The Promised Messiah

Docetism. The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-07
early 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.
Docetism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Docetism 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.
Sermon - Sky-Writing 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.
New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash by Robert M. Price
5. 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).
Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius: No Proof of Jesus
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.
Jesus: God, Man or Myth?
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.
 
Mee...

WHAT IS YOUR PERSONAL OPINION ABOUT ALL OF THIS ?
*hint...ask Iggy, he might know*

flow....:rolleyes:
:)Iggy says , As for me and my household we go along with what Jehovah says.



The testimony of Jehovah God is a another line of evidence supporting Jesus’ Messiahship. Jehovah sent angels to let people know that Jesus was the promised Messiah. (Luke 2:10-14) In fact, during Jesus’ earthly life, Jehovah himself spoke from heaven, expressing his approval of Jesus. (Matthew 3:16, 17; 17:1-5) Jehovah God gave Jesus the power to perform miracles. Each one of these was further divine proof that Jesus was the Messiah, for God would never give a fraud power to perform miracles. Jehovah also used his holy spirit to inspire the Gospel accounts, so that the evidence of Jesus’ Messiahship became part of the Bible, the most widely translated and distributed book in history.—John 4:25, 26.
 
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.

Jewish historian Josephus, in presenting his own lineage, makes it clear that such records were available before 70 C.E. These records were apparently
destroyed with the city of Jerusalem, making all subsequent claims to Messiahship unprovable.

so it was well known that Jesus was in the line of david.



In the sixth century B.C.E., the prophet Daniel foretold that "Messiah the Leader" would appear 69 "weeks" after the order went forth to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. (Daniel 9:24, 25) Each one of these "weeks" was seven years long.


The ancient Jews commonly thought in terms of weeks of years. For instance, just as every seventh day was a Sabbath day, every seventh year was a Sabbath year.—Exodus 20:8-11; 23:10, 11.

According to the Bible and secular history, the order to rebuild Jerusalem was issued in 455 B.C.E. (Nehemiah 2:1-8) So the Messiah was to appear 483 (69 times 7) years after 455 B.C.E. That brings us to 29 C.E., the very year that Jehovah anointed Jesus with holy spirit. Jesus thus became "the Christ" (meaning "Anointed One"), or Messiah.—Luke 3:15, 16, 21, 22.

Of course, not everyone accepted Jesus as the promised Messiah, and the Scriptures had foretold this. As recorded at Psalm 2:2, King David was divinely inspired to foretell: "The kings of earth take their stand and high officials themselves have massed together as one against Jehovah and against his anointed one." This prophecy suggested that leaders from more than one land would unite in order to attack Jehovah’s Anointed One, or Messiah. And so it was. The Jewish religious leaders, King Herod, and the Roman governor Pontius Pilate all played a part in having Jesus put to death. Former enemies Herod and Pilate became fast friends from then on. (Matthew 27:1, 2; Luke 23:10-12; Acts 4:25-28)



 
"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.
 
"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.

It was a miscommunication. When I said that I didn't believe in a historical Christ, I wasn't saying that I actively disbelieved in any other kind of Christ. A spiritual Christ makes a lot of sense to me. A historical Christ can't be proved with historical evidence, but a spiritual Christ can be proved with spiritual experience.
 
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?

The genealogy of Luke and the genealogy of Matthew agree exactly with the line between Abraham and David. From David to Mary in Luke, or from David to Joseph in Matthew, the lineage changes. Only three times do the two different accounts mention the same names, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, and possibly Matthat (Matthan in Matthew). This can be explained very easily. Mary and Joseph were
first cousins.

For a more complete explanation, go to
The Genealogy of Jesus Christ

I know Church of Christ can be kind of weird, but they had the info readily. It can be found elsewhere. They were just a quick google.
 
Why, the most controversial prophecy (IMO) is 'The Sufferent Servant' - Isiah 53

52:13 Behold, my servant shall deal
prudently, he shall be exalted
and extolled, and be very high.
52:14As many were astonied at thee;
his visage was so marred
more than any man, and his form more
than the sons of men:
52:15So shall he sprinkle many nations;
the kings shall shut
their mouths at him: for that which had
not been told them shall they see;
and that which they had not heard
shall they consider.
1Who hath believed our report?
and to whom is the arm
of the LORD revealed?
²For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant
, and as a root out of a dry ground:
he hath no form nor comeliness;
and when we shall see him,
[there is] no beauty that we should desire him.
³He is despised and rejected of men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief:
and we hid as it were [our] faces from him;
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4Surely he hath borne our griefs,
and carried our sorrows:
yet we did esteem him stricken,
smitten of God, and afflicted.
5But he [was] wounded
for our transgressions, [he was]
bruised for our iniquities:
the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him;
and with his stripes we are healed.
6All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned every one to his own way;
and the LORD hath laid on him the
iniquity of us all.

7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth:
he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb,
so he openeth not his mouth.

8He was taken from prison and from judgment:
and who shall declare his generation?
for he was cut off out of the land of the living:
for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9And he made his grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death;
because he had done no violence,
neither [was any] deceit in his mouth.

10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him;
he hath put [him] to grief:
when thou shalt make his soul an
offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed,
he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the
LORD shall prosper in his hand.

11He shall see of the travail of his soul,
[and] shall be satisfied:
by his knowledge shall
my righteous servant justify many;
for he shall bear their iniquities.

12Therefore will I divide him [a portion]
with the great, and he
shall divide the spoil with the strong;
because he hath poured out his soul unto death:
and he was numbered with the transgressors;
and he bare the sin of many,
and made intercession for the
transgressors.

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...
 
Kindest Regards, Azure!

Thank you for the reminder!
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...
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.

One translation that may be of interest to you is the Interlinear. It includes the Hebrew and Greek, and translates to English verbatim, which can make it a bit clumsy to read. But it generally translates pretty directly, about as "perfect in wording" as one could hope for.

I found this Interlinear translation of Isaiah 52:

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa52.pdf
 
Last edited:
Back
Top