>>17757351
Yeah, you still didn't engage with the whole argument. Need I remind you that you said
>The argument for a connection to Manichean ideas is paper-thin and based exclusively on two people both sharing a common name
Which was either a bold-faced lie, or you actually aren't capable of reading a few pages (the latter is a distinct possibility based on your record).

Let's break it down
1. The supposed letters between Jesus and Abgar are first recorded in the 300s AD
2. The expanded version of the legend is first recorded in the 400s AD
3. They're obvious Christian propaganda, in line with the numerous Christian forgeries and legends of the 200s-400s AD
4. There's parallels with Manichean texts and Christian polemics against Manicheanism, suggesting they're anti-Manichean propaganda to boot

In response, you invent some pure fiction about a magical archive that was sealed under lock and key so that no incorrect document could ever enter cross its threshold. You are plain wrong and these documents are obvious forgeries.