Talk:Docetism

message: 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)
thread_title: old talk

message: 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)
thread_title:  A little correction here! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Claims of the dominance of docetism and late authorship of the New Testament 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gospel of John 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Docetism and Islam

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

message: "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)
thread_title: Monophysites

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Apparition or myth?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ignatius of Antioch 

message: Surely Docetism's "cameo" in Treehouse of Horror XXV deserves a mention? Gambaguru (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Must every reference that Simpsons makes be added to Wikipedia? 76.32.229.126 (talk) 04:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Popular Culture?