Docetism: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
imported>Skyerise
 
imported>ScottyNolan
Added image and caption
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
{{Christology|expanded=Doctrines}}
{{Christology|expanded=Doctrines}}


In the [[history of Christianity]], '''docetism''' (from the {{langx|grc-x-koine|δοκεῖν/δόκησις}} ''dokeĩn'' "to seem", ''dókēsis'' "apparition, phantom"<ref>{{harvnb|González|2005|pp=46–47}}: "A term derived from the Greek ''dokein'', to seem, or to appear."</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Strecker|2000|p=438}}.</ref>) was the doctrine that the phenomenon of [[Jesus]], his historical and bodily existence, and above all the human form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality.<ref>{{harvnb|Brox|1984|p=306}}.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Schneemelcher|Maurer|1994|p=220}}.</ref> Broadly, it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion.
[[File:Andrea_Mantegna_-_Beweinung_Christi.jpg | thumb | right | alt=Lamentation of Christ  | Lamentation of Christ ]]
In the [[history of Christianity]], '''docetism''' (from the {{langx|grc-x-koine|δοκεῖν/δόκησις}} ''dokeĩn'' "to seem", ''dókēsis'' "apparition, phantom"<ref>{{harvnb|González|2005|pp=46–47}}: "A term derived from the Greek ''dokein'', to seem, or to appear."</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Strecker|2000|p=438}}.</ref>) was the doctrine that the phenomenon of [[Jesus]], his [[Historical Jesus|historical]] and bodily existence, and above all the human form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality.<ref>{{harvnb|Brox|1984|p=306}}.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Schneemelcher|Maurer|1994|p=220}}.</ref> Broadly, it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion.


The word {{lang|grc|Δοκηταί}} ''Dokētaí'' ("Illusionists") referring to early groups who denied Jesus's humanity, first occurred in a letter by Bishop [[Serapion of Antioch]] (197–203),{{sfn|Breidenbaugh|2008|p=179–81}} who discovered the doctrine in the [[Gospel of Peter]], during a pastoral visit to a Christian community using it in [[Arsuz|Rhosus]], and later condemned it as a forgery.{{sfn|Ehrman|2005|p=16}}<ref>{{harvnb|Foster|2009|p=79}}. Serapion first approved its use, and only reversed his opinion on returning to his bishopric in Antioch, after being informed of its contents. He wrote a "Concerning the So-Called Gospel of St&nbsp;Peter", which is alluded to in [[Eusebius]]'s ''[[Church History (Eusebius)|Church History]]'' VI&nbsp;12.3–6.</ref> It appears to have arisen over theological contentions concerning the meaning, figurative or literal, of a sentence from the [[Gospel of John]]: "the Word was made Flesh".<ref>{{harvnb|Smith|Wace|1877|pp=867–870}}.</ref>
The word {{lang|grc|Δοκηταί}} ''Dokētaí'' ("Illusionists") referring to early groups who denied Jesus's humanity, first occurred in a letter by Bishop [[Serapion of Antioch]] (197–203),{{sfn|Breidenbaugh|2008|p=179–81}} who discovered the doctrine in the [[Gospel of Peter]], during a pastoral visit to a Christian community using it in [[Arsuz|Rhosus]], and later condemned it as a forgery.{{sfn|Ehrman|2005|p=16}}<ref>{{harvnb|Foster|2009|p=79}}. Serapion first approved its use, and only reversed his opinion on returning to his bishopric in Antioch, after being informed of its contents. He wrote a "Concerning the So-Called Gospel of St&nbsp;Peter", which is alluded to in [[Eusebius]]'s ''[[Church History (Eusebius)|Church History]]'' VI&nbsp;12.3–6.</ref> It appears to have arisen over theological contentions concerning the meaning, figurative or literal, of a sentence from the beginning of the [[Gospel of John]]: "the [[Logos (Christianity)|Word]] [[Incarnation (Christianity)|was made Flesh]]".<ref>{{harvnb|Smith|Wace|1877|pp=867–870}}.</ref>


Docetism was unequivocally rejected at the [[First Council of Nicaea]] in 325<ref name="Ridgeon 2001 xv">{{harvnb|Ridgeon|2001|p=xv}}.</ref> and is regarded as [[heresy in Christianity|heretical]] by the [[Catholic Church]], [[Eastern Orthodox Church]], [[Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria]], [[Armenian Apostolic Church]], [[Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church]],{{sfn|Arendzen|2012}} and many Protestant denominations that accept and hold to the statements of these early church councils, such as [[Calvinist]] ([[Reformed confessions of faith|Reformed Christians]]), [[Reformed Baptists]], [[Waldensians]], and all [[Trinity|Trinitarian Christians]].
Docetism was unequivocally rejected at the [[First Council of Nicaea]] in 325<ref name="Ridgeon 2001 xv">{{harvnb|Ridgeon|2001|p=xv}}.</ref> and is regarded as [[heresy in Christianity|heretical]] by the [[Catholic Church]], [[Eastern Orthodox Church]], [[Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria]], [[Armenian Apostolic Church]], [[Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church]], and [[Anglican Communion]] {{sfn|Arendzen|2012}} and many [[Protestantism|Protestant]] denominations that accept and hold to the statements of these early church councils, such as [[Calvinist]] ([[Reformed confessions of faith|Reformed Christians]]), [[Reformed Baptists]], [[Waldensians]], and all [[Trinity|Trinitarian Christians]].


==Definitions==
==Definitions==
Docetism is broadly defined as the teaching that claims that Jesus' body was either absent or illusory.<ref>{{cite book|last=Gonzalez|first=Justo|title=Essential Theological Terms|year=2005|publisher=Westminster John Knox Press|location=Louisville|isbn=0-664-22810-0|pages=46–47|quote=Docetism is the claim that Jesus did not have a physical human body, but only the appearance of such.}}</ref> The term 'docetic' is rather nebulous.<ref>{{harvnb|Brox|1984|pp=301–314}}.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Schneemelcher|Maurer|1994|p=220}}: "N Brox has expressed himself emphatically against a widespread nebulous use of the term, and has sought an exact definition which links up with the original usage (e.g. in Clement of Alexandria). Docetism is 'the doctrine according to which the phenomenon of Christ, his historical and bodily existence, and thus above all the human form of Jesus, was altogether mere semblance without any true reality.'"</ref> Two varieties were widely known. In one version, as in [[Marcionism]], Christ was so divine that he could not have been human, since God lacked a material body, which therefore could not physically suffer. Jesus only ''appeared'' to be a flesh-and-blood man; his body was a phantasm. Other groups who were accused of docetism held that Jesus was a man in the flesh, but Christ was a separate entity who entered Jesus' body in the form of a dove at his baptism, empowered him to perform miracles, and abandoned him upon his death on the cross.<ref>{{harvnb|Ehrman|2005|p=16}}</ref>
Docetism is broadly defined as the teaching that claims that Jesus' body was either absent or illusory.<ref>{{cite book|last=Gonzalez|first=Justo|title=Essential Theological Terms|year=2005|publisher=Westminster John Knox Press|location=Louisville|isbn=0-664-22810-0|pages=46–47|quote=Docetism is the claim that Jesus did not have a physical human body, but only the appearance of such.}}</ref> The term 'docetic' is rather nebulous.<ref>{{harvnb|Brox|1984|pp=301–314}}.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Schneemelcher|Maurer|1994|p=220}}: "N Brox has expressed himself emphatically against a widespread nebulous use of the term, and has sought an exact definition which links up with the original usage (e.g. in Clement of Alexandria). Docetism is 'the doctrine according to which the phenomenon of Christ, his historical and bodily existence, and thus above all the human form of Jesus, was altogether mere semblance without any true reality.'"</ref> Two varieties were widely known. In one version, as in [[Marcionism]], Christ was so divine that he could not have been human, since God lacked a material body, which therefore could not physically suffer. Jesus only ''appeared'' to be a flesh-and-blood man; his body was a phantasm. Other groups who were accused of docetism held that Jesus was a man in the flesh, but Christ was a separate entity who entered Jesus' body in the form of a dove at his [[Baptism of Jesus|baptism]], empowered him to perform miracles, and abandoned him upon his death on the cross.<ref>{{harvnb|Ehrman|2005|p=16}}</ref>


==Christology and theological implications==
==Christology and theological implications==
Docetism's origin within Christianity is obscure. [[Ernst Käsemann]] controversially defined the [[Christology]] of the [[Gospel of John]] as "naïve docetism" in 1968.<ref>{{harvnb|Ehrman|1996|p=197}}.</ref> The ensuing debate reached an impasse as awareness grew that the very term "docetism", like "[[gnosticism]]", was difficult to define within the religio-historical framework of the debate.<ref>{{harvnb|Larsen|2008|p=347}}</ref> It has occasionally been argued that its origins were in heterodox [[Judaism]] or Oriental and Grecian philosophies.<ref>{{harvnb|Gavrilyuk|2004|p=80}}.</ref> The alleged connection with [[Jewish Christian]]ity would have reflected Jewish Christian concerns with the inviolability of (Jewish) [[monotheism]].<ref>{{harvnb|Schneemelcher|Maurer|1994|p=220}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Brox|1984|p=314}}.</ref> Docetic opinions seem to have circulated from very early times, [[Epistles of John#First Epistle of John|1 John]] {{bibleverse-nb|1 John|4:2|31}} appearing explicitly to reject them.<ref name="González2005">{{harvnb|González|2005|pp=46–7}}</ref> Some 1st{{nbhyph}}century Christian groups developed docetic interpretations partly as a way to make Christian teachings more acceptable to non-Christian ways of thinking about divinity.<ref>{{harvnb|Gavrilyuk|2004 |p=81}}.</ref>
Docetism's origin within Christianity is obscure. [[Ernst Käsemann]] controversially defined the [[Christology]] of the [[Gospel of John]] as "naïve docetism" in 1968.<ref>{{harvnb|Ehrman|1996|p=197}}.</ref> The ensuing debate reached an impasse as awareness grew that the very term "docetism", like "[[gnosticism]]", was difficult to define within the religio-historical framework of the debate.<ref>{{harvnb|Larsen|2008|p=347}}</ref> It has occasionally been argued that its origins were in heterodox [[Judaism]] or Oriental and Grecian philosophies.<ref>{{harvnb|Gavrilyuk|2004|p=80}}.</ref> The alleged connection with [[Jewish Christian]]ity would have reflected Jewish Christian concerns with the inviolability of (Jewish) [[monotheism]].<ref>{{harvnb|Schneemelcher|Maurer|1994|p=220}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Brox|1984|p=314}}.</ref> Docetic opinions seem to have circulated from very early times, [[Epistles of John#First Epistle of John|1 John]] {{bibleverse-nb|1 John|4:2|31}} appearing explicitly to reject them.<ref name="González2005">{{harvnb|González|2005|pp=46–7}}</ref> Some 1st{{nbhyph}}century Christian groups developed docetic interpretations partly as a way to make Christian teachings more acceptable to non-Christian ways of thinking about divinity.<ref>{{harvnb|Gavrilyuk|2004 |p=81}}.</ref>


In his critique of the theology of [[Clement of Alexandria]], [[Photios I of Constantinople|Photius]] in his [[Bibliotheca (Photius)|Myriobiblon]] held that Clement's views reflected a quasi-docetic view of the nature of Christ, writing that "[Clement] hallucinates that the Word was not incarnate but ''only seems to be''." (ὀνειροπολεῖ καὶ μὴ σαρκωθῆναι τὸν λόγον ἀλλὰ ''δόξαι''.) In Clement's time, some disputes contended over whether Christ assumed the "psychic" flesh of mankind as heirs to [[Adam]], or the "spiritual" flesh of the resurrection.<ref>{{harvnb|Ashwin-Siejkowski|2010|p=95, n.2}} citing {{harvnb|Edwards|2002|p=23}}.</ref> Docetism largely died out during the first millennium AD.
In his critique of the theology of [[Clement of Alexandria]], [[Photios I of Constantinople|Photius]] in his [[Bibliotheca (Photius)|Myriobiblon]] held that Clement's views reflected a quasi-docetic view of the nature of Christ, writing that "[Clement] hallucinates that the Word was not incarnate but ''only seems to be''." (ὀνειροπολεῖ καὶ μὴ σαρκωθῆναι τὸν λόγον ἀλλὰ ''δόξαι''.) In Clement's time, some disputes contended over whether Christ assumed the "psychic" flesh of mankind as heirs to [[Adam]], or the "spiritual" flesh of the resurrection.<ref>{{harvnb|Ashwin-Siejkowski|2010|p=95, n.2}} citing {{harvnb|Edwards|2002|p=23}}.</ref> Docetism largely died out during the first millennium AD.


The opponents against whom [[Ignatius of Antioch]] inveighs against are often taken to be [[Monophysite]] docetists.<ref>{{harvnb|Streett|2011|p=40}}.</ref> In his [[letter to the Smyrnaeans|letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7:1]], written around 110{{nbsp}}AD, he writes:
The opponents against whom [[Ignatius of Antioch]] inveighs are often taken to be [[Monophysite]] docetists.<ref>{{harvnb|Streett|2011|p=40}}.</ref> In his [[letter to the Smyrnaeans|letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7:1]], written around 110{{nbsp}}AD, he writes:
{{blockquote|They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.}}  
{{blockquote|They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.}}  
While these characteristics fit a Monophysite framework, a slight majority of scholars consider that Ignatius was waging a polemic on two distinct fronts, one Jewish, the other docetic; a minority holds that he was concerned with a group that commingled Judaism and docetism. Others, however, doubt that there was actual docetism threatening the churches, arguing that he was merely criticizing Christians who lived Jewishly or that his critical remarks were directed at an [[Ebionism|Ebionite]] or [[Cerinthus|Cerinthian]] possessionist Christology, according to which Christ was a heavenly spirit that temporarily possessed Jesus.<ref>{{harvnb|Streett|2011|pp=42–44}}.</ref>
While these characteristics fit a Monophysite framework, a slight majority of scholars consider that Ignatius was waging a polemic on two distinct fronts, one Jewish, the other docetic; a minority holds that he was concerned with a group that commingled Judaism and docetism. Others, however, doubt that there was actual docetism threatening the churches, arguing that he was merely criticizing Christians who lived Jewishly or that his critical remarks were directed at an [[Ebionism|Ebionite]] or [[Cerinthus|Cerinthian]] possessionist Christology, according to which Christ was a heavenly spirit that temporarily possessed Jesus.<ref>{{harvnb|Streett|2011|pp=42–44}}.</ref>
Line 24: Line 25:
{{main|Islamic views on Jesus' death}}
{{main|Islamic views on Jesus' death}}


Some commentators have attempted to make a connection between Islam and docetism using the following Quranic verse:<ref name=parrinder>{{cite book|title=Jesus in the Qur'an|author=Geoffrey Parrinder|publisher=Oneworld Publications|year=2013|pages=112, 118–119}}</ref>
Some commentators have attempted to make a connection between [[Islam]] and docetism using the following [[Quran|Quranic]] verse:<ref name=parrinder>{{cite book|title=Jesus in the Qur'an|author=Geoffrey Parrinder|publisher=Oneworld Publications|year=2013|pages=112, 118–119}}</ref>


{{blockquote|And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger – they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise. {{Cite Quran Ayah|4|157-158|s=y|b=yl|t=p}} }}
{{blockquote|And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger – they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise. {{Cite Quran Ayah|4|157-158|s=y|b=yl|t=p}} }}


Some scholars theorise that Islam was influenced by [[Manichaenism|Manichaeism]] (Docetism) in this view. However, the general consensus is that [[Manichaeism]] was not prevalent in [[Mecca]] in the 6th and 7th centuries, when Islam developed, and the influence can therefore not be proven.<ref>{{harvnb|Gil|1992|p=41}}.</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/manicheism-iv-missionary-activity-and-technique-|title=MANICHEISM v. MISSIONARY ACTIVITY AND TECHNIQUE|quote=That Manicheism went further on to the Arabian peninsula, up to the Hejaz and Mecca, where it could have possibly contributed to the formation of the doctrine of Islam, cannot be proven. A detailed description of Manichean traces in the Arabian-speaking regions is given by Tardieu (1994).}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|title=M. Tardieu, "Les manichéens en Egypte,"&nbsp;Bulletin de la Société Française d'Egyptologie&nbsp;94, 1982}}</ref>
Some scholars theorise that Islam was influenced by [[Manichaenism|Manichaeism]] (Docetism) in this regard. However, the general consensus is that [[Manichaeism]] was not prevalent in [[Mecca]] in the 6th and 7th centuries, when Islam developed, and the influence can therefore not be proven.<ref>{{harvnb|Gil|1992|p=41}}.</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/manicheism-iv-missionary-activity-and-technique-|title=MANICHEISM v. MISSIONARY ACTIVITY AND TECHNIQUE|quote=That Manicheism went further on to the Arabian peninsula, up to the Hejaz and Mecca, where it could have possibly contributed to the formation of the doctrine of Islam, cannot be proven. A detailed description of Manichean traces in the Arabian-speaking regions is given by Tardieu (1994).}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|title=M. Tardieu, "Les manichéens en Egypte,"&nbsp;Bulletin de la Société Française d'Egyptologie&nbsp;94, 1982}}</ref>


==Docetism and Christ myth theory==
==Docetism and Christ myth theory==
Line 38: Line 39:
===Non-canonical Christian texts===
===Non-canonical Christian texts===
* [[Acts of John]]
* [[Acts of John]]
* [[Fundamental Epistle]]: In ''Against the Fundamental Epistle'', [[Augustine of Hippo]] makes reference to [[Manichaeism|Manichaeans]] believing that Jesus was docetic.
* [[Fundamental Epistle]]: In ''Against the Fundamental Epistle'', [[Augustine of Hippo]] makes reference to his former religion of [[Manichaeism]] as believing Jesus was docetic.
* [[Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter]]
* [[Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter]]
* [[Gospel of Basilides]]
* [[Gospel of Basilides]]

Latest revision as of 13:52, 28 December 2025

Template:Short description Script error: No such module "Distinguish". Template:Christology

Lamentation of Christ 
Lamentation of Christ 

In the history of Christianity, docetism (from the Template:Langx dokeĩn "to seem", dókēsis "apparition, phantom"[1][2]) was the doctrine that the phenomenon of Jesus, his historical and bodily existence, and above all the human form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality.[3][4] Broadly, it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion.

The word Script error: No such module "Lang". Dokētaí ("Illusionists") referring to early groups who denied Jesus's humanity, first occurred in a letter by Bishop Serapion of Antioch (197–203),Template:Sfn who discovered the doctrine in the Gospel of Peter, during a pastoral visit to a Christian community using it in Rhosus, and later condemned it as a forgery.Template:Sfn[5] It appears to have arisen over theological contentions concerning the meaning, figurative or literal, of a sentence from the beginning of the Gospel of John: "the Word was made Flesh".[6]

Docetism was unequivocally rejected at the First Council of Nicaea in 325[7] and is regarded as heretical by the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, Armenian Apostolic Church, Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, and Anglican Communion Template:Sfn and many Protestant denominations that accept and hold to the statements of these early church councils, such as Calvinist (Reformed Christians), Reformed Baptists, Waldensians, and all Trinitarian Christians.

Definitions

Docetism is broadly defined as the teaching that claims that Jesus' body was either absent or illusory.[8] The term 'docetic' is rather nebulous.[9][10] Two varieties were widely known. In one version, as in Marcionism, Christ was so divine that he could not have been human, since God lacked a material body, which therefore could not physically suffer. Jesus only appeared to be a flesh-and-blood man; his body was a phantasm. Other groups who were accused of docetism held that Jesus was a man in the flesh, but Christ was a separate entity who entered Jesus' body in the form of a dove at his baptism, empowered him to perform miracles, and abandoned him upon his death on the cross.[11]

Christology and theological implications

Docetism's origin within Christianity is obscure. Ernst Käsemann controversially defined the Christology of the Gospel of John as "naïve docetism" in 1968.[12] The ensuing debate reached an impasse as awareness grew that the very term "docetism", like "gnosticism", was difficult to define within the religio-historical framework of the debate.[13] It has occasionally been argued that its origins were in heterodox Judaism or Oriental and Grecian philosophies.[14] The alleged connection with Jewish Christianity would have reflected Jewish Christian concerns with the inviolability of (Jewish) monotheism.[15][16] Docetic opinions seem to have circulated from very early times, 1 John Script error: No such module "Bibleverse". appearing explicitly to reject them.[17] Some 1stTemplate:Nbhyphcentury Christian groups developed docetic interpretations partly as a way to make Christian teachings more acceptable to non-Christian ways of thinking about divinity.[18]

In his critique of the theology of Clement of Alexandria, Photius in his Myriobiblon held that Clement's views reflected a quasi-docetic view of the nature of Christ, writing that "[Clement] hallucinates that the Word was not incarnate but only seems to be." (ὀνειροπολεῖ καὶ μὴ σαρκωθῆναι τὸν λόγον ἀλλὰ δόξαι.) In Clement's time, some disputes contended over whether Christ assumed the "psychic" flesh of mankind as heirs to Adam, or the "spiritual" flesh of the resurrection.[19] Docetism largely died out during the first millennium AD.

The opponents against whom Ignatius of Antioch inveighs are often taken to be Monophysite docetists.[20] In his letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7:1, written around 110Script error: No such module "String".AD, he writes:

<templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".

While these characteristics fit a Monophysite framework, a slight majority of scholars consider that Ignatius was waging a polemic on two distinct fronts, one Jewish, the other docetic; a minority holds that he was concerned with a group that commingled Judaism and docetism. Others, however, doubt that there was actual docetism threatening the churches, arguing that he was merely criticizing Christians who lived Jewishly or that his critical remarks were directed at an Ebionite or Cerinthian possessionist Christology, according to which Christ was a heavenly spirit that temporarily possessed Jesus.[21]

Islam and docetism

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".

Some commentators have attempted to make a connection between Islam and docetism using the following Quranic verse:[22]

<templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger – they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise. Template:Cite Quran Ayah

Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".

Some scholars theorise that Islam was influenced by Manichaeism (Docetism) in this regard. However, the general consensus is that Manichaeism was not prevalent in Mecca in the 6th and 7th centuries, when Islam developed, and the influence can therefore not be proven.[23][24][25]

Docetism and Christ myth theory

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". Since Arthur Drews published his The Christ Myth (Die Christusmythe) in 1909, occasional connections have been drawn between docetist theories and the modern idea that Christ was a myth. Shailer Mathews called Drews' theory a "modern docetism".Template:Sfn Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare thought any connection to be based on a misunderstanding of docetism.Template:Sfn The idea recurred in classicist Michael Grant's 1977 review of the evidence for Jesus, who compared modern scepticism about a historical Jesus to the ancient docetic idea that Jesus only seemed to come into the world "in the flesh". Modern supporters of the theory did away with "seeming".Template:Sfn

Texts believed to include docetism

Non-canonical Christian texts

See also

Script error: No such module "Template wrapper".Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".

Footnotes

<templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" />

  1. ↑ Script error: No such module "Footnotes".: "A term derived from the Greek dokein, to seem, or to appear."
  2. ↑ Script error: No such module "Footnotes"..
  3. ↑ Script error: No such module "Footnotes"..
  4. ↑ Script error: No such module "Footnotes"..
  5. ↑ Script error: No such module "Footnotes".. Serapion first approved its use, and only reversed his opinion on returning to his bishopric in Antioch, after being informed of its contents. He wrote a "Concerning the So-Called Gospel of St Peter", which is alluded to in Eusebius's Church History VI 12.3–6.
  6. ↑ Script error: No such module "Footnotes"..
  7. ↑ Script error: No such module "Footnotes"..
  8. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  9. ↑ Script error: No such module "Footnotes"..
  10. ↑ Script error: No such module "Footnotes".: "N Brox has expressed himself emphatically against a widespread nebulous use of the term, and has sought an exact definition which links up with the original usage (e.g. in Clement of Alexandria). Docetism is 'the doctrine according to which the phenomenon of Christ, his historical and bodily existence, and thus above all the human form of Jesus, was altogether mere semblance without any true reality.'"
  11. ↑ Script error: No such module "Footnotes".
  12. ↑ Script error: No such module "Footnotes"..
  13. ↑ Script error: No such module "Footnotes".
  14. ↑ Script error: No such module "Footnotes"..
  15. ↑ Script error: No such module "Footnotes".
  16. ↑ Script error: No such module "Footnotes"..
  17. ↑ Script error: No such module "Footnotes".
  18. ↑ Script error: No such module "Footnotes"..
  19. ↑ Script error: No such module "Footnotes". citing Script error: No such module "Footnotes"..
  20. ↑ Script error: No such module "Footnotes"..
  21. ↑ Script error: No such module "Footnotes"..
  22. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  23. ↑ Script error: No such module "Footnotes"..
  24. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  25. ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".

Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".

References

<templatestyles src="Refbegin/styles.css" />

  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".Script error: No such module "Unsubst".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".Script error: No such module "Unsubst".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".

Further reading

  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  • Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".

External links

  • Docetae in the Catholic Encyclopedia

Script error: No such module "navbox". Template:Heresies condemned by the Catholic Church

Retrieved from "http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?title=Docetism&oldid=4314584"