Talk:Docetism

old talk

Should there be a link to the "1st papal crusade"? Is there an article about it yet? Wesley

---

It is not surprising that the Muslims share the Docetic heresy: Gnosticism persisted in the Persian Empire long after it was eliminated in the Greco-Roman one. Gnostics were Mohammed's source where Jesus was concerned.

Not all Gnostics favored docetism. Whoever wrote this article is rather ignorant of the diversity of Gnostic beliefs.

---

Wesley, can you name one of Muhammad's Gnostic sources? Meanwhile, let me say something here.

The Qur'anic verse quoted here at the end of the article should be elaborated at more. Let me bring another translation of the verse (4:157). The translation of the verse in The Noble Qur'an (trans. by Khan and Hilali) says as follow:

(And because of their [the Jews] saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allâh," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not.) [1] The brackets are mine since the verse is a continuation of the previous one. Verse (4:157) says in Arabic:

وما قتلوه وما صلبوه ولكن شبه لهم وإن الذين اختلفوا فيه لفي شك منه ما لهم به من علم إلا اتباع الظن وما قتلوه يقيناً

The word شبه shubbiha doesn't mean 'imagine' or 'seem' but 'resemble.' The Qur'an here is saying here that someone was crucified instead of Jesus who was raised to Heaven (as verse 4:158) says, and his resemblance descended on someone else. Alathiri 01:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A little correction here!

Docetismism? How does that compare to Chritianityity or Americanismism or humanitarianarian? THIS IS OUR COMPETENT WIKIPEDIA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.120.119 (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Claims of the dominance of docetism and late authorship of the New Testament

I corrected the text's assertion that docetism was the dominant Christology from AD 70, for about 100 years, and that the New Testament was written later. It's far too contentious of an assertion. I think it suffices to say that it was quite common, and that certain New Testament passages appear to have been written to contradict it. Asserting which was more prevalent seems beyond anyone's current expertise, especially that of the 1907 source which was cited authoritatively. Meanwhile, since 1907, much research has addressed the reasons why some scholars had supposed that most of the New Testament must have had a late second-century origin. Again, arguments can be made both ways, but it seems beyond the scope and expertise of this article to affirm decisively which is superior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.183.211 (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Buddhist analogy taken off

In the 3rd paragraph was this one phrase discussion the idea of temporary phenomenon and its relation to illusion:

"It could be compared to how a Buddhist speaks about illusion: illusion is everything that is temporary, not everything that is not real."

This quote is not an adequate and accurate representation of the Buddhist view of reality, for Buddhist do not deny the existance of a phenomenon based on its transientness. It blurrs the point of the article and may be misleading for readers. Thus this sentence is taken down.

Theosophical deletion

I deleted the coment which I assume had triggered the warning about 'original research'. It was simply a statement that a theosophical interpretation of Christ was right and everything else in the article was wrong. If I could have rescued a neutral statement of what theosophical belief in this area was I would have done, but it wasn't expressed well enough; I suggest that someone with that knowledge creates it if it is useful. I also deleted the warning, and only afterwards wondered if I was meant to - apologies if that is a breach of etiquette.

Gospel of John

It is unclear to me why the Gospel of John has been placed under the "Texts including Docetism" section. The passage cited has little bearing on central Docetist notion of the illusion of the crucifixion, unlike, for example, the passage cited from the Qu'ran below. From my researches, it seems that most scholars consider the Gospel of John to be opposed to Docetist ideas. I have removed this part of the article before, but someone has replaced it; if someone could clear up why it is there, I would much appreciate it. In the mean time I have removed it again. Parthenias (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll find a source, but I guess you are coming from the angle that the Gospel of John never had any insertions, etc. I mean the passages docetism speaks for itself(docetism simply refers to Jesus not having a physical flesh & blood body during any time of his ministry, it's not strictly crucifixion related). ʄ!•¿talk? 08:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that 'insertions' are really at issue here. My problem is that the text does not explicitly embrace Docetism: saying "Do not touch me" really makes no statement about the reality or illusion of one's body. If you have scholarly evidence, that should go alongside the quote; perhaps even a section "Possible Docetism in the New Testament" would be good, especially as I am confident that this is a minority opinion. In the meantime, I am going to remove the reference until there is some further explanation, preferably in the article itself. Parthenias (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Docetism and Islam

The article should perhaps mention the historically alleged links between Docetism and Islam, since both will typically reject the reality of Jesus's crucifixion. Some Muslims scholars also cite related docetist literature in order to reject the crucifixion and the resurrection. ADM (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This section should be removed. The Islamic view that Jesus was not crucified is in no way connected to docetism. The koran holds that Jesus was the messiah, and he was taken up to heaven, but he was not God or the son of God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.70.167 (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The Islamic connection has nothing to do with Jesus' status, but rather with his manner of death -- i.e. that he did not actually die on a cross, but only his eidolon appeared to do so. Such a belief can be fairly called "Docetic"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the section blanking, as the main work cited does characterize Islamic views as Docetic. However I'm open to further discussion of the text there as I do not see the particular passage being referred to there; I suspect there's some WP:OR going on. Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Islam is docetism manichean, because Bahira, mentor from Muhammad was manichean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.8.22.136 (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Physical Body?

Item amended to "his human form was an illusion".

"Broadly it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his physical body was a phantasm." This is a loaded definition and could be seen to be self-contradictory.

To a Docetist, Christ is a divine being and therefore he simply doesn't have a 'physical (material) body'.

Nicea

Item Removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 10:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

"Docetism was unequivocally rejected at the First Council of Nicaea in 325[9]" Is there any proof of this because the text of the council doesn't even mention the Docetism? It appears to be and unfounded assumption and I suggest its removed. Docetism was possibly condemned by local synods and councils, perhaps these should be referenced.

I'm guessing what was meant is that the Council of Nicea rejected Docetism by implication of the Nicene Creed which states: "Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven..." but a better source should be found for when it was condemned. The earliest council I know of that condemned it was Chalcedon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:480:4101:B790:8C8D:90FF:C2DC:65AC (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Monophysites

"While these characteristics (abstaining from the Eucharist) fit a Monophysite framework" Actually they don't, monophysites partake of the Eucharists as do their modern representatives the Miaphysites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Apparition or myth?

The article is criss -crossing two different conceptions of docetism. We should be careful with word use, since ideas and terms get crossed very easily. The article is a witness to this. There is fatal difference between Jesus seeming to have a body, and Jesus not having a body at all. The former fits more along the lines of an external appearance and hallucination of a sort, that is, jesus appeared to them in the form of a body, which was not physical. The latter is best understood as an internal unembodied presence, which wholly lacks any form of body. Note that docetism can be interpreted as the doctrine in which Jesus is believed to have had a spiritual body which appeared external to the disciples. Docetism can also be surmised instead as the negation of that belief, which is that jesus never had any form or type of body whatsoever, be it spiritual or physical.

I am unsure of any scholarly material that etches out this distinction.

There should perhaps be an article that details this distinction to help sand out interpretative issues. Or maybe previous entries can be edited in order that the article is more objective in classification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.30.129 (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If according to both theories Jesus did not undergo any bodily suffering, then they're quasi-equivalent from the point of view of mainstream Christian doctrine... AnonMoos (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The theory in which Christ is an apparition is compatible with a suffering savior. In this case, prior to the crucifixion Jesus can be interpreted as a physically existing human who suffered on the cross, had died, and was resurrected. Prior to his ascension he appeared to the disciples in a new spiritual form, giving messages and teachings, and was then brought into heaven by god, where he awaits the second coming. Therefore Jesus can be interpreted as being an apparition after the Resurrection but prior to the ascension, with one still being able to maintain the belief without contradiction that he was human and suffered on the cross.

To say that the two theories are quasi-equivalent is an oversimplification and only works to obfuscate intellectual thinking, as well as cloud Jesus theories and lead them into some false dichotomy of orthodoxy and heterodoxy.Saintobalys (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Ignatius of Antioch

@Nishidani: in this edit you said you were removing OR and UNDUE. Maybe, but you added new material including two citations from a thesis by an (otherwise unpublished?) author, Daniel Streett. The new material itself, analysing the target of Ignatius of Antioch's writing, seems to be given undue weight in this article on docetism. Can you justify keeping it here? – Fayenatic London 08:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

In Popular Culture?

Surely Docetism's "cameo" in Treehouse of Horror XXV deserves a mention? Gambaguru (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Must every reference that Simpsons makes be added to Wikipedia? 76.32.229.126 (talk) 04:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)