jakejonesiv

Hi Chris,

If you care to believe that a docetic phantom was a historical being, then be my guest. Clearly, such an entity is fictional, the product of religious imagination. Equally fictional was God Incarnate, born of a Virgin, some impossible mixture of human and divine. This was the debate between the Marcionites and some gnostics vs. the proto-orthodox. Chris, you wrote “both were actually on earth.” Duh, NO! Neither were actually on earth.

In some mysterious manner, the HJ proponents presume that if Jesus was deemed by anyone to be in any wise human, or to have in any wise descended to earth, that this is evidence that he was an historical person. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just because some religious fanatic believed something doesn’t make it fact.

I don't follow the "sub lunar" realm theory, if by that it is meant Jesus was never deemed to have descended as far as ground level, or even below. It is inconsistent with Eph 4:9-10. The power of the "Lord of this World" (Satan or the Demiurge depending on sect) was thought to encompass the air, the surface of the earth, and the underworld.

The world that Jesus descended to is not our world. It is an imagenary construct similar to our world, but that is dominated by spirits, and has a cosmology completely at odds with science. Fantastic events are reported as common place.

If you care to get a feel for what the Marcionites may have believed, see my post here,
A neglected myth.


See also Ein vollständiger marcionitischer Erlösermythos
Esnik von Kolb, Wider die Sekten - Buch 4
Sure sounds mythical to me, but then so does orthodox Chrisitianity.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Hi ynquirer,

Great points!

I wrote that historical issues cannot be decided soley on grammatical grounds, the operative word here being solely.

Context, and the earliest extant intepretation of the text are also important. If Christianity is indeed a second century phenomenon, the latter is even more helpful. Either way, e-Catena can be a valuable tool.

Thanks again,
Jake Jones IV

ynquirer

Thanks to you, Jake Jones IV. Your theory that the Christ might have been believed to incarnate in the flesh of his faithful believers is an interesting variant of mythicism, which I think in merit to be throughly explored.

My main reserve against "context," is this: if context may have an author say something different from what grammar implies he says, then context is overrated IMHO.

Also thank you for links to Church Fathers that could afford the earliest extant interpretation of the text. I have tracked them in reference to both 1 John 4:2-3 and 2 John 1:7. I have found the following references:

1) Cyprian, Treatise XII - Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews, quotes Paul as saying "God sent His Son, born of a woman."

2) Tertulian, Against Praxeas, quotes Peter as saying: "Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ."

3) Tertulian, The Prescription Against Heretics, just says that Marcion is one of the Antichrists.

4) Tertulian, Against Marcion - Book V: again says that Marcion is one that denied that Christ came in the flesh.

5) Tertulian, On the Flesh of Christ: "By declaring that His flesh is simply and absolutely true, and taken in the plain sense of its own nature, the Scripture aims a blow at all who make distinctions in it."

6) Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians: "And he that rejects the incarnation, and is ashamed of the cross for which I am in bonds, this man is antichrist."

7) Iranaeus, Against Heresies - Book III: "Every one that believeth that Jesus is the Christ, has been born of God; knowing Jesus Christ to be one and the same, to whom the gates of heaven were opened, because of His taking upon Him flesh: who shall also come in the same flesh in which He suffered, revealing the glory of the Father."

(Other references are tangential to the issue in hand, I hope.)

Of these seven references, those numbered 1, 2 and 5 afford strong evidence against your theory. No.6 is also adverse, but in a somewhat lighter manner. Nos. 3 and 4 are completely neutral, since Marcion did not contend that Christ came in the flesh of His followers either. Only No.7 might be interpreted in the sense you mean, yet it, with equal strength, could be interpreted as meaning that Jesus had his own flesh, not his followers'.

Neither do the earliest extant interpretations support your theory of Jesus' incarnation in the flesh of his followers, nor do they support any mythicist theory.

Steven Avery

Hi Jake,

There is a related aspect that you may not have noticed, but is clearer in 2 John which has the present participle form, continuing action. The prophetic office is just one part of 5-fold ministry. These scripture verse sections are relating to folks who have been fully a part of the household of faith. In rebellion they have loosed themselves from recognizing the authority of the ministry (with the body of believers) as being Jesus Christ come in the flesh.

2 John 1:7-10
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.
Look to yourselves,
that we lose not those things which we have wrought,
but that we receive a full reward.
Whosoever transgresseth,
and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.
He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ,
he hath both the Father and the Son.
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine,
receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

These men (and women) who left the fellowship of the Spirit (and entered into the world) are no longer acknowledging the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ through the apostolic ministry. They will not confess the Lord Jesus here today on earth through His representatives, ministry, believers. And such can become the greatest opponents of the Lord Jesus. See the pitfall, the danger, the admonition of Hebrews 4. They have moved to a place without respect or honor. So we see the verse segue above from not confessing to no longer having any place of fellowship.

Similarly in the same context of confessing Jesus come in the flesh

1 John2:19
They went out from us,
but they were not of us;
for if they had been of us,
they would no doubt have continued with us:
but they went out,
that they might be made manifest
that they were not all of us.

Please understand that these verses have nothing to do with skeptics, mythicists, atheists, unbelievers. They surely have a difficult road to hoe, however these apostolic epistles (to the brothers and sisters in faith) simply are not addressing their difficulties. They need the foundationstones of Hebrews 6.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Kosh

Why don't you guys split this off into another thread.

<unsubscribe>

Toto

Done.

The discussion of Gal 2 and the question of whether Christ was incarnate in Paul's flesh has been split off here.

ynquirer

Ok, no problem. But the opening post of that thread mentions neither Paul nor Gal 2 and entirely belongs in the discussion on 2 John. It ought to have remained in this thread, I think.

Didymus

Patristic writings are laced with anti-docetic polemics of this kind. The writers were not excoriating pagans, Jews, non-believers or those unfathomably obscure folks who left us no writings about their belief in a sublunar Jesus, but railing against those who believed that Jesus, to be truly sinless, would have had to have been a spirit in the appearance (holograph!) of a man. Docetists believed that Jesus appeared on earth, participated in human history, had an earthly preaching career and was crucified. But they didn't think he consisted of flesh and blood.

Such "erroneous" teaching about Christ was considered worse than non-belief because it led prime converts in the wrong direction. A docetic crucifixion would have illusory; a crucified docetic Jesus would have been nothing more than a realistic apparition, and as such would have suffered no physical pain.

Orthodox - or what became orthodox - church fathers like Ignatius of Antioch considered docetism to be a grave theological error that diluted the power and meaning of the Crucifixion. (For reasons that I don't fully understand, they also seemed to think that belief in such a Jesus would have reduced the authority of the church and weakened the cohesion of the Christian community.)

Of course, a mythical Jesus who existed only in a spiritual realm would be equally lacking in this fleshly connection with mankind. Perhaps that's one reason why Christianity didn't get off the ground until the gospels were published. Paul failed to sufficiently humanize Jesus' suffering on the cross.

Didymus

Amaleq13

Done.

GenesisNemesis

2 John 7. For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

What's so special about this verse?