bob x
Well-Known Member
Not until the 20th century, no.All I have said was that I doubt the historical Christ and so did many Gnostic Christians.
Not until the 20th century, no.All I have said was that I doubt the historical Christ and so did many Gnostic Christians.
Docetism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaearly heretical trend in Christian thought. Docetists claimed that Christ was a mere phantasm who only seemed to live and suffer. A similar tendency to deny Jesus’ humanity appeared in the teachings of Simon Magus, Marcion, Gnosticism, and certain phases of monarchianism.
Sermon - Sky-Writing by Robert M. PriceDocetism was an early Christian heresy. The term is derived from the Greek word dokein, meaning "to appear." Docetism proposed that Christ only "appeared" to have a real human body. This belief was a prevalent feature of Gnosticism, which held that matter and spirit are antagonistic. For the Gnostics, salvation consisted in liberation from the bondage of matter; consequently, while accepting Christ as Saviour, Gnosticism could not logically accept a real incarnation. Another common Docetistic tenet was that Christ's sufferings on Calvary were an illusion or that someone else was substituted for Him.
The origins of Docetism are obscure. Some indications of its existence and repudiation are found in the New Testament. By the early 2d century, Ignatius of Antioch had condemned it. More detailed refutation were given by Irenaeus and Tertullian.
New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash by Robert M. Price"In the beginning was the word... and without him nothing came into being. And the word was made flesh." These are the words of the Logos hymn, the prologue of the Gospel of John, on which I happen to be teaching a course this semester. One of the major concerns on which these verses have historically been brought to bear is that of Docetism, or the reality of the incarnation. Did Jesus Christ, a heavenly being, actually assume a body of flesh and blood for his appearance on earth among mortal men and women? Or did it merely appear (Greek: dokeo) so?
On one level these verses seem to return a positive answer about the incarnation, that he did really bear a body of solid flesh like you and I do. And so this text has been brandished like a talisman to ward off the theological spook of Docetism, the doctrine that Jesus was a spook.
There are other points as well at which John's gospel seems to want to address and refute Docetism. But each time it cannot seem to help contradicting itself. In the very same moment it draws back and by the very same stratagem of refutation reopens the very question it seems to be trying to close down.
Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius: No Proof of Jesus5. Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene (20:1, 11-18)
This story owes much to the self-disclosure of the angel Raphael at the climax of the Book of Tobit (Helms, pp. 146-147). When Tobias first saw Raphael, he “did not know” he was really an angel (Tobit 5:5), just as when Mary, weeping outside the tomb, first saw Jesus there, she “did not know” who he really was (20:14). Having delivered Sarah from her curse, Raphael reveals himself to Tobit and his son Tobias and announces, his work being done, that “I am ascending to him who sent me” (Tobit 12:20), just as Jesus tells Mary, “I am ascending to my father and your father, to my God and your God” (John 20:17). Why does the risen Jesus warn Mary “Touch/hold me not, for I have not yet ascended to the father” (20:17a)? This is probably an indication of docetism, that Jesus (at least the risen Jesus) cannot be touched, not having (any longer?) a fleshly body (the story was not originally followed by the Doubting Thomas story with its tactile proofs, hence need not be consistent with it; note that in 20:17b Jesus seems to anticipate not seeing the disciples again). The reason for seeing docetism here is the parallel it would complete between John 20 and the Raphael revelation/ascension scene, where the angel explains (Tobit 12:19), “All these days I merely appeared to you and did not eat or drink, but you were seeing a vision” (i.e., a semblance).
Jesus: God, Man or Myth?Johnson considered "Chrestus" a distinction made to separate the "good god" of the Gnostics from the evil god Yahweh. This term, Chrestus, is thus traceable to Samaria, where Gnosticism as a movement took shape and where it may have referred to Simon Magus, whom we have seen to have been a god, rather than a "real person." Hence, these Chrestiani were apparently Syrian Gnostics, not followers of the "historical" Jesus of Nazareth. Confirming this assertion, that the first "Christians" were actually followers of the "good god" Chrestus, the earliest dated Christian inscription, corresponding to October 1, 318 CE, calls Jesus "Chrestos," not Christos: "The Lord and Savior, Jesus the Good." This inscription was found above the entrance of a Syrian church of the Marcionites, who were anti-Jewish followers of the second-century Gnostic Marcion. The evidence points to "Jesus the Chrestos" as a Pagan god, not a Jewish messiah who lived during the first century CE.
In 1950, mythicist Herb Cutner published his excellent work, Jesus: God, Man or Myth?, which not only explores the mythical nature of Jesus Christ but also provides a rare and much-needed summarization of the debate between mythicists and historicizers over the past few centuries. Contrary to popular belief, the idea that Jesus Christ is a mythical character is not new: In fact, the questioning and doubting of the gospel tale started at the beginning of the Christian era and has been continued by thousands, if not millions, since then. The historicization and carnalization of the Christ character was fought by the Docetic Gnostics, and the disbelief was addressed by early orthodox Christians as well, including the writers of the canonical epistles of John. Indeed, 1 John 4 condemns as "antichrists" those "spirits" who do not confess that "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh," as does 2 John 7, which says:
"For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist."
Many, says 2 John, have contested the historicity of Jesus Christ, even by his day. Obviously, therefore, this dissension began with the dawn of the Christianity, which is understandable. If, for example, the average American today were approached with wild tales about some obscure religious fanatic who lived decades ago in, say, Mexico, and who purportedly did many miracles, from manifesting food and raising the dead, including himself, to ascending to heaven, would the person simply believe it, without any proof whatsoever? And be willing to accept this obscure preacher as the "Son of God" and God Almighty Himself? Such is the case with the story of Jesus Christ. In reality, the doubting of Christ as a historical character is not a "new fad"; those who argue otherwise are not informed on the subject.
Iggy says , As for me and my household we go along with what Jehovah says.Mee...
WHAT IS YOUR PERSONAL OPINION ABOUT ALL OF THIS ?
*hint...ask Iggy, he might know*
flow....
Troll.
I did not invent the uncomplimentary things early non-believers had to say about Jesus' parentage; I am just reporting them, in response to Mee's totally false claim that the non-believing Jews all agreed that Jesus was of royal descent.
"Docetists claimed that Christ was a mere phantasm who only seemed to live and suffer."
Yes, yes, but they did agree that people did see Jesus walking around (even if they disagreed about what that "Jesus" actually was). The notion that Jesus was just a story-figure is a peculiarly 20th-century invention.
I've had some trouble with this because he's not technically born in David's line - at least, not the way it's all layed out in Matthew. He's not technically Joseph's son. Not by blood, at least.
Can someone help me with this?
Without knowing the ancient Hebrew or Greek it is a bit difficult for the lay student, we end up having to take some amount on faith.Why, the most controversial prophecy (IMO) is 'The Sufferent Servant' - Isaiah 53...
Jews of course believe this is Israel, while Chritians believe this 'Suffering Servant' is Jesus. Personally this is not the ideal tranlation (the KJV), but then are there any remain scriptures that are perfect in wording...