Mani-Apostle of Jesus Christ

[Bruce Michael]

Hi There,
Not all Christians will be alike. Manichaean Christianity is a spiritual stream as is Rosicrucian Christianity. The Manichaean stream continued on in Grail Christianity.
http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/Classes/US310/Manichaeanism.html


Quoting a page:

"Notwithstanding the calumnies heaped on Manes, Dr. Lardner has shown that he was, in the best and strictest acceptation of the term, a sincere Christian, and has adduced many passages from his writings equally honourable to his understanding and to his heart. Not only the learned
Faustus,

"One has to read St. Augustine's anti-Manichæan disputes to realize the
extreme ingenuity with which scripture texts were collected and interpreted. Though Mani called himself the Paraclete he claimed no divinity but with show of humility styled himself "Apostle of Jesus Christ by the providence of God the Father"; a designation which is obviously adapted from the heading of the Pauline Epistles. Mani, however, was the Apostle of Jesus Christ, i.e. the messenger of Christ's promise, In A.D. 1000 the Arab historian Al-Beruni wrote: "The majority of the Eastern Turks, the
inhabitants of China and Tibet, and a number in India belong to the religion
of Mani".

Patron Saints Index: Heresy: Manichæism

Most of what you read on manichaeism is written by its enemies and not to be trusted for that reason. This group was subject to one of the most massive persecutions history has seen. The Manichaeans themselves were a non-violent people following the principles of the "sermon on the mount". It is true that some of the later sects did drift into the Lucifer/Gnosis ideas.

"The Roman clergy was corrupt and suffered by comparison with the Cathar 'parfaits' or 'perfected ones' who passed for Cathar clergy. Indeed, Saint Bernard, who traveled to Languedoc to preach against these heretics in 1145 A.D., was impressed by them: 'No sermons are more Christian than theirs, and their morals are pure.'"

- Michael Bradley, Holy Grail Across the Atlantic

Though the Cathars were seen as a later form of Manichaeism there is no direct link.

"... The Albigensian Crusade was essentially a crusade against Manichaeanism....In 1209 an army of some 30,000 knights and foot-soldiers from Northern Europe descended like a whirlwind on the Languedoc - the mountainous north-eastern foothills of the Pyrenees in what is now southern France. In the ensuing war the whole territory was ravaged, crops were destroyed, towns and cities were razed, a whole population was put to the sword. This extermination occurred on so vast, so terrible a scale that it may well constitute the first case of 'genocide' in modern European history.
In the town of Beziers alone, for example, at least 15,000 men, women, and children were slaughtered wholesale - many of them in the sanctuary of the church itself.

- Baigent, Leigh & Lincoln, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail

Christianity became the culmination of all the ancient mysteries and
religions. It is not surprising then, that one finds elements of Buddhism,
Zorastrianism, Empedocles and Pythagoras in Mani's teachings.

In Christ,
Br. Bruce

[Postmaster]

interesting

[flowperson]

Biagent and Leigh (sp?) who wrote on the Languedoc traditions concerning Jesus are the guys who sued Dan Brown relative to his use of their ideas in The DaVinci Code. Their speculations center mostly on the 19th century doings there though. I believe their book is called something like Holy Grail, Holy Blood or something to that effect. However they do go into the Cathar legends and stories somewhat in their work, even as far back as Roman mining activities in the region. Interesting stuff to read.

Here's some info on the 19th century stories in a recent book :

The Priest's Madonna

Berkley Trade , 03 April, 2007 , Paperback , $11.90

By Amy Hassinger


Order Now| Submit Review
Bérenger and Marie are historical figures—Bérenger came to the village as a young priest without much money, and while he was restoring the dilapidated village church, he became mysteriously wealthy. Eventually, he gained enough cash to build a luxurious estate and grounds, including a villa, a conservatory, and a tower on the property. The source of his money remains a secret, though there have been many theories about where it came from, ranging from the plausible to the bizarre. Marie, his confidante, was likely the only one who knew the truth. Interwoven with the story of Marie and Bérenger is the tale of the life of Mary Magdalene and her love for Jesus.

The Priest’s Madonna examines central religious ideas, such as the nature of faith and doubt, the place for skepticism, and the question of where we find the divine in the physical world. It’s a good book for spiritual progressives, as it is engaged largely in asking questions, rather than providing answers.

flow....

[Bruce Michael]

Hi flowperson,

>;116129]Biagent and Leigh (sp?) who wrote on the Languedoc traditions concerning Jesus are the guys who sued Dan Brown relative to his use of their >ideas in The DaVinci Code.

Yes and there was a television program (Horizon) as well, with Henry Lincoln.

It is wise to remember that the great personage of Mani has gone
further on in his development since he played that pivotal role in the third
century of our era. By only concentrating on the man of the past we separate ourselves off from the reality and truth of the current manifestation of he who was Mani.

There are many souls incarnating today who have had experience in the Manichaean stream. And as is the case with many reincarnates they hearken back to those powerful impressions that once filled their souls. It
is a truth that change is the only constant and that the grand moment is
now. And so the Manichaean stream is very much alive and lives in the now. It is by no means a force that is spent. Indeed its time has not come, and it is set to play an important role in the future.

-Br.Bruce

[Postmaster]

Manichaeism is based on heretical Christian doctrine of manifestation, the theory was conceived by the theologian Marcion. The idea of Manifestation is not inline with the trinity nor does it accept that Christ was the son of God. It means that Christ was a reflection of God or Gods will or a reflection of divine will. This concept was taken by Manichaeism but Mani went beyond Christ and included all other religious founders including Buddha and Zoroaster even Plato I think. This concept is still alive today in the Baha'i faith.

What’s really ironic is as much as the early church tried to persecute heretical Christian doctrine it did a 360 and some of it got sneaked in by St. Augustine in the catholic side. In fact St Augustine is still considered a heretic in the Christian Orthdox church.

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

Manichaeism is based on heretical Christian doctrine of manifestation, the theory was conceived by the theologian Marcion. The idea of Manifestation is not inline with the trinity nor does it accept that Christ was the son of God. It means that Christ was a reflection of God or Gods will or a reflection of divine will. This concept was taken by Manichaeism but Mani went beyond Christ and included all other religious founders including Buddha and Zoroaster even Plato I think. This concept is still alive today in the Baha'i faith.

What’s really ironic is as much as the early church tried to persecute heretical Christian doctrine it did a 360 and some of it got sneaked in by St. Augustine in the catholic side. In fact St Augustine is still considered a heretic in the Christian Orthdox church.

Hi Postmaster,
There is deep meaning in Augustine's connection- and I will go into that at a later date.

There are a couple of websites that discuss this. Apparently there is some kind of church, but I don't believe it's exclusively Manichean.

Some of the doctrines claimed for Neo-Manicheism I would challenge. One main one being that the Creator is evil- this being a Lucifer/Gnosis idea.

To have a church you need doctrines and sacraments, I guess. There is very little left from the original church. However, there plenty of reincarnated souls who have been involved in the Manichean stream.

There is a suggestion that somewhere in a hill villiage in China there still exists a group with an unbroken lineage back to the original church.

The underground spiritual stream itself has never died. It contiuned on in the Grail Mysteries, for instance.

I have been putting together some of the history/teachings of Mani, much of which was revealed by writers in the twentieth century beginning
with Rudolf Steiner. I have more to post from Trevor Ravenscroft, Sergei Prokovieff and Walter Stein. Then later I plan to flesh out the doctrines- ablutions, water communion, zodiac and the trinity etc.

Albert Steffen, the first leader of the Anthroposophical Society after Steiner was a Manichean. Dr. Steiner himself was a Rosicrucian- a path closely allied to the Manichean. The Manichean path is a higher path than
the Rosicrucian- tolerance, gentleness, kindness and forgiveness being some of the stages of the path.

As to the path itself, it has elements of Buddhism (the Eightfold Path in
particular), Zoroastrianism, Pythagoras and Empedocles (the teaching of the four elements-how they relate to the zodiac and the individual is an exciting study). Do I need to add that it is a profoundly Christian path?

Kind Regards,
Br.Bruce

[Thomas]

There is and can be no such thing as 'dualist Christianity' and Manichaean belief is another form of dualism.

This kind of populist nonsense relies on the fact that anything remotely anti-Christian is interesting, authentic, etc (just tag the word 'gnostic' onto anything, for example) and relies on a telling ignorance of Christian doctrine to make its claims and allegations.

I really thought Steiner was better than this.

"Dr. Lardner has shown that he was, in the best and strictest acceptation of the term, a sincere Christian,"
Really? A 'sincere Christian' who denies the very basics of Christian doctrine? So sincere he claimed himself equal with God?

"One has to read St. Augustine's anti-Manichæan disputes to realize the
extreme ingenuity with which scripture texts were collected and interpreted."
Oh dear, that old chestnut.

There's nothing like hinting at accusations in such a general manner that one cannot be accused of saying anything outright ... it's an immediate signal that the writer is pushing an agenda he or she cannot actually substantiate, but adds that piquancy of conspiracy.

How about "one has to read St. Augustine's anti-Manichæan disputes to realise the philosopher soon discovered the faults in the fabric of its doctrine... "?

Might I also add a point that most choose to overlook, that St Augustine abandoned Manichæanism for Platonism, a far more robust philosophy. Then he had the good fortune to meet St Ambrose, another philosopher, who argued cogently and coherently that Christianity was neither unreasonable nor illogical.

+++

Baigent, Leigh & Lincoln, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail
A book written by three journalists which I think no historian holds in any way viable. It's demonstrably full of errors. But it is better written than Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code, who reproduces those self-same errors, which led to the case of plagiarism aagainst him. One can hardly copyright history, if however, the material presented is a fiction, then that's a different matter.

The mysterious wealth of François Bérenger Saunière, for example, which underpins many of their claims, actually accrued from a postal scam. He was a fraud.

And will someone look at the clean-shaven apostles in Michaelangelo's Last Supper — there are three of them, and they all look like women to me. I think the only esoteric secret it reflects is the artist's taste in young men of a certain disposition?

Hi Postmaster —
I think the accusation of Augustine sneaking Manichæanism into the Latin Church is erroneous, although not uncommon, and his rejection by the Orthodox as a heretic, is equally misunderstood.

In Latin eyes Augustine, a NeoPlatonist, 'corrected' certain theological errors of emphasis in the adaption of Platonic ideas in the East. He built on the work the Cappodacians had undertaken to correct certain excesses in attributed to Origen. But Augustinian theology was unknown in the East for another 700 years, aand by the time his writings were brought East, the Orthodox occupied a different position, and so they were obliged to throw out 700 years development if they were going to accept Augustine. As it was, they haad rejected the filioque, and Latin theology generally (as Latin theology rejected the apparent tritheism of Orthodoxy).

In short, the dispute between East and West, between Augustine and Palamas, was over interpretations of Platonism, not Manichæanism, and such issues aas grace and original sin.

What really set Augustine apart was his approach which the East saw as 'subjective' because of the biographical nature of the Confessions — something which did not suit their aesthetic sensibility at all.

The Orthodox Church holds Augustine a saint, but not a Father — the view of Augustine as a heretic is only a few decades old, and came up when Rome began making overtures of peace towards Greece.

Thomas

[Bruce Michael]

>There is and can be no such thing as 'dualist Christianity' and Manichaean >belief is another form of dualism.

Hi Br. Thomas,
The Persian wisdom is useful in understanding the nature of evil.

As I have posted before, the teachings of the Greek scholars, Empedocles and Pythagoras were passed down to Mani by the great teacher Scythianus, who it is said, lived at the time of the Apostles.

Scythianus BTW still remains as one of the great teachers of humanity.

Empedocles is a source for the doctrine of the four elements, even as it manifests itself in Hippocrates' teaching of the four humours. This
is a very practical doctrine which is used widely today.

Empedocles also taught that the universe is composed of the forces of Neikos: Strife/Discord and Philia: Love/Friendship. Here is another
source for Manichaean dualism.

But as I posted recently:

Mani taught an essentially monistic system:
Quote:

"Manichaeism is a monistic system. For the Manichee, there is only one
universe and it is man himself who has divided it into two: the perceptual
and the conceptual. And it was within man himself that Mani sought a bridge between the world of the senses of the body, and the world of the spirit. He found it by integrating the senses of the body with the senses of the spirit in order to reveal within all terrestrial phenomena the spiritual reality which fashions and sustains them. In such a manner, Mani perceived that all human beings were themselves sun spirits. He taught his followers how to be reborn on the spirit and how to live in accordance with the life of Christ during his three years in a physical body on earth (that is, from the moment of the baptism in Jordan to the death on the cross at Golgotha.)"

-Trevor Ravenscroft



>"Dr. Lardner has shown that he was, in the best and strictest acceptation >of the term, a sincere Christian,"
>Really? A 'sincere Christian' who denies the very basics of Christian >doctrine? So sincere he claimed himself equal with God?

The sincerity of the non-violent Manicheans showed itself in their exemplary behaviour, as followers of the principles Sermon of the Mount.

St. Thomas did have some disputations with the Manichees in thirteenth century.
I haven't read them, but Dr. Walter Stein mentions them and says that Aquinas represents the "true" Manicheism and criticizes the false which had become a "travesty".

Of course Aquinas would have to be right, as it is said he was an incarnation of Dr. Steiner.

An interesting point Stein makes is that Aquinas was a descendant of Landulf 2 of Capua (Klingsor).

(Family tree given by Erchempertus quoted in "the 9th Century" Chapter 6 note 8.)



>Baigent, Leigh & Lincoln, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail
>A book written by three journalists which I think no historian holds in any >way viable. It's demonstrably full of errors. But it is better written than .Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code, who reproduces those self-same errors, >which led to the case of plagiarism aagainst him. One can hardly .copyright history, if however, the material presented is a fiction, then >that's a different matter.

That may be so, but what is wrong with what I posted about the Albigensian Crusade?


>I think the only esoteric secret it reflects is the artist's taste in young >men of a certain disposition?

John was a very young man.

Philia,
Br.Bruce

[Bruce Michael]

The Sabeans had an extensive astronomical religion. They, like the Mandeans, spent a lot of time outdoors; especially under the stars.

The Sabeans are called Sheba in the Bible- Genesis 10:28, 25:3; Job 6:19.

M.Dupuis covers them in his writings on the history of religion.

The Mandeans held to the sanctity of water and had an elaborate water ritual. The Mandeans revered John the Baptist over Jesus.

The Zodiac also plays a part in the Manichean system as well.

Her is some more documentation on the Skythianos figure:

Scythianus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He is probably named so because as an initiate, he took the name of his
people- the Scythians.
He is mentioned by the historian Socrates, who wrote in the 5th century. He gives as his authority a lost work "The disputation (with Manes) of Archelaus bishop of Caschar" authored by one Hegemonius.

This is the tradition: Scythianos, a Saracen, husband of an Egyptian woman "introduced the doctrines of Empedocles and Pythagoras into Christianity."
Scythianos lived at the time of the Apostles and had a disciple Buddas Terebithus- Buddha lord of the Hindus -"Tere Hintu". Of course, this must
have been a spiritual happening as Buddha was long dead.

The legend of St. Josaphat is meant to be of Manichean origin.

-Br.Bruce

[Thomas]

Hi Bruce —

Well if you know anything about Christianity, it is not a monistic religion.

I don't doubt all the sources you quote knew much about much, but I don't think they knew much about Christianity.

A careful reading of Irenaeus, of the A-Team: Athenasius, Augustine and Aquinas, will show precisely where orthodox Christianity and the various hetero- and heresiarch views differ. I simply speak up because promoting erroneous views simply muddies waters of a faith that is rarely properly understood anyway.

Greek philosophy had a huge influence of Christianity. Half the theological lexicon is taken from the philosophers ... but to assume that Christianity is Platonic, or Aristotelian, is to miss the point entirely... it is of historical interest to the scholar, but too overt an emphasis can only offer a distorted view ... Aquinas refers to Aristotle as 'The Master' and follows Aristotelian method of argument, but he does not believe what Aristotle believed.

For example, the idea of 'person' is fundamental to understanding Christianity, but one has to understand the term as Christianity understands it, not as Socrates, Plato or Aristotle, nor Mani nor Valentinus, nor Cerinthius understood it. The Fathers and Scholastics took their Greek inheritance and refined it, and moved it on ... so to limit the idea of 'person' to the Cult of Persephone, or to the idea of a Mask, etc., is to miss where Christianity has gone with it ...

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Scythianus BTW still remains as one of the great teachers of humanity.

No doubt ... but that does not make him, nor others like him, a Christian. Plato and Aristotle were even greater ...

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

The sincerity of the non-violent Manicheans showed itself in their exemplary behaviour, as followers of the principles Sermon of the Mount.

So do many. A student once recited the Beatitudes to his Zen master who cried "That's it! That's what I have been trying to teach all my life!" — but it does not make the Zen Master a Christian.

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

St. Thomas did have some disputations with the Manichees in thirteenth century.
I haven't read them, but Dr. Walter Stein mentions them and says that Aquinas represents the "true" Manicheism and criticizes the false which had become a "travesty".

A lot of people have said a lot of things. Evidence please, without which, I could say that Dr Walter Stein was wrong.

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Of course Aquinas would have to be right, as it is said he was an incarnation of Dr. Steiner.

Yes, I am only too often informed how Christian 'good guys' are very quickly claimed by all and sundry as 'theirs'. You might have to fight that one out with the Theosophists though, I think they have a claim on him too.

The trouble with people like Stein is the assumption that what they see is 'actuality' when all too often what is seen, is what is wanted to be seen, 'actualised' by their own desire to see it.

There's a great feeding going on in those realms, and it's a two-way traffic.

Thomas

[Bruce Michael]

Shalom Thomas,

>Greek philosophy had a huge influence of Christianity.

That is because the Greek wisdom helps us understand the Christian Mystery. If Alexander had be able to continue with his campaign, the Persian wisdom would have been included in this.

I did find a reference to Aquinas' thoughts at a Hare Krishna site:

"In response to the opposition of Manichaean dualism Aquinas emphasises
that the union of body and soul is essential for humans, and that it is to
the advantage of both body and soul. "To be united to body is not to the
detriment of the soul but to its enrichment. There is the substantial
benefit of completing human nature, and the accidental benefit of achieving knowledge that can only be acquired through the senses". He says that our body substance is not from an evil principle, as the Manichaeans imagine, but from God. "By the friendship of charity, by which we love God should we cherish the body."
In his opinion the psycho-somatic interdependence goes so far that the quality of intellectual life depends on the quality of the body. When the body is a hindrance for the achievements of the higher aims of human life, it is not due to its being body, but to sin which corrupts the body and disturbs the harmony between body and soul."

As you can see, the doctrine he was a opposing was one of the Lucifer-Gnosis. This may have been in reference to the Cathars who really
didn't have a direct link to the Manicheans anyway. They were labeled "Manichean".

You can find other historians who mention Skythianus in Steiner's The Temple Legend.

Manichean writings were in the possession of the Mandaean communties.

"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has praised the Sabaean religious sect and
pledged to build a temple in Baghdad for its followers,... ."

Now because evil has five members while the good has seven, the good only remains by itself alone at the beginning and the end. But in the middle period of its evolution it dips down into the five and redeems the harmony of the twelvefoldness. [Here reference is made to the seven light constellations above the ecliptic and the five below it on the sun's course through the procession of the equinox.]

Therefore the Godhead, King of the Paradise of Light, adopts five
members.
His five members are gentleness, knowledge, understanding, silence and
penetration. His five other members are concerned with the heart:
love, faith, fidelity, bravery and wisdom.
- Trevor Ravenscroft:

Cheerio,
Br.Bruce

[Thomas]

Hi Bruce —

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

,
That is because the Greek wisdom helps us understand the Christian Mystery. If Alexander had be able to continue with his campaign, the Persian wisdom would have been included in this.

Perhaps so, but the point is that Christianity is not reduced to Greek philosophy, or any other ... rather the empirical and speculative philosophies (of Aristotle and Plato, for example) are illuminated by the data of Revelation, their inner nature, and their shortfall, is revealed.

Christians took the term 'logos' from the Stoics, but did not reduced the Christian idea to fit the Stoic model, rather the other way round, that the Incarnate Son of God can be expressed in Stoic terms, but in a way that transcends the Stoic idea.

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

,
I did find a reference to Aquinas' thoughts at a Hare Krishna site:

There's your problem. Hare Krishna is hardly likely to have a view that accords with Aquinas' thinking? Why not find an Aquinas quote on an Aquinas site?

"In response to the opposition of Manichaean dualism Aquinas emphasises
that the union of body and soul is essential for humans, and that it is to
the advantage of both body and soul."
The above suggests a misunderstanding of Aquinas' thinking, so not a good start...

"To be united to body is not to the detriment of the soul but to its enrichment. There is the substantial benefit of completing human nature, and the accidental benefit of achieving knowledge that can only be acquired through the senses".
... and this is way off the mark. This assumes a dualism that Aquinas actually demonstrates is erroneous. The soul is not more 'united' to the body that the act of seeing is 'united' to the eye.

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

,
As you can see, the doctrine he was a opposing was one of the Lucifer-Gnosis.

what I see is ill-informed and distorted views of the Angelic Doctor.

The Summa contra Gentiles was a response to the assertions of Islam, and the Summa Theologicae was a response to the need for a more orgainsed theological teaching aid.

If you want to be accepted in what you say Bruce, you have to be far more precise in what you present, and in your sources ... and quoting Ravenscroft et al hardly speaks of scholarly debate or philosophical method.

Thomas

[Bruce Michael]

Hello All,

"However, it is possible to prepare oneself for these future tasks of 'good humanity' already in our time. And the path to this is that of tolerance and forgiveness. Especially in the latter, we have real seeds of that process of 'moral breathing' which has been spoken of.
For in every case where we have been subjected to evil we receive or, one could also say, spiritually 'inhale' it into ourselves in such a way that its consequences continue to work within our soul; while in an act of true forgiveness we firstly-through overcoming ourselves- transform these consequences into good and then send this good back into the world, spiritually 'exhaling' it, as it were, in order to give back to the world as much goodness and love as was taken from it as a result of the wrongful action.

Prokofieff outlines here how humanity must become Christian more and more.

S.Prokofieff defines the qualities of the Manichaen path:

"In his lecture on 'Manicheism', Rudolf Steiner particularly singles out that soul quality which in the German language is referred to as 'Milde' [kindness, gentleness] as the most effective moral instrument to enable the followers of Manes to wage the battle with the evil in earthly evolution. This word is not merely in its meaning but also through its etymological roots related to the word 'forgiveness' ('Verzeihen'). Even in ordinary life we quite naturally presuppose that a person to whose character we may apply the word 'mild' (gentle) is most likely to have a considerable capacity for forgiveness. (Moreover, gentleness in the truly
Manichean sense is by no means a sign of soul weakness but a power
of the mightiest kind, fully capable of transforming man's etheric
body, ....)

Gentleness is love, and it not at all a quality of the weak. On the contrary, it takes a lot of strength to be a truly gentle-man.

-Br.Bruce

[Bruce Michael]

Dear All,
I think Augustine always wanted to be a Christian. He had a Christian mother and a pagan father. I don't think he saw Mani as non-Christian. The
Manichees were very helpful to him in the nine years he followed their system. He certainly appreciated their philosophy of freedom!

I always thought that Augustine was trying to make good after his cameo
performance as Judas. It may have taken him a couple of "go"s to get it
right.

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".

The Manicheans are set to deal with evil in order to transform it. It's not just an intellectual exercise. We shouldn't overestimate our ability to grapple with evil, though. We can easily be swallowed up by it ourselves.

That is why there has to be a separation in humanity -the sheep from the
goats - in order that the good portion of humanity can be sufficiently prepared to take on the tasks ahead.

-Br.Bruce