Freethought & Rationalism Archive

03-03-2008, 02:24 AM

Sure enough,

2 weeks later, mm now claims :
"Docetic is a christian euphemism for fiction."

over on RD.net :
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/view...6314&start=175

Iasion

schilling.klaus · 03-03-2008, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Sure enough,

2 weeks later, mm now claims :
"Docetic is a christian euphemism for fiction."

over on RD.net :
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/view...6314&start=175

it's more of a synonym or subcategory of purely metaphysical reality.
Positivist right-wing fundamentalists like Dawkins are devoid of understanding the metaphysical, thus are unqualified to talk about docetism.

Klaus Schilling

Solo · 03-31-2008, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

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?
.....
.....
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
......

Despite the naysayers here, the question Pete poses is fair and needs to be answered. If Jesus was purely divine then he did not exist as a man but only as apparition, materializing and dematerializing on unknown biological principles. Does such a belief assume that the figure of Jesus was "fictional" ?

I do not think it does. It simply assumes a divine intervention in which Jesus appears historically but only seemingly in human form. This was a sincere belief which had nothing to do with a view there was not enough "evidence" for historical Jesus - which of course, did not enter into anyone's head in the 2nd century CE.

Rather, docetic beliefs of the early Jesus believers had to do with the "internal evidence" for Jesus, i.e. the psi phenomena accompanying certain destabilized brain functions. It was the uncanny "bending", or distortions, of reality attested by its apostolic leaders that the believer community came to accept as vouching for the "reality" of Jesus.

It was in the nature of the Jesus experiences that they were transitory - the apostles were returning to their "right mind" (2 Cr 5:13) to interpret the visitations from Jesus. Naturally then, some speculated that "the events" around the "reality" of Jesus were of purely spiritual nature, and reasoned that Jesus himself then was either a normal human being who was divine only "part-time" or a being which could be apprehended only mystically by a select few. Paul, of course knew such views and combatted them (1 Cr 15, Gal 4:4), although in his schema he completely discounted the import of actions and words of the earthly Jesus. Paul's rejection of earthly Jesus (which in his mind was God's will) led some later followers of Paul, notably Marcion, to adopt the docetic stance. For Marcion, such platform presented also the bonus of not having to relate to the Jewish roots of Jesus.

Jiri

mountainman · 03-31-2008, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

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?
.....
.....
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
......

Despite the naysayers here, the question Pete poses is fair and needs to be answered. If Jesus was purely divine then he did not exist as a man but only as apparition, materializing and dematerializing on unknown biological principles. Does such a belief assume that the figure of Jesus was "fictional" ?

I do not think it does.

When you start with the assumption we are dealing with a divinity then further assumptions are immaterial. I do not make this assumption. I am seeking the fabric of history not theology, at the moment.

Jesus is either historical or ahistorical. Docetism -- the state of only seeming to be but not actually existing -- is relevant to historicism and ahistoricism in different ways. In its common useage , if you say something does not really exist, but only seems to exist, you may as well be saying it is fictional. Of course, the problem with fiction is that it raises the complexity of historiographical issues associated with fraud. This is a matter for some contemplation.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Solo · 03-31-2008, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

When you start with the assumption we are dealing with a divinity then further assumptions are immaterial. I do not make this assumption. I am seeking the fabric of history not theology, at the moment.

For the record, it is not I who is starting with the assumption of divinity. It was the docetists.

Quote:

Jesus is either historical or ahistorical. Docetism -- the state of only seeming to be but not actually existing --

.....that's where I believe you are making a mistake...the "seeming" did not have to do with JC existing per se, but whether during his visit among mortals he had a physical body.

People who are informed by radically altered mentation are open to all sorts of ways to explain the strange things that are happening to them.

Among other things, it is a well known fact that enraptured mystics and euphoric psychotics do not feel pain. Luke's Jesus does not seem to feel pain....and he "transfers" this power to his disciples (Lk 10:19). So, when the early Jesus sects practiced and interpreted "unio mystica", this facet would have informed their specualtions about the nature of Christ. Not difficult to see what the docetist idea of Superman whose physicality was an illusion was drawing on.

Quote:

... is relevant to historicism and ahistoricism in different ways. In its common useage , if you say something does not really exist, but only seems to exist, you may as well be saying it is fictional.

And which docetist was saying that Jesus only seemed to exist ?

Jiri

mountainman · 03-31-2008, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

When you start with the assumption we are dealing with a divinity then further assumptions are immaterial. I do not make this assumption. I am seeking the fabric of history not theology, at the moment.

For the record, it is not I who is starting with the assumption of divinity. It was the docetists.

Docetists are known uniquely and specifically via the christian ecclesiatical history. Therefore let's agree that it is the authors of this dogma assert the theological issues. Separately there are the historical and ahistorical issues to be considered. Examining this we find these authors also assert a classification system of various heresies, including docetism.

Quote:

.....that's where I believe you are making a mistake...the "seeming" did not have to do with JC existing per se, but whether during his visit among mortals he had a physical body.

But let's for the moment consider the possibility that in fact JC did not exist anywhere but in the literature. That his nomina sacra remained understood as the Joshua of the Hebrew bible, and that Jesus was wheeled in with a codex or scroll in century 2, 3 or 4. What would the news report be looking like? Would anyone ask the obvious question? Were their in fact many "anti-christian particles"? How would his reception be reported? This is the question one needs to ask a christian activist/apologist (since in theory, Eusebius is later reporting these peoples observations) in the appropriate century (not the first).

Quote:

... is relevant to historicism and ahistoricism in different ways. In its common useage , if you say something does not really exist, but only seems to exist, you may as well be saying it is fictional.

And which docetist was saying that Jesus only seemed to exist ?

The author of the Acts of John:

Quote:

Acts of John

István Czachesz:
Recent opinions about the date and provenance of the Acts of John largely differ. Junod and Kaestli, Acta Iohannis, pp. 692ff and Histoire, p. 4, suggest the second half of the second century in Egypt; Schäferdiek, "Acts of John", pp. 166f, the first half of the third century in East Syria; Lalleman, Acts of John, pp. 244-70, the second quarter of the second century in Asia Minor. Recently Bremmer,"Apocryphal Acts" (Printed Resources ), pp. 158f, confirmed Asia Minor as a place of origin and suggested c. 150 as the date of writing (pp. 153f). Cf. Czachesz, Apostolic Commission, pp. 117f. Chapters 94-102 and 109 probably were added later, cf. Junod and Kaestli, Acta Iohannis, pp. 700ff and Histoire , p. 4; Lalleman, Acts of John, pp. 59-66 and 266ff; Luttikhuizen, "Gnostic Reading". For the reconstruction of the text, see Czachesz, Apostolic Commission, pp. 91-96.

Geoff Trowbridge:
The Acts of John (c. 150-200 C.E.) were once believed to be the earliest of the Apocryphal Acts, though much of its gnostic idealogy is not found in the other acts (except Thomas). Many scholars believe the blatantly gnostic and/or docetic chapters (94-102 and 109) are a later addition. The original author is traditionally believed to be Leucius Charinus, a companion of John who was later associated with the Manichaeans. The book tells of John's two journeys to Ephesus, during which he performs several ressurections and converts the followers of Artemis after destroying their temple. The book also includes the "Hymn of Christ," used in a modern musical work by Gustav Holst. Like the Johannine gospel, the Christology of the Acts shows some Hellenistic influence. Because the Acts of John were condemned particularly early in their history, all the surviving texts are fragmentary. The earliest manuscripts are Greek, though many Latin texts show later developments and may have suffered from Catholic attempts to purge the unorthodox passages.

Glenn Davis:
Acts of John (Ephesus, 150-200 CE) 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.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

arnoldo · 03-31-2008, 08:10 PM

I remember in Philosophy 101 studying about Plato and the shadows on the wall and such. Do you believe that Jesus was a jungian archetpe of humanity rising out of the caves into the realm of pure thought?

mountainman · 03-31-2008, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

I remember in Philosophy 101 studying about Plato and the shadows on the wall and such. Do you believe that Jesus was a jungian archetpe of humanity rising out of the caves into the realm of pure thought?

I believe Plato's Cave was intended to be an allegory. I believe that it is reasonable to believe that Plato was an historical figure. I am not so sure about your man Jesus, who shares with Joshua, the same nomina sacra from a certain point in the ancient historical record. That epoch needs to be determined. We know Jesus became historical by the fourth century. There is conjecture concerning the third and the second. The first century appears to be completely silent. The possibilities it seems - for the historical jesus and/or the ahistorical jesus - are one of, or a combination of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries.

Docetism covers all these, since the seeming appearance of the first century seems to be exactly that --- no footprints.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Solo · 04-01-2008, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

For the record, it is not I who is starting with the assumption of divinity. It was the docetists.

....let's for the moment consider the possibility that in fact JC did not exist anywhere but in the literature. That his nomina sacra remained understood as the Joshua of the Hebrew bible, and that Jesus was wheeled in with a codex or scroll in century 2, 3 or 4. What would the news report be looking like? Would anyone ask the obvious question? Were their in fact many "anti-christian particles"? How would his reception be reported? This is the question one needs to ask a christian activist/apologist (since in theory, Eusebius is later reporting these peoples observations) in the appropriate century (not the first).

Ok, so the docetists encountered not JC but the texts about JC. Are you saying that they "knew" what they have been served was untrue and had to be modified to euphemize Jesus' non-existence ? But if that was the case, why would Eusebius (or Iraneaus or Epiphanius) not report such beliefs, as they would have no doubt appeared absurd to them and their audience ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

And which docetist was saying that Jesus only seemed to exist ?

The author of the Acts of John:

.... 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.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

But Pete, this does not argue that the belief in magical corporeality was automatically a belief of non-existence. There were, as Bart Ehrman points out in Lost Christianities (p. 178-179) (or via: amazon.co.uk) proto-orthodox views of Jesus which were very similar to Acts of John. Both Origen and Clement of Alexandria believed that Jesus could change the appearance of his body at will. Clement wrote:

Quote:

But in the case of the Saviour it would be ridiculuous [to suppose] that the body, as a body, demanded the necessary aids in order for its duration. For he ate, not for the sake of the body, which was kept together by a holy energy, but in order that it might not enter into the minds of those who were with Him to entertain a different opinion of him; in a manner as certainly some afterwards supposed that He appeared in a phantasmal shape. But he was entirely impassable; inaccessible to any movement of feeling - either pleasure or pain. Miscellanies 6.71.2

Ehrman comments:

Quote:

In other words, Jesus ate simply to keep people from entertaing docetic notions about him, even though in fact he did not need to eat and could not feel pleasure or pain. It is hard to imagine how that is the same thing as having a real body of flesh and blood...

Jiri

Chili · 04-01-2008, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

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

But Pete, if Jesus was the pupa stage how can you say that he was not real?

. . . and he ate, of course he did, because you cannot spend 40 months without food . . . but he was no longer the greedy Adam Moore (from "A Strange Manuscript") who wanted more of everything. In fact, he was carried away by another and put into a new cloak that had to be removed once again so could soar like the golden eagle and flutter in the wind.

Go to Rev. 14 and read why 40 months is it and not 40 years and if those 40 months do not exist how can you be arguning now with those who are 'doing' there 40 years and still die nonetheless?

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

03-03-2008, 02:24 AM	#11
Iasion Guest Posts: n/a	Sure enough, 2 weeks later, mm now claims : "Docetic is a christian euphemism for fiction." over on RD.net : http://richarddawkins.net/forum/view...6314&start=175 Iasion

03-31-2008, 08:10 PM	#17
arnoldo Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Latin America Posts: 4,066	I remember in Philosophy 101 studying about Plato and the shadows on the wall and such. Do you believe that Jesus was a jungian archetpe of humanity rising out of the caves into the realm of pure thought?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.