outhouse

catholicism has more to do with the ressurection then the death


a dead jew on a cross has a lot of cultural anthropology backing it.


A trouble maker in the temple at passover would surely find himself on a cross shortly, and that is exactly what was written.

andrewcriddle

Hi Stephan.

If you mean the passage from Origen you quoted earlier in this thread, then Origen seems to be saying that Jesus died voluntarily, not that the death was in appearance only.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

Since I have absolutely no interest in whatever else is being said in this thread, let's go back to the original quote from Origen:

"Since those crucified persons who are not stabbed, suffer greater torment, and survive in great pain, sometimes the whole of the following night, and even the whole of the next day ; and since Jesus was not stabbed, and his enemies hoped that by his hanging long upon the cross he would suffer the greater torment, he prayed to the Father and was heard, and as soon as he had called was taken to the Father ; or else, as one who had the power of laying down his life, he laid it down when he chose. This prodigy astonished the centurion, who said — ' Truly this man was a son of God.' — For it was a miracle that he who would otherwise perhaps have survived two days on the cross, according to the custom of those who are crucified but not stabbed, should have been taken up after three hours, so that his death seems to have happened by the favour of God, and rather through the merit of his own prayer than through the violence of the cross."

So, what I see from the passage is that:

(a) the death was supernatural (i.e. it did not arise from the pain associated with crucifixion or what might or might not have happened before the actual crucifixion)
(b) that Jesus was not stabbed or impaled before the crucifixion
(c) that Origen is echoing Pilate's 'surprise' even though it is not specifically mentioned. All that is mentioned is the Centurion recognizing its 'miraculous' nature.
(d) that Jesus petitioned the Father(?) and then 'he laid down his life' (clearly a mystical reference of central significance to the original cultus i.e. lay down his life for his friends)
(e) the death was accomplished by the 'favor of God'

While none of this admittedly adds up to the traditional notions what a 'docetic' crucifixion it wasn't a natural death. His death had nothing to do with being crucified. He is put on the cross and while on the cross he 'petitions' his father to lay down his life and then by the 'favor of God' it is accomplished. Isn't that close enough to Jesus 'seeming' to have died by crucifixion or whatever the heretics were understood to have said?

Chili

In Catholicsm crucifixion was comedy with nothing tragic about it and so John said: "It is finished" in a glorious end that they just they moved to Rome and kind of left Jesus hanging where he deserved to be.

And Jesus was not a Jew, or he would have been a sinner like his brother James was in Matthew who never quite made it to heaven, just so you know.

stephan huller

Here is what the Philosophumena describes the docetic beliefs about crucifixion to be:

So the docetics were apparently claiming that another 'soul' (= life, nefesh) is adopted at baptism which is 'laid down' at martyrdom and which (as we see in what follows) is 'picked up' by those observing the death who are already possessed of spirit in some sort of transmigration of 'spiritual' souls. Why isn't Origen on the same page with this?

outhouse

origen was a nut job who followed transmigration of souls

andrewcriddle

The passage is rendered in ANF as With the passsages in brackets apparently not in the original but probably representing the sense. ie the docetists here have Christ originally taking a fleshly body from Mary then a spiritual body at baptism and at the crucifixion discarding the physical body obtained from Mary and being left with the spiritual body obtained at baptism.

If this is what is meant, then it is a much more complex picture than Origen's with a much less unified picture of the incarnate Christ.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

Okay well but Origen's writings have been systematically altered and he was being evasive to begin with. But there are striking similarities. I haven't gone through all the references which describe (or perhaps 'attempt to define') what doceticism is in the hostile Church Fathers. My point is just to remind people that Origen isn't defining what he believes as much as he is hinting at some understanding which was kept secret. That might explain the difference between the 'complexity' of the docetae and the 'simplicity' of what survives from Origen's lost Commentary on Matthew Book Five.

stephan huller

What am I supposed to say to this? He was more knowledgeable about this stuff than you and me and everyone else at this forum.

sotto voce

He knew that Jesus had died for him, and it sent him apparently insane. Not the first, and certainly not the last.

Like Ignatius of Loyola, for instance.