Interesting to read Jerome's comments from the original Matthew which back up what I said before about the change in Mark 1:11.

GHeb-40 Jerome
In the Gospel written in the Hebrew script that the Nazarenes read, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descends upon Him, for God is Spirit and where the Spirit resides, there is freedom. Further in the Gospel which we have just mentioned we find the following written: “When the Lord came up out of the water the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended upon Him and rested on Him saying, ‘My Son, in all the prophets was I waiting for You that You should come and I might rest in You. For You are My rest. You are My first begotten Son that prevails forever.’ ” (Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 4)

>You should try and get up to date with other sources besides Steiner ... I >think you might be surprised ... check out C.H. Lohr on the internal >composition of Matthew, as an esoterist, you'll love it.

From one of the Inklings:

Freedom, Authority and the Faithful Thinker

Barfield was once asked why he placed so much trust in Steiner; he answered, “when one is wandering in a parched desert, does one complain that water only flows from one spring?” Yes, that is exactly how important Steiner’s work is for the future of human understanding!

Upto11.net - Wikipedia Article for Authentic Matthew
Authentic Matthew

GHeb-52 Jerome
In the Gospel I so often mention we read, “A lintel of the Temple of immense size was broken.” (Jerome, On Matthew 27)
GHeb-48 Jerome
In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call The Authentic Gospel of Matthew, the man who had the withered hand is described as a mason who begged for help in the following words: “I was a mason, earning a living with my hands. I beg you, Jesus, restore my health to me, so that I need not beg for my food in shame.” (Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 2)
GHeb-40 Jerome
In the Gospel written in the Hebrew script that the Nazarenes read, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descends upon Him, for God is Spirit and where the Spirit resides, there is freedom. Further in the Gospel which we have just mentioned we find the following written: “When the Lord came up out of the water the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended upon Him and rested on Him saying, ‘My Son, in all the prophets was I waiting for You that You should come and I might rest in You. For You are My rest. You are My first begotten Son that prevails forever.’ ” (Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 4)

Aramaic of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Raca, or Raka, in the Aramaic of the Talmud means empty one, fool, empty head.

In Aramaic, it could be (????) or (????).

Note: The phrase "without a cause" is missing from Matthew 5:22 in the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus.

Aramaic primacy
Aramaic primacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The evidence of these verses would tend to support the claims of St. Papias and Irenaeus that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic presumably for Aramaic speakers in Syria-Palestine,

-Br.Bruce

[Thomas]

Hi Bruce —

The first thing to acknowledge is that there is no solution to 'the Synoptic Problem' — there are a number of hypotheses, but that's all they are. Everyone has their favourite, as do I (the existence of an Aramaic Matthew, and the non-existence of Q), but we're all obliged to accept that no thesis offers a complete solution.

So to base everything on one argument that is not conclusive or even persuasive is a risky venture and shows signs of favouritism in the face of the evidence ... you can pick your favourite path, as I do, but we can neither claim it to be exhaustive.

My favour rests with the priority of Matthew, as a Hebrew text (now lost) AramM, then Mark, then a Greek Matthew which was a mature exegesis of AramM, then Luke utilising a proto-Matthew and a proto-Mark ... but I can't prove it because there is no extant text or firm proof of an AramM other than Papias (who might have meant an oral tradition).

Papias mentions a Hebrew Gospel, as noted, in 125AD, but Clement of Rome quotes from the canonical Matthew in 95AD.

The other problem is that the 'early Christian writers' who claim an Aramaic Matthew might well be referencing Papias.

The encyclopedia's quote:
"However all ecclesiastical writers assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and, by quoting the Greek Gospel and ascribing it to Matthew, thereby affirm it to be a translation of the Hebrew Gospel."
is wrong. Not 'all' ecclesiastical writers, just a very few (those listed) and none assert the Greek text is a straight translation ... I am obliged to say the Catholic Encyclopedia, now 90 years old, is showing its age...

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

The man in whom the Christ Being incarnated.

Well no orthodox Jew nor orthodox Christian would think along those lines — so no Gospel would have been accepted if it taught such. The first Christians were Jews, and the above is a very Greek speculation, and those Greeks who did teach such things — the Docetists, werer very quickly put right. Likewise John's Gospel is against Cerinthus, who believed in a non-Christian and in fact non-Hebraic dualism.

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Interesting to read Jerome's comments from the original Matthew which back up what I said before about the change in Mark 1:11.

If you check it out, Jerome's quote cannot be attributed to the AramM — he might well have been working from a Hebrew translation of a Greek text, or a Hebrew apocryphal document, but it's unlikely he was working from the original Aramaic Matthew of Papias ... the quote you offer is open to all manner of interpretation.

One swallow, as the saying goes, does not make a spring, and the thoughts of one Father does not make doctrine. Interestingly, the Church identifies only one of the Fathers as never having strayed from the Orthodox path (Gregory Nazianzen), all the others offered speculations that were later refined and revised by others, or are at least open to misinterpretation.

As I have said elsewhere, I favour the priority of AramM, but there is no evidence of what it was — in fact the argument for 'Q' is stronger among scholars that for AramM, even though we have less of an idea of what Q was.

Thomas

[Bruce Michael]

>My favour rests with the priority of Matthew, as a Hebrew text (now lost) >AramM, then Mark, then a Greek Matthew which was a mature exegesis >of AramM, then Luke utilising a proto-Matthew and a proto-Mark ... but I >can't prove it because there is no extant text or firm proof of an AramM >other than Papias (who might have meant an oral tradition).

That is more of a problem/interest for you rather than me. As you know I favour modern revelation. Surprisingly, I would not recommend that Bible students (or priests in training) spend a lot of time on textual criticism and such things, as it may take them off the "main game".

Another thing about the Aramaic Matthew, is the poetry and word plays- also that "camel hair" rope and the eye of the needle.

I found HPB's comments and quotes:

Isis Unveiled by H. P. Blavatsky, vol 2, ch 4

Writing to the Bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, he complains [Jerome] that "a difficult work is enjoined, since this translation has been commanded me by your Felicities, which St. Matthew himself, the Apostle and Evangelist, DID NOT WISH TO BE OPENLY WRITTEN. For if it had not been SECRET, he (Matthew) would have added to the evangel that which he gave forth was his; but he made up this book sealed up in the Hebrew characters, which he put forth even in such a way that the book, written in Hebrew letters and by the hand of himself, might be possessed by the men most religious, who also, in the course of time, received it from those who preceded them. But this very book they never gave to any one to be transcribed, and its text they related some one way and some another."

From this quote it is difficult to believe that Jerome was not in possession of the authentic Matthew- Chaldee language, Hebrew letters.

>Interestingly, the Church identifies only one of the Fathers as never >having strayed from the Orthodox path (Gregory Nazianzen), all the >others offered speculations that were later refined and revised by others, >or are at least open to misinterpretation.

This is what Saint Gregory of Nazianzen wrote to his friend and confidant Saint Jerome: "Nothing can impose better on a people than verbiage; the less they understand the more they admire. Our fathers and doctors have often said, not what they thought, but what circumstances and necessity forced them to."

-Quoted by HPB


-Br.Bruce

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

That is more of a problem/interest for you rather than me. As you know I favour modern revelation. Surprisingly, I would not recommend that Bible students (or priests in training) spend a lot of time on textual criticism and such things, as it may take them off the "main game".

We live in the world, and the 'main game' for us is the salvation of souls, so we have to!

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Another thing about the Aramaic Matthew, is the poetry and word plays - also that "camel hair" rope and the eye of the needle.

Yes, I remember reading a long and very interesting post on a 'Traditionalist' forum on that very topic — it was through that I was introduced to something of the Hebraic genius for linguistics — so textual criticism does have a place!

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

This is what Saint Gregory of Nazianzen wrote to his friend and confidant Saint Jerome: "Nothing can impose better on a people than verbiage; the less they understand the more they admire... "
-Quoted by HPB

Well, allow me to say that HPB quoting such is, at the very least, ironical!

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

I found HPB's comments and quotes:
Isis Unveiled by H. P. Blavatsky, vol 2, ch 4
Quote:
Writing to the Bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, he complains [Jerome] that "a difficult work is enjoined, since this translation has been commanded me by your Felicities, which St. Matthew himself, the Apostle and Evangelist, DID NOT WISH TO BE OPENLY WRITTEN. For if it had not been SECRET, he (Matthew) would have added to the evangel that which he gave forth was his; but he made up this book sealed up in the Hebrew characters, which he put forth even in such a way that the book, written in Hebrew letters and by the hand of himself, might be possessed by the men most religious, who also, in the course of time, received it from those who preceded them. But this very book they never gave to any one to be transcribed, and its text they related some one way and some another."
From this quote it is difficult to believe that Jerome was not in possession of the authentic Matthew- Chaldee language, Hebrew letters.

As this is not properly attributed to Jerome, and a quick search of his works for such a text comes up with nothing ... I'm inclined to think this is another case of fabrication, by 'another' I mean the infamous fabricated quote attributed to Origen in support of reincarnation.

There's textual criticism and textual criticism ... but this, if I'm right, is something else entirely.

Thomas

[Bruce Michael]

>As this is not properly attributed to Jerome, and a quick search of his works >for such a text comes up with nothing ... I'm inclined to think this is another >case of fabrication, by 'another' I mean the infamous fabricated quote >attributed to Origen in support of reincarnation.

I guess you're waiting for a reincarnation debate- and you won't be disappointed!
As for the quote, here is the footnote:
"St.Jerome" v., 445, SOD - SON OF MAN, Samuel F. Dunlap, page 46

I see that this book is still in print:

A study of the Codex Nazaraeus & origins of Christianity.
"This work bombards the reader with a huge battery of scholarly references"

I have never read it but it does sound interesting.

HPB was very good with the references. I read somewhere that she had something like 700 in one book. I have a book once owned by a chap who checked all her references- he had a card system.

There is a story about a little poem she quoted from Tennyson.

Oh, sad no more! Oh, sweet
No more!
Oh, strange No more!
By a mossed brook bank on a stone
I smelt a wild weed-flower alone;
there was a ringing in my ears,
and both my eyes gushed out with tears,
Surely all pleasant things had gone before.
buried fathom deep beneath with thee, NO MORE!
--TENNYSON
("The Gem," 1831)

They couldn't find this anywhere in his collections. Even searching and asking the librarian at the British Museum turned up nothing. Then as you can see it was tracked down to a little magazine "The Gem".
-Br.Bruce

[Thomas]

Hi Bruce ...

If you look at it from an 'outsider' point of view, you have the following.

1:
An argument for reincarnation, citing Origen as a source (which assumes that a Church Father is infallible, which the Church does not), has been shown to be at best an error, at worst a fabrication ... scholars have traced the error to its source, a book which apparently the TS quotes without question ... as did Shirley MacLaine also in her books...

This fabrication is now proliferating across the internet on Theological Society web pages — which shows if nothing else that people just believe it cos TS says so, and never bother to check ... so you will excuse me if I approach TS attributions with caution.

2:

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

As for the quote, here is the footnote:
"St.Jerome" v., 445, SOD - SON OF MAN, Samuel F. Dunlap, page 46

This attributes the quote to Dunlap, who dies not (it appear) cite his source ... so again, I'll assume Dunlap is in error/fabricating, as no other source appears for such a quote.

3:
Interestingly there are repeated references to a Codex Nazaraeus, yet I can find no reference anywhere to such a codex existing ... now, not only do we have a spurious source, now we have a spurious souce implying the existence of an authentic document, yet no such document seems to exist.