Did Manichaean ideas influenced the brands of Christianity?

From the link
https://www.cathar.info/cathar_origins.htm

Manichaean ideas undoubtedly had a major effect on the development of Christianity.

In particular Gnostic Christians held similar Dualist ideas. The Pauline line of Christianity that developed into what we now call the Orthodox and Catholic Churches was also influenced. It absorbed a number of characteristic Manichaean ideas that are not generally recognised as such. A few examples are the God of Light locked in battle with the “god of this world”, along with their armies of light and darkness respectively, with human beings as combatants on either side.

Yep. Unfortunately. Getting that poison out of Christianity is going to take some time.

Though… I do find it interesting to make a comparison between God as many describe with the “god of this world.” It does seem that some have confused the two.

Wait so the early christian were gnostics?Or only the later denominations?\

Judging from my previous thread the answer to the first is a no correct?

The teachings of the Gnostics came from Plato not Jesus – and I don’t think the two are compatible. Only as Christianity began to spread did the Gnostic influence begin to seep in and others began to fight it but I don’t think they were 100% successful. Influences remain in the dualism, divine warfare, Neoplatonism, nasty hateful God, and salvation by knowledge rather than grace.

Is that a historical fact or just an opinnion maybe?

Fact. Gnosticism wouldn’t have been considered a heresy otherwise. The majority of what I have stated above is nothing radical or controversial.

If I got a little more specific in identifying certain aspects of modern Christianity with a Gnostic influence, then that would be more controversial. Our listing of dualism as a Gnostic influence (you and me both) would be in that category of controversy. My attribution to a Gnotic influence in the preoccupation of some Christians with sound doctrine as if salvation requires it – that also would be controversial.

Where you really see Manichaean (or more generally, Zoroastrian) influence is in the beliefs about “Satan” or “The Devil”, especially in popular belief (as opposed to scholarly theology). It has been quite common through the centuries for many to elevate Satan from just one example among many rebellious angels/demons, to not just being the chief among them, but actually being something of an equal rival and opponent to God. They attribute to Satan many or all of the characteristics of God: omniscience, omnipresence, and maybe even omnipotence.

2 Likes

Well didnt know thats a part of Manichaeanism(although i can see its dualist concept).So whats the role of Satan in scholarly theology as you stated?Wasnt he the main character of the rebelion in heaven ?Thanks for the insight!!

Thats interesting because if thats the case then we are too guilty of adopting Manichaean ideas(sincei guessthe three doctrines of the church adopted them ie.Protestants,Catholic,Orthodox)

Christianity is all but dualist in believing in a fallen angel able to influence evolution on Earth at least and the consciousness of all humanity and everything else attributed to him literally.

History seems to disagree with you(as others have pointed out in my previous threadsas well).So yeah gonna stick up with early christians on that one .Thanks

You’re welcome. I don’t know what you mean. [Early and late Christians and Muslims have an almost dualist perspective. Jews do not of course.]

I was stating that Christianity itself isnt Dualistic as @Stefan_Stackhouse said.The early christians didnt showed any dualistic ideas or gnostic ones.So i stated that you were wrong.Now later in centuries it got influenced a little by Manichaenist ideas as both @Stefan_Stackhouse and @mitchellmckain stated (and i think i see why in the historical context of things) but before that there was nothing similar .Historically speaking of course

Nope, I’m not wrong in the slightest. Folk Christianity and dominant historical Christianity gave Satan enormous power. In the C17th even the RCC realised that; that witchcraft wasn’t a fraction of the problem that belief in was. Protestantism and Islam retain much of that, blaming the Devil for everything.

Thats not early Christianity.You are wrong.

RCC.have you got any idea how much later the Catholic Church was created?

Im speaking of early Christianity.As early as it was.Where the only accounts we have are very little about its worship and such.

That was centuries after ealry christianity.

The Catholic Church was created in June 31+/-2 AD according to the Catholic Church. It was named such 1500 years before the Inquisition realised its error.

So there is no reference to the enormous power of Satan in the NT? That gave rise to even worse superstition to this day.

No it wasnt .the church was created at the schism of the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic.Before that there was a unified church and even before there were the early christians as i call them.According to them doesnt mean accurate

Did the early christians elevated Satan to a status of evil god?Site me your historical recourses for that claim and i will accept that

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.