Mani-Apostle of Jesus Christ

[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]

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'.

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' ...

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.

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.

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 ...

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.,

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...

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.

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]

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!

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!

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!

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:

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.

We have passed beyond bad scholarship now, into the realm of the 'Hitler Diaries' — it's a fiction (at best) and if not, a deception.

4:

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

Which are now all under suspicion.

5:
To quote the footnote of Isis Unveiled:
"... Irenaeus, accusing the Gnostics of heresy, calls Christ and the Holy Ghost "the gnostic pair that produce the AEons" (Dunlap: "Sod, the Son of the Man," p. 52, footnote)."

The trouble is, Irenaeus nowhere says that. I have the text of his works ... so if someone can supply the reference ... So now Dunlap is questionable in the extreme, and Isis Unveiled shows a lack of critical scholarship ...

So from where I'm standing, and simply asking that sources be verified, it would appear that:
The Theosophical Society does not check its sources
The Theosophical Society just makes us things to suit themselves.

Assuming the degree of fabrication around Christian texts and doctrines, which I can verify, by extrapolation we can assume the same degreee of fabrication around Buddhist and other texts ...

... the TS is not looking good, is it? I mean, if it was true, why the need to invent? My contention now is, at best, the TS doesn't know what's true and what's false ... or if not, relies on tyhe fact that people have bought the TS thing, and just don't bother to check if the texts cited actually exist, let alone say what they supposedly say.

I refer to your own reference to Gregory Nazianzen:
"Nothing can impose better on a people than verbiage; the less they understand the more they admire."

Thomas

 

[Bruce Michael]

Hi Thomas,
>An argument for reincarnation, citing Origen as a source (which assumes >that a Church Father is infallible, which the Church does not),

Everybody looks for authority but the only real authority is you. You have to make your own mind up.

>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.

Since I don't have the book I can't say. But I did track down the quote.
It comes from the preface to a "Pseudo-Matthew". Now whether or not the the Gospel is "pseudo" or not may be a matter of opinion; and whether Jerome's letter is real or not might also be a matter of conjecture.

Mary Clayton gives the age of the text as between 550-700, and seems to be by a monastic author.

By the same token, we might question whether certain documents have been deemed spurious purely because they don't fit in with the status quo.

So what proof do we have that Jerome didn't write this letter?

The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew

"It is in fact in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 8, here" ANF08. The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementia, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First | Christian Classics Ethereal Library


>Interestingly there are repeated references to a Codex Nazaraeus, yet I >can find no reference anywhere to such a codex existing ...

It was translated by W.Norberg. It is called the Sidra rabba:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Nasoraeans

called Genza or "The Treasure", and sometimes Sidra Rabba or "The Great Book", of which copies dating from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris and have been published by Petermann (Thesaurus s. Liber Magnus, vulgo Liber Adami, etc., Berlin, 1867) in Nasoræan script and language.

-Br.Bruce

 

[Thomas]

Everybody looks for authority but the only real authority is you. You have to make your own mind up.

Sounds like avoiding the issue to me ... the point is about fabricating references ... if no direct reference is given, I will, as anyone would, assume sloppy scholarship, and in this case, where only TS sources offer such a quote, I will assume its most likely a fabrication.

To disprove me ... show the reference

Thomas

 

[Bruce Michael]

Sounds like avoiding the issue to me ... the point is about fabricating references ... if no direct reference is given, I will, as anyone would, assume sloppy scholarship, and in this case, where only TS sources offer such a quote, I will assume its most likely a fabrication.

To disprove me ... show the reference

Thomas

Dear Thomas,
History is the grand illusion. I did give the reference- click on the links in my post.

Would you dispose folk to impositions of placing authority before truth?

Your Friend,
Br.Bruce

 

[Thomas]

I did give the reference - click on the links in my post.

The links refers to an author ... not the quote supposedly from Jerome.

Thomas

 

[Bruce Michael]

The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew[/URL]





-Br.Bruce

It was on this one.

 

[Thomas]

OK.

Now we have a link to a document which was, according to the link provided, probably written after what we have as the canonical Matthew, and is a variation of it.

The site also points out that Jerome was wrong in assuming this was the 'original' Gospel of Matthew, the lost logia document mentioned by Papias.

This brings us back to my original point — a quote, attributed to Jerome, which has yet to be identified, and which I cannot find in the usual libraries of his works. It is the veracity of this quote that I question:

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

If you can provide me with the text wherein Jerome says the above, I'll be happy.

Thomas

 

[Bruce Michael]

>If you can provide me with the text wherein Jerome says the above, I'll be >happy.

Well I always would want you to be happy- but I can't guarantee it.

The quote is on the same webpage at the top of the Gospel. It is a different translation however:

An arduous task is enjoined upon me, since what your Blessedness has commanded me, the holy Apostle and Evangelist Matthew himself did not write for the purpose of publishing. For if he had not done it somewhat secretly, he would have added it also to his Gospel which he published. But he composed this book in Hebrew; and so little did he publish it, that at this day the book written in Hebrew by his own hand is in the possession of very religious men, to whom in successive periods of time it has been handed down by those that were before them. And this book they never at any time gave to any one to translate.

-Br.Bruce

 

[Thomas]

Ah, thanks Bruce, tracked it now.

Here's some more info for you:

Gospel of St. Matthew
This is a Latin composition of the fourth or fifth century. It pretends to have been written by St. Matthew and translated by St. Jerome. Pseudo-Matthew is in large part parallel to the "Protoevangelium Jacobi", being based on the latter or its sources...

... It differs in some particulars always in the direction of the more marvellous ... A narrative of the flight into Egypt is adorned with poetic wonders. The dragons, lions, and other wild beasts of the desert adore the infant Jesus. At His word the palm-trees bow their heads that the Holy Family may pluck their fruit. The idols of Egypt are shattered when the Divine Child enters the land. The "Gospel of the Nativity of Mary" is a recast of the Pseudo-Matthew, but reaches only to the birth of Jesus. It is extant in a Latin manuscript of the tenth century."

The Protoevangelium Jacobi, or Infancy Gospel of James
It purports to have been written by "James the brother of the Lord", i.e. the Apostle James the Less. It is based on the canonical Gospels which it expands with legendary and imaginative elements, which are sometimes puerile or fantastic ... Critics find that the "Protoevangelium" is a composite into which two or three documents enter. It wasknown to Origen under the name of the "Book of James". There are signs in St. Justin's works that he was acquainted with it, or at least with a parallel tradition. The work, therefore, has been ascribed to the second century. Portions of it show a familiarity with Jewish customs, and critics have surmised that the groundwork was composed by a Jewish-Christian. The "Protoevangelium" exists in ancient Greek and Syriac recensions. There are also Armenian and Latin translations.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Apocrypha

Thomas

 

[Bruce Michael]

"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."

-Walter Stein

This is the battle where kindness is the "sword". You've all heard the expression "to kill with kindness"!

From The Book of Kells, circa 800

Matthew 10:34b should read “I came not to send peace, but the sword”. However rather than “gladius” which means “sword”, Kells has “gaudius” meaning “joy”. Rendering the verse: “I came not [only] to send peace, but joy”.

More on kindness from the Brothers:

"When one is in the attitude of kindness, there does not even need to
be a physical act for such kindness to take effect on all concerned.
It is the inner expression of kindness that will touch a man and give
to the world firstly, before the outer expression. Life requires that
certain functions are performed, functions on many levels of being,
that require that we accept into ourselves, translate and transmute,
transform or oppose. Aside from the functions of existence, we may
impart some of the heavenly qualities that are given to us, that
sustain our being truly.

"Such qualities are there for every man, and are fixed in a far
deeper reality than our grappling with the functions of existence.
One such quality is of kindness."

-Br.Bruce

 

[Bruce Michael]

I forgot to mention that the Mormons also have the water communion in their Church. That is the same as the Manicheans- particulary if you recognise the divine nature of the water. It is well known also, that the Temple ceremonies were influenced by Freemasonry.

There is a large Manichean website founded by an ex Mormon- or so I read. You'll observe that his teachings are not so close to the LDS Church today.

-Br.Bruce

 

[Bruce Michael]

Hi Fellow Travelers,
As I was thumbing through Trevor Ravenscroft's "The Spear of Destiny" I noticed the many references to "Parsifal". (For latecomers: we have already established the Manichean roots of Parsifal, he being the reincarnated Mani.)

In Ravenscroft's "The Spear of Destiny" we first read about Walter Stein's discovery that the characters in Parsifal are based on historical personages. In fact Ravenscroft makes the sensational claim that Adolf Hitler himself indicated to Stein that this was so.

It is curious that black magicians would be so interested in Parsifal. They, however, ignore the author's advice and investigate matters using the nefarious "ABCs of black magic".

Another connection mentioned in the above book, is that Kundry/Condrie is the reincarnated Herodias.

Mani is considered by Dr. Steiner to be one the highest of Christian initiates.

Mani initiated Christian Rosencreutz (the great Master of our age) in 1459.

"The highest knowledge is that we know nothing."

-Brother Christian Rosycross, Knight of the Golden Stone. Anno 1459.

This initiation (about the true understanding of the nature of evil) "Knight of the Golden Stone" and all that it entails will have to remain completely hidden from the majority for a long time to come".

-Steiner, Correspondence and documents

-Br.Bruce

 

[Bruce Michael]

Could this be the original Manichean Cross?:

"Those who advocate using the crucifix in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church instead of the Mar Thoma Cross claim that the Mar Thoma Cross is actually the "Manichean Cross," a symbol of Manicheanism..."

The cross has a dove above it representing the Holy Spirit. The lotus below is meant to represent the Father. The lotus in the East also represents the flowering of great beauty from the sludge and slime.
Perhaps here, another symbol of the good overcoming evil.

The following is about the fuss this cross has caused in the Mar
Thoma Church:
War of the priests

"The warring factions in the Church could be described as the
traditionalists and the reformists. The traditionalists maintain that
the Syro-Malabar Church is a daughter-Church of the Chaldean Church
with headquarters in Baghdad. They are for the adoption of the whole
East Syrian (Chaldean) liturgy said to be prevalent in the Church in
Kerala from the fifth century to the 16th century when the Latin
Church established its sway with the advent of the Portuguese.

"According to the reformists, the traditionalists are for the removal
of the crucifix and abolition of prayers like Rosary and Way of the
Cross among other things and for the introduction of `Chaldean
vestiges' like the Persian Cross, sanctuary veil and `Bema,' (a
separate table to be placed in the front or in the middle of the
aisle).

``The crucifix has disappeared from many convents which easily
succumbed to the Chaldean propaganda,'' says noted religious scholar
Prof. Scaria Zacharia. The crucifix, a matter of great religious and
emotional attachment is being replaced by what is called the `Mar
Thoma Cross'. The reformists contend that this cross is the Manichean
Cross, a symbol of a heretic Church of a non-Catholic origin, which
has since become defunct."

-Br.Bruce