|WikiProject Christianity / Theology||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Religion||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
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.)  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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
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 22.214.171.124 (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.
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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2010 (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)
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'.
"Docetism was unequivocally rejected at the First Council of Nicaea in 325" 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.
"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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)