Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 02-11-2008, 04:56 PM

Docetic belief was heretical.
To the docetic, Jesus was not real.
He only "seemed to exist"
but did not in fact do so.

Could this be a euphemism
equivalent to the belief
that Jesus was a fiction?

If not, how is the docetic belief,
and the belief in fiction to be
distinguished.

And finally, I hope that there are none
silly enough to think for one moment
that there would not have been people
on the planet in antiquity who, when
hearing all this bullshit about your man,
Jesus, did not immediately think the
text may well have been fiction.

A Big question for smart minds:

Why dont we hear of such belief?
Wouldn't it be expected?

Thus, was it euphemised "just a little"
and given its own reserved category
of herecy -- docetism?

Below I have accumulated various
references to treatments of the term
docetic -- and docetism.

Best wishes

Pete Brown

Quote:

Text and Tradition: The Role of New Testament Manuscripts in Early Christian Studies
The Kenneth W. Clark Lectures
Duke Divinity School
1997
Lecture Two: Text and Transmission: The Historical Significance of the "Altered" Text
Bart D. Ehrman
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

7. In the second century, there were a number of Christians who maintained that since Jesus was fully divine, he could not be human. Included in their number were Marcion and members of several groups of Gnostics. Their opponents called these "heretics" docetists, from the Greek word doke/w (to seem or to appear), since these persons maintained that Jesus only "seemed" or "appeared" to be human.

8. This was a serious and heated controversy in the second century, as it affected profoundly the church's entire understanding of the nature of Christ. If the solution to that question seems obvious today, we should surely reflect on the fact that one side eventually won the debate and then wrote the history of the conflict. In any event, in view of this controversy, it is worth observing how the verses in question were used in the sources that first attest them. They occur three times in the writings of anti-heretical, proto-orthodox church fathers of the second century: Justin, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus. Remarkably, in all three cases they are cited to the same end, to counter any notion Jesus was not a real flesh and blood human being. Justin, for example, argues that Jesus' bloody sweat shows "that the Father wished His Son really to undergo such sufferings for our sakes, so that we "may not say that He, being the Son of God, did not feel what was happening to Him and inflicted on Him" (Dial. 103). What is interesting in this case is that we do not need to hypothesize the usefulness of these verses for an anti-docetic polemic; we know that the verses were put to precisely this use during the second-century and that that is when the account came to be inserted into the third Gospel; scribes who did so may well have been reflecting the anti-docetic concerns of their own communities.

and

Quote:

Docetae: Encyclopedia - Docetism

In Christianity, Docetism is the belief, regarded by most theologians as heretical, that Jesus did not have a physical body; rather, that his body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion. This belief is most commonly attributed to the Gnostics, who believed that matter was evil, and hence that God would not take on a material body. This sort of statement, however, is rooted in the idea that a divine spark is imprisoned within the material body and that the material body is in itself an obstacle, deliberately created by an evil lesser god (the demiurge) for this purpose, that prevents man from seeing his ...

Docetae (Latin from Greek dokein to seem)

Illusionists; applied to certain Gnostics, regarded by the early Christian Church as heretics, who taught that the death of Christ was an illusion, some saying that he did not have a body of real matter but only an apparent body, and others explaining their belief in similar ways.

The Gnostic teaching is that the Christ is the nous or Son of the spirit, overshadowing all mankind, his death being symbolic of its voluntary entrance into the murky mists of the body. Some of these Gnostics would seem to have been trying to achieve an accommodation with the creed of the then growing Christian Church, which had transformed this mystical crucifixion into a literal and historical death of Jesus.

and

From here:

Quote:

Apollinaris of Laodicea

"Our opponents ask:
If Jesus was not an historical personage,
how is it that no one ever doubted his existence?
We reply with the further question:
Granting that he was an historical personage,
how is it that not only does the Talmud never mention him,
but, apart from the gospels, not a single work
belonging to the early Christian period
gives us any intimate detail
about the life of this personage?

231. "DOCETISM....
In the early Church, a tendency, rather than a formulated
and unified doctrine, which considered the humanity and
sufferings of the earthly Christ as apparent rather than real.
Evidence for its existence is to be found in the NT
(1 Jn. 4. 1-3; 2 Jn. 7; cf. Col. 2. 8 f.)".

ANTI-CHRIST

1 John 4:1, where certain ‘spirits’
labeled Antichrist deny that

‘Jesus Christ has come in the flesh,’

while 2 John 7 condemns a similar denial.

and from
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/rfset10.htm

Quote:

“On the other hand, we do find passages in Ignatius which specifically address a docetic position, but they are separate from the more sweeping arguments about the historicity of Jesus. . . . The milieu in which Jesus of Nazareth was emerging into history included many who resisted it, some with outright denial. (See 1 John 4:1f, where certain ‘spirits’ labeled Antichrist deny that ‘Jesus Christ has come in the flesh,’ while 2 John 7 condemns a similar denial.) But that milieu also included some who preferred an incarnated Jesus who had not been a true human being. This latter view was the direction followed by the gnostics. . . .”

Docetism-- Jesus wholly divine -- his humanity and suffering only seemed to be real--
This heresy emerged in about 110 C. E. The term "docetism" is derived from the Greek word dokesis, "to seem." Ignatius warned the church of Smyrna of the danger of this new heresy.

"Docetist" was first used to identify a particular group in Serapion's condemnation of the Gospel of Peter (c 190 CE). Eusebius reports that Serapion forbade use of the Gospel of Peter on the basis of its docetism.(Eusebius, EH VI.xii).-- from Docetism by A. K. M. Adam

and

Quote:

Docetism - An Early Heresy
by E. A. Green

SOURCE: http://home.sprynet.com/~eagreen

Docetism is an early Christian heresy which claimed that Christ was not truly human. Docetism denies the true and full humanity of Christ. The word ‘Docetism’ is derived from the Greek word “dokeo” which means “to appear or seem”. Proponents of this error taught that Christ only appeared or seemed to be human.

The apostle John trumpets explicit warnings against this early heresy:

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.” 1 John 4: 1-3

“For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” 2 John 7

These ominous warnings by the Apostle John confirm what secular history also states; that Docetism had appeared very early among the churches. But, where did it come from? The answer is obtained by understanding the influence pre-christian gnosticism had on the ancient Greek and Roman world.

Harold O. J. Brown says:

“The gnostic movement as a whole and even church-related Gnosticism are really too big and too foreign to the New Testament to be called heresies; they really represent an alternative religion. In producing docetism, Gnosticism presented us with the first heresy that can be clearly lodged ‘within’ Christianity.”

“Gnosticism was not a Christian movement, properly speaking, because apart from a limited number of shared ideas, its interests were quite different from those of biblical religion. The doctrine of Christ was a shared interest, however. Gnosticism produced docetism because it considered it intolerable to think that a pure spiritual being, Christ, could suffer as a man. Hence he must have been human in appearance only.” [HERESIES; pg. 52]

Development Of Early Faith & Docetism

Logically and experientially, the heresy of Docetism could only obtain with second generation believers. Harold O. J. Brown explains this important point:

“The very earliest disciples of Christ encountered him first of all as a man like themselves. Only gradually did they become aware of his extraordinary attributes and come to understand that he was claiming to be one with God the Father. These first Christians experienced Jesus as a man whom they slowly came to recognize as the Messiah, and ultimately acknowledged, in the words of doubting Thomas, as Lord and God (John 20:28). For them, the humanity of Jesus was self-evident; his deity was their confession of faith.”

“Following the passing of the first generation of believers, those who had known Jesus before his resurrection, later believers were almost invariably confronted first of all with his deity, and only slowly came to recognize that the Savior was also fully human, just as we are. Because they heard him proclaimed as Lord and God, it was the news of his full humanity that was rather shocking and in a sense unexpected. It is important to note that this transformation took place during the lifetime of the Apostles. Even Paul himself never knew Jesus after the flesh, as he puts it. He encountered him in the claims--- which he considered blasphemous--- of his followers, who proclaimed him as the divine Son of God.” [HERESIES; pg. 27]

Early Creed Of Ignatius Against Docetism

Docetism, the first of the heresies involving Christology, provoked a reaction which called forth the earliest Christian creed, that of Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius was an early post-New Testament writer who vigorously opposed Docetism. He was martyred toward the end of the reign of Emperor Trajan (ruled 98-117). Harold Brown comments:

“ Rather than seeking to escape this fate (being martyred), he courted it, and admonished the Christians in Rome to do nothing to help him avoid it. In a few brief lines, the creed of Ignatius repeatedly emphasized that Jesus ‘truly, and not in appearance’ did and experienced all that the New Testament ascribes to him, including truly, and not in appearance, being born, suffering, dying, and rising.

Inasmuch as Ignatius anticipated being put to death himself, truly, and not in appearance, his emphasis on the true resurrection of Jesus is entirely understandable.” [HERESIES; pg. 52]

SOURCE: http://home.sprynet.com/~eagreen

Heresies: Docetism
Docetism is not really a single heretical movement. It is, rather, a doctrinal point intrinsic to a number of early Christian heresies and even some contemporary Christian (or Christ-related) denominations. I've found it useful, therefore, to explain it in one location, rather than describing it several times over.

The Meaning of Docetism
Docetism is easily explained: It is a belief that Jesus Christ did not actually die, and therefore was never resurrected bodily. A number of Christian theologies have arrived at this conclusion, in different ways, so Docetism comes in a number of forms.

Gnostic Docetism
As I explained in my essay on Gnosticism, one of the tenets of Gnosticism is that Christ had not actually had a physical existence. What the apostles had interacted with, and what had been killed by the Romans, had actually been an illusion. This was necessitated by Gnostic dualism, which posited that matter, or the physical, was evil, and only light was good. Since they believed Christ to have been "good," then logically, the Gnostics were forced to assert that he had not actually had a physical form.
Samosatene/Arian Docetism
Some of the adherents of the Samosatene Doctrine (championed by Arius) were also Docetists, but for different reasons. They believed that Jesus Christ was not actually God, but rather, a man, in whom lived a divine spirit which inspired and guided Him. When Christ died, that spirit fled from Him, since nothing divine can die. (Hence, Jesus's famous dying words, Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani?) Thus, according to this model, it was only Jesus-the-man who actually died.
Not all Arians were Docetists. In fact, the majority tried to avoid taking such a stance. After all, simply asserting that Christ was less than fully divine got them in enough trouble, as it was! Many of the more intellectual Arianists, however, could not help but come to this conclusion, based on the logic of the basic Samosatene premise, as well as scriptural support (cited).

Other Appearances of Docetism
Docetism has cropped up in a number of Christian belief systems, and even has some adherents still. The main reason that it keeps coming up, is that, in one form or another, it rationally answers the question, How could God be human? How could God have died? The Docetist answer, of course — whatever the reasoning might be — is that God never was human and never actually died.
More orthodox Christians consider Docetism to be among the most severe threats to their beliefs, since it denies the resurrection, which they consider to be the most important facet of Christianity. Without it, one might as well not believe in Christ at all!

Thus, there will always be some Docetist theology popping up here or there, and there'll always be some orthodox "enforcers" trying to suppress or debunk it

mountainman · 02-11-2008, 05:08 PM

There is nothing like a practical example. The following is from Glen Davis'
The Development of the Canon of the New Testament, and specifically the commentary page concerning Acts of John (Ephesus, 150-200 CE)

Davis reports this text exhibits unmistakable Docetic tendencies

Quote:

Acts of John (Ephesus, 150-200 CE)

The Acts of John purports to give an eyewitness account of the missionary work of the apostle John in and around Ephesus; it may therefore be of Ephesian provenance. It probably dates to the 2nd half of the 2nd century. Although no complete text is extant, we have considerable portions in Greek and in Latin. The Stichometry of Nicephorus gives its length as 2500 lines, the same number as for the Gospel according to Matthew. An English translation is in [Schneemelcher] v. 2 pp. 172-212.

The author of the Acts of John, said to be Leucius, a real or fictitious companion of the apostle John, narrates his miracles, sermons, and death. The sermons display unmistakable Docetic tendencies, especially in the description of Jesus and the immateriality of his body:

.... Sometimes when I meant to touch him [Jesus], I met with a material and solid body; but at other times when I felt him, his substance was immaterial and incorporeal, as if it did not exist at all ... And I often wished, as I walked with him, to see his footprint, whether it appeared on the ground (for I saw him as it were raised up from the earth), and I never saw it. (§ 93)

The author also relates that Jesus was constantly changing shape, appearing sometimes as a small boy, sometimes as a beautiful man; sometimes bald-headed with a long beard, sometimes as a youth with a pubescent beard (§ 87-89).

The book includes a long hymn (§ 94-96), which no doubt was once used as a liturgical song (with response) in some Johannine communities. Before he goes to die, Jesus gathers his apostles in a circle, and, while holding one another's hands as they circle in a dance around him, he sings a hymn to the Father. The terminology of the hymn is closely related to that of the Johannine Gospel, especially its prologue. At the same time, the author gives the whole a Docetic cast.

Besides presenting theologically-oriented teaching, the author knows how to spin strange and entertaining stories. There is for example, the lengthy account of the devout Drusiana and her ardent lover Callimachus in a sepulchre (§ 63-86), which was no doubt intended to provide Christians with an alternative to the widely-read libidinous story of the Ephesian widow and the guard at her late husband's tomb. For a lighter touch the author entertains his readers with the droll incident of the bedbugs (§ 60-61).

Although the Acts of John is without importance for the historical Jesus and the apostle John, it is nevertheless valuable for tracing the development of popular Christianity. It is, for example, the oldest source recording the celebration of the Eucharist for the dead (§ 72).

The Acts of John may have been composed by a member of the Hellenistic cultivated classes, who drew upon various literary genuses and in so doing, without any specific attachment to a concrete community, sought to propagate a Christianity as he understood it, as the expression of certain aspirations of a philosophical attitude to the world which he had held even before his conversion.

schilling.klaus · 02-11-2008, 10:29 PM

It's necessary for Christianity to see the existence in the flesh as something thoroughly corrupted and polluted from the uttermost beginning, thus Jesus who is beyond corruption may impossibly be a flesh-and-bone being.
Thus true Christianity is necessarily docetic.

Klaus Schilling

karlmarx · 02-12-2008, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

It's necessary for Christianity to see the existence in the flesh as something thoroughly corrupted and polluted from the uttermost beginning, thus Jesus who is beyond corruption may impossibly be a flesh-and-bone being.
Thus true Christianity is necessarily docetic.

Klaus Schilling

Depends on your definition of "true Christianity".
Iranaeus would counter that if Jesus was not flesh-and-blood, then his sacrifice would have been meaningless. It takes a human being to suffer - incorruptible, purely spiritual beings don't suffer when they're crucified.

(For every theologian, you will find two definitions of what "true Christianity" is :Cheeky

schilling.klaus · 02-13-2008, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by karlmarx

Depends on your definition of "true Christianity".
Iranaeus would counter that if Jesus was not flesh-and-blood, then his sacrifice would have been meaningless. It takes a human being to suffer - incorruptible, purely spiritual beings don't suffer when they're crucified

Irenaeus represents fake Christianity,
asall those who glorify the life in the flesh.

Klaus Schilling

mountainman · 02-14-2008, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

Thus true Christianity is necessarily docetic.

Thus is "euphemism" an appropriate term by which "fictitious" and "docetic" may have been conflated by later "christian historians".

Or is a better term - obscurantism?

karlmarx · 02-15-2008, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

Thus true Christianity is necessarily docetic.

Thus is "euphemism" an appropriate term by which "fictitious" and "docetic" may have been conflated by later "christian historians".

Or is a better term - obscurantism?

I'd say so. But I'd be reluctant to attribute this to an intent to deceive. Is there any evidence that a 1st/2nd C mind could draw a distinction between the two? We're talking about a time where demons were thought to possess pigs...

02-15-2008, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Could this be a euphemism
equivalent to the belief
that Jesus was a fiction?

Well Pete,
give it a few weeks and you'll be certain it is.

Just like your question
"did Constantine and Eusebius forge the entire NT"
turned into certainty they did.

Iasion

mountainman · 02-15-2008, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Just like your question
"did Constantine and Eusebius forge the entire NT"
turned into certainty they did.

This inept criticism does not understand my position.
My response is very simple: I will adher to the integrity
expressed by the ancient historian Arnaldo Momigliano:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AM

Any statement a historian makes must
be supported by evidence which, according
to ordinary criteria of human judgement,
is adequate to prove the reality of the
statement itself. This has three
consequences:

1) Historians must be prepared to admit
in any given case that they are unable
to reach safe conclusions because the
evidence is insufficient; like judges,
historians must be ready to say 'not proven'.

2) The methods used to ascertain the value
of the evidence must continually be scrutinised
and perfected, because they are essential to
historical research.

3) The historians themselves must be judged
according to their ability to establish facts.

Note well the bolded issue one.
This is a two edged sword.

I am prepared to admit, and have always from the
beginning of my research, and my first post here,
that I seek to be refuted.

I have never ever once claimed my, or any other thesis,
is proven or correct.

You will however note the extreme scarcity amidst
the mainstreamers who are willing to consider that
the mainstream conjecture --- that Christianity
actually existed before Constantine --- is not
proven and correct.

Everyone accepts Eusebius as proven and correct.

We are dealing with a two edged sword Iasion.
I am quite prepared to be shown "incorrect" by evidence.
But is the mainstream hegemon similarly prepared?
I dont think so.

The reason for this is that Biblical History does not abide
necessarily by these three issues highlighted by Momigliano
in the field of ancient history. The field of "Biblical
History" has a few extra postulates.

One of these (perhaps unexamined) postulates
is that an historical Jesus existed in the first century.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

mountainman · 02-15-2008, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by karlmarx

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Thus is "euphemism" an appropriate term by which "fictitious" and "docetic" may have been conflated by later "christian historians".

Or is a better term - obscurantism?

I'd say so. But I'd be reluctant to attribute this to an intent to deceive.

Are you aware we are dealing with Eusebius?
His integrity has been disputed for some time.
It was he who tells us all about prenicene herecies
involving the "doceticists" and the "gnostics".

Quote:

Is there any evidence that a 1st/2nd C mind could draw a distinction between the two? We're talking about a time where demons were thought to possess pigs...

The monstrous christian literature tells us about demonic pigs.
The number of 1st/2nd C minds which read the greek of the
new testament literature was very small and insignificant.
Most people read Marcus Aurelius. Many people still read
Marcus Aurelius.

The ancient were not educated in the same manner that
we are today, but the wise ones amoungst them were not
stupid. Political reality was understood by everybody.

Everyone who witnessed Constantine totally unexplained
destruction of the temple of Asclepius at Aegae, c.324 CE,
just before Nicaea, and the public execution of the chief
priests, understood that COnstantine was setting an example.

Life was short and brutish.
Minds were as sharp as ever.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-11-2008, 10:29 PM	#3
schilling.klaus Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Germany Posts: 267	It's necessary for Christianity to see the existence in the flesh as something thoroughly corrupted and polluted from the uttermost beginning, thus Jesus who is beyond corruption may impossibly be a flesh-and-bone being. Thus true Christianity is necessarily docetic. Klaus Schilling

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.