Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hi @KATZPUR
I only have a minute and I haven’t looked at your thread yet. But I will.
When you say “life”, Are you speaking of the existence of the SPIRITS of mankind existing before mortality or are you referring to the ancient Talmudic Jewish doctrine that this earth is simply one of many and that there were other earths created before this one? Can you clarify?
I am speaking of the pre-mortal existence of spirits, living in the presence of God.
Firm Docetism maintains Jesus did not share in a material existence and thus he only appeared to act and only appeared to suffer. Such material actions were fascades that merely appeared to have taken place. Thus, firm Docetism denied Christ’s suffering, his material death, his material resurrection and his material ascension. It was sort of a "sham" that was done for "good reasons".
There are, of course, “mild” forms of Docetism.
The reason I do not think Docetism was either represented in or by early authentic Judeo-Christianity is that Docetism isn’t represented in and doesn’t appear to any significant degree in any of the ancient doctrines nor in the their ancient literature of belief of Judeo-Christianity.
2) AUTHENTIC JUDEO-CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES FOUND IN A VARIETY OF ANCIENT LITERATURE; FOUND OVER LARGE AMOUNTS OF TIME; AND FOUND IN MULTILPLE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATIONS SEPARATED BY LARGE DISTANCES
Ancient Doctrines that occur in multiple early Judeo-Christian documents, in multiple religions and in multiple forms, and over long periods of time and are found over large geographical areas tend to have the highest evidential value for representing actual “authentic” ancient Judeo-Christian doctrines.
Docetism was not found (to my knowledge) in multiple early Judeo-Christian documents. It was not found to any significant degree in both Judaism and in Christian nor in Islamic documents. The lack of Docetism Christian literature for any significant length of time or over much of a geographical , are evidence against it being a significant part of ancient Judeo-Christian worldview.
3) A COMPARISON OF A DOCTRINE REPRESENTING EARLY ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE VERSUS DOCETISM THAT DOES NOT REPRESENT EARLY ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.
For example, the ancient doctrine of and references to spirits in mankind and the world of spirits is found in a vast and great genre of ancient Judeo-Christian literature, and such references are found in both Jewish and Christian literature, and such references are found to exist over a large period of time (hundreds of years), and such literature references are found over a great geographical space in many areas, etc.
Does any forum member have ANY references to the Doctrine of Docetism being taught in ancient Judeo-Christian literature that exist in any quantity, for any significant time period, or over large geographical regions? This is why I do not think Docetism was represented by or representation of early Judeo-Christianity.
4) A COMPARISON OF EVIDENCE FOR REPRESENTATIVE DOCTRINES VS DOCETISM : AN EXAMPLE OF THE DOCTRINE OF SPIRITS IN MANKIND AND THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH SPIRITS BEFORE, DURING, OR AFTER MORTALITY IN VAST AMOUNT OF SACRED EARLY LITERATURE
It is easy to demonstrate this doctrine of spirits was common in early Judeo-Christianity because it was found in Jewish and Christian and in syncretic Judeo-Christian literature, and it was found in a great deal of literature that for long periods of time, and it was found in multiple geographical places and those geographical places were separated by significance distance.
Such historical literary characteristics indicates this was a popular doctrine, taught to a large group of ancient Judeo-Christians that were separated by large distances and it was taught over long periods of time. This means it has the highest chance of being a popular and orthodox teaching.
References to spirits in man and the existence of such spirits before, during and after mortality are found in : 2nd Enoch, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs – Napthali, The Apocryphon of Ezekiel. Fragment one, ch2 – even has an explanation from the Jewish Babylonia Talmud, Sanhedrin 91a,b., The History of the Rechabites, The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra; Testament of Moses; Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers; The Gospel of Thomas; Jewish Zohar; The gospel of Phillip; The Secret Book of John (of Sophia); The Haggadah (The Soul of Man); The Apocryphon of James; The Angad Roshnan - FROM THE PARTHIAN HYMN-CYCLES; 1st Enoch; The Fourth Book of Ezra; The Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah; The Questions of Ezra (Recension A); The Testament of Abraham; The Apocalypse of Zephaniah; multiple books in the Dea Sea Scrolls; The Odes of Solomon #17; The Apocalypse of Abraham; The Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah; The Testament of Abraham (recension A); The Life of Adam and Eve (apocalypse); The The gospel of Phillip, etc, etc. (there are other ancient literary sources documenting this doctrine)
Can any poster provide a list of ancient documents actually teaching docetism in ancient Judeo-Christianity for comparison?
Yes, Eusebius of Caeasrea mentions docetism because Serapion of Antioch mentions it.
However, where is any literature where the doctrine is taught?
Was the theory of Docetism a “flash in the pan” by a few people or did it represent any significant number of individuals who believed in it?
Where is the description in early literature by people who actually believed in it and taught it?
If it was representative or represented by early Christianity, we should have literary evidence of it.
5) THE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE FROM THE GOSPEL OF PETER DOES NOT SEEM TO PREACH DOCETISM
Again, the historical problem of this reference is that Serapion may have theorized that Docetism was found in the Gospel of Peter, but, where in the gospel of Peter did he think actually he found the doctrine? Even Serapion doesn’t even give us any historical details from this example (though evidence may be found elsewhere if someone cares to study it...).
If you read the narrative before and after your reference “(39)”, you will notice the narrative simply references what “those soldiers” who had been guarding the sepulcher of the dead Jesus saw.
It describes them in vs 38 as “having seen” certain things.
And what is it the narrative says they saw?
Your reference in verse 39 says the soldiers saw two angels who accompany Jesus from the tomb and the soldiers: “see three males who have come out from the sepulchre , with the two supporting the other one, and a cross following them.”
Vs 41 says ‘And they were hearing a voice from the heavens saying, ‘Have you made proclamation to the fallen-asleep?’
vs 42 continues “And an obeisance was heard from the cross, ‘Yes.”
This is simply another of the many historical descriptions where Jesus had been to the world of spirits of those who were dead and had visited those who had ‘fallen-asleep’ (i.e. the spirits of those who had “died”).
These are the same narratives we find in other versions such as Barnabas and other narratives.
Thus, this specific example does not clearly speak to Docetism per se, but instead places the narrative squarely in the camp of the early accounts of Jesus spirit visiting the spirit world as his body lay in the tomb and of his subsequent bodily resurrection.
6) FERGUSON REFERS TO IGNATIUS - BUT THERE IS LITTLE EVIDENCE THAT IGNATIUS IS SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY OF A SCHISM OF DOCETISTS
The problem I have with this quote of Fergusons is that it simply repeats an earlier claim but this quote does not give us any supporting data or examples where Docetists actually did what he theorizes.
No docetic literature is offered.
No examples where docetic doctrines actually were what Ignatius was referring to among the early Christian movement.
Usually historians will be able to provide data supporting theories and claims.
However, this simple quote simply makes a claim without any significant literary or historical supporting data.
If you actually have any data and examples of Docetism represented in early Christianity, I could certainly be convinced it was a significant movement among the various early schisms, but I would have to have at least a minimum of supporting data to give me reason to believe it. If you have any significant early Historical Judeo-Christian literature from Docetists themselves or other ancient documents that indicate that early Judeo-Christianity was represented by or representative of Docetism, I would certainly be very, very interested to see it.
In any case Michael Way. I love the fact that you have some historical orientation and familiarity. Kuddos
Your position on Docetism would seem to be a minority position within scholarship. Regarding Ignatius, It seems pretty clear that his statement in his Letter to the Phillipians, chapter six, in which he refers to those who call the incarnation merely an appearance, and then refers to those who acknowledge that the Word DID dwell in a human body, is speaking out against Docetic claims that Jesus merely appeared to have a human body.
If any one confesses the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and praises the creation, but calls the incarnation merely an appearance, and is ashamed of the passion, such an one has denied the faith, not less than the Jews who killed Christ. If any one confesses these things, and that God the Word did dwell in a human body, being within it as the Word, even as the soul also is in the body, because it was God that inhabited it, and not a human soul, but affirms that unlawful unions are a good thing, and places the highest happiness in pleasure, as does the man who is falsely called a Nicolaitan, this person can neither be a lover of God, nor a lover of Christ, but is a corrupter of his own flesh, and therefore void of the Holy Spirit, and a stranger to Christ.
In his book, 'The Heresy of Othodoxy', Dr. Michael J. Kruger states that Docetism is not attested in the mid-first century but only surfaces in rudimentary form at the end of the New Testament period.
Now, if you want to go back as far as the mid-first century then it may be correct to say that Docetism was not being taught at that time. But by the 2nd century, Docetism was certainly being taught, and this is apparent by the writing of Ignatius alone. Apparently, Irenaeus had something to say about Docetism in his writing 'Against Heresy' though I didn't feel like reading though that whole thing to find if that's true.
And as I said, and is not my opinion alone, both 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7 are possible allusions to Docetism. 2 John 7 states that ''many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. . .'' Why add ''in the flesh'' if not to refute those who denied that Jesus came in the flesh?
At any rate, you are welcome to your position, but I go with the evidence for Docetism by the beginning of the 2nd century AD. and which was a part of Gnosticism. Docetism was not Gnosticism but was a teaching within Gnosticism. I will leave it at that since I'm really not all that interested in proving the case for Docetism in the early church.
Thanks, YorktownGal. My views have been attacked as Gnostic or Docetic because of some of my ideas discerned from science. I envision the 1st few centuries as one colossal clash of "explanations" for what had to be the single most significant spiritual development of our existence. Each version undoubtedly captures some essential truth with none getting it right. Using heresy to quell and eliminate the myriad "explanations" was a double-edged sword. It solidified the dogma (misguided as it is) and stopped any further efforts. The problem with that approach is that none of them were spiritually minded enough to grasp the actual significance of Jesus and His accomplishments AS A HUMAN, IMO.
All humans have a fully functional animal nature at birth but the mere "seed" of a Spirit. The fully functional animal nature and instincts dominate our early years. Our human spirit must learn and mature enough to master our baser instincts. That is what Jesus did flawlessly under the direct instruction of our Father (God's Holy Spirit). That is why His BIRTH was the "Good tidings of great joy to all people." It is also why God was so pleased with Him at His baptism. If He had nothing to accomplish, what would be the point of being pleased with Him? He made His human spirit identical with God's Holy Spirit. As a "born again" human spirit, He abides with us in our consciousness as the Comforter (Holy Spirit) and He promised to help us try to do the same.
Your position on Docetism would seem to be a minority position within scholarship. Regarding Ignatius, It seems pretty clear that his statement in his Letter to the Phillipians, chapter six, in which he refers to those who call the incarnation merely an appearance, and then refers to those who acknowledge that the Word DID dwell in a human body, is speaking out against Docetic claims that Jesus merely appeared to have a human body.
If any one confesses the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and praises the creation, but calls the incarnation merely an appearance, and is ashamed of the passion, such an one has denied the faith, not less than the Jews who killed Christ. If any one confesses these things, and that God the Word did dwell in a human body, being within it as the Word, even as the soul also is in the body, because it was God that inhabited it, and not a human soul, but affirms that unlawful unions are a good thing, and places the highest happiness in pleasure, as does the man who is falsely called a Nicolaitan, this person can neither be a lover of God, nor a lover of Christ, but is a corrupter of his own flesh, and therefore void of the Holy Spirit, and a stranger to Christ.
In his book, 'The Heresy of Othodoxy', Dr. Michael J. Kruger states that Docetism is not attested in the mid-first century but only surfaces in rudimentary form at the end of the New Testament period.
Now, if you want to go back as far as the mid-first century then it may be correct to say that Docetism was not being taught at that time. But by the 2nd century, Docetism was certainly being taught, and this is apparent by the writing of Ignatius alone. Apparently, Irenaeus had something to say about Docetism in his writing 'Against Heresy' though I didn't feel like reading though that whole thing to find if that's true.
And as I said, and is not my opinion alone, both 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7 are possible allusions to Docetism. 2 John 7 states that ''many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. . .'' Why add ''in the flesh'' if not to refute those who denied that Jesus came in the flesh?
At any rate, you are welcome to your position, but I go with the evidence for Docetism by the beginning of the 2nd century AD. and which was a part of Gnosticism. Docetism was not Gnosticism but was a teaching within Gnosticism. I will leave it at that since I'm really not all that interested in proving the case for Docetism in the early church.
1) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT DOCETISM REPRESENTED AUTHENTIC AND ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES IN ANCIENT JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY
I am not sure why you think your argument that docetism existed proves the point that it represented authentic Christianity.
Docetism was always considered heretical by ancient authentic orthodox Christianity.
Read your examples from John. Even your examples to me from John demonstrate my point that it was heretical and did not represent authentic ancient Christian doctrine.
Perhaps you misunderstand me? I am not claiming and have never claimed Docetism did not and does not exist even today.
There are certainly examples of it even nowadays in the form of metaphorization and other mechanisms.
As MysticPhD pointed out in the above post, even he has been described ("accused") of teaching docetism as some of his posts seem to indicate to other posters.
My claim is that Docetism never represented ancient historical, Christianity and that most of the examples of "historical" docetism are simply historical descriptions but I have not seen significant ancient literature written by the Docetists themselves that became popular to any degree. Even your examples do not have even a single line from actual docetists, but merely describe that they existed and what they claimed and their effects.
2) IF NO ONE ON THE FORUM AND IN HISTORICAL CIRCLES HAS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF AUTHENTIC LITERATURE FROM DOCETISTS, THIS SHOULD BE EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS MINIMAL EVIDENCE (IF ANY AT ALL) THAT DOCETISM EVER REPRESENTED AUTHENTIC AND ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY
Docetism is simply not significantly represented in early literature and it never represented early Christianity but instead, It was always a departure from orthodoxy.
This is one reason why no single forum member (so far) has been able to quote any significant ancient docetic literature while we have vast amounts of literature describing the early non-docetic Judeo-Christianity. For example, re-read all of yours posts and read post #80 from Yorktown Girl. Neither of them have quotes from ancient Docetic literature itself. Your (and her) examples, simply describe the history of docetism (and they both confirm my point that it was heretical and did not represent authentic ancient Christian religion.)
If you or Yorktown Girl can find any significant amount of ancient literary evidence produced by the Docetists that indicate otherwise (any at all), I would be interested in seeing it.
I think you are correct not to try to prove Docetism is, or ever was an authentic and orthodox form of Christianity.
Last edited by Clear lens; 05-12-2024 at 10:29 PM..
I am speaking of the pre-mortal existence of spirits, living in the presence of God.
The idea of a pre-mortal existence of spirits, living in the presences of God, is one of the oldest beliefs of man from Greece, Egypt, India and China.
For instance, the Ancient Greeks believed that spirits existed before the body.
Quote:
Like many of their contemporaries, the Pythagoreans believed that the body was a tomb in which the soul is trapped. The only release from a continuous cycle of rebirth into this trap was by living a pure life. They practiced rituals of purity, abstained from wearing wool, and helped animals achieve their own transcendence by exercising devout vegetarianism.
The Orphics followed the teachings of their namesake, the mythical figure of Orpheus. According to Greek mythology, Orpheus possessed a gift for music that drew birds and animals to him. He took part in the Argo expedition and saved Jason and the Argonauts from the deadly Sirens with his singing. Orpheus was also able to descend into the underworld and released his wife, Eurydice, from Hades. Some Orphic communities practiced vegetarianism as part of a general prohibition on shedding the blood of living things. They also believed that the body was a tomb for the human soul, which underwent a cycle of rebirth.
Theories shifted during the 5th-century B.C.E when Plato made known the teachings of his mentor, Socrates, in his Socratic dialogues. The most important of these dialogues for our discussion is the Phaedo. It is there that Socrates reiterated that the human soul is immortal and must suffer a series of reincarnations. For Socrates, the physical body (soma) was a tomb (sēma), which trapped the soul, and death was simply the separation of the human soul from the physical body. He posited that during the process of rebirth, the individual would forget everything they had learned in their previous life. It is through the keen study of philosophy that the individual eventually remembers – a process known as anamnesis. The philosopher’s life’s goal was to release the human soul from this loop through purification and contemplation.
From what I remember from my Ancient Greek Philosophy course, spirits were unhappily caught by the human body.
Hinduism also believes in the pre-existed of souls without the Greek feelings of dread.
Quote:
In the Bhagavad Gita, considered by Hindus to be a most holy scripture, Krishna tells Arjuna; "Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be." Hinduism teaches reincarnation. Consequently, everyone has pre-existed in another form.
Most Christians don't believe in pre-existence.
Quote:
The pre-existence of souls was condemned as heresy in the Second Council of Constantinople in AD 553.
Those who reject pre-existence, which would be every Christian denomination that accepts the conclusions of the Second Council of Constantinople (i.e., all Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians and many Protestants), simply see Jeremiah 1:5 as another passage about God's foreknowledge. This ecumenical Council explicitly stated "If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema."
I am speaking of the pre-mortal existence of spirits, living in the presence of God.
I am wondering who you have in mind because Adam was Not a pre-mortal spirit but formed/fashioned out of the dust of the ground - Genesis 2:7 - and Eve was formed/fashioned from Adam's mortal rib
The only spirit I find are the rebellious fallen spirit angels of Noah's day who put on materialized bodies which drowned in the Flood
2) IF NO ONE ON THE FORUM AND IN HISTORICAL CIRCLES HAS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF AUTHENTIC LITERATURE FROM DOCETISTS, THIS SHOULD BE EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS MINIMAL EVIDENCE (IF ANY AT ALL) THAT DOCETISM EVER REPRESENTED AUTHENTIC AND ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY
Docetism is simply not significantly represented in early literature and it never represented early Christianity but instead, It was always a departure from orthodoxy.
This is one reason why no single forum member (so far) has been able to quote any significant ancient docetic literature while we have vast amounts of literature describing the early non-docetic Judeo-Christianity. For example, re-read all of yours posts and read post #80 from Yorktown Girl. Neither of them have quotes from ancient Docetic literature itself. Your (and her) examples, simply describe the history of docetism (and they both confirm my point that it was heretical and did not represent authentic ancient Christian religion.)
If you or Yorktown Girl can find any significant amount of ancient literary evidence produced by the Docetists that indicate otherwise (any at all), I would be interested in seeing it.
I think you are correct not to try to prove Docetism is, or ever was an authentic and orthodox form of Christianity.
First, Docetism come from pre-Christian roots - mainly the Babylonian religion.
Whether or not, there is documentation for any ancient belief is a tricky demand of yours.
Second,
Quote:
The Great Library of Alexandria was a massive, ancient library. It was part of a research institute known as the “Museum” in Alexandria, Egypt. The library is shrouded in mystery, from its founding to its destruction and everything in between. It was the single greatest accumulation of human knowledge in history, likely established under Ptolemy II Philadelphus in the third century BCE. At the time, written material came mostly in the form of papyrus scrolls because paper—as we know it—was not invented for another four centuries!
The exact number of materials housed in the library is unknown, but sources report there were anywhere from 40,000 to 400,000 papyrus scrolls at the height of the library’s popularity. The library was so large, a daughter branch opened in the Temple of Serapis nearby.
As the library grew, so did Alexandria’s reputation as a city of academics and scholars. Many important works came from the scholars at the library. Callimachus created the first library catalog ever; Eratosthenes of Cyrene calculated the circumference of the Earth with astounding accuracy; and many Greek and Roman works and texts used by scholars today were produced at Alexandria.
The final blow came in 640 CE when Alexandria came under Muslim rule. The Muslim ruler, Caliph Omar, asserted that the library’s contents would “either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous.” The contents of the library were then supposedly used as tinder for the city’s bathhouses. Even then, it is said that it took six months for all the materials to burn.
This took place in a time when the old order and power of the Roman Empire had completely disintegrated and when illiterate, pagan, barbaric hordes, who were devoid of understanding the Greco-Roman heritage, were rearranging Europe. While Greece lay in ruins and Rome was being pillaged and plundered, the best of their accomplishments were preserved only in books.
But books too are perishable. Great libraries, like that of ancient Alexandria, were vulnerable to destruction, and with the destruction of books, the knowledge, thought, and poetry of whole cultures were subject to extinction.
For a time, about all that stood between the preservation of European civilization or its descent into a true dark age was a hardy band of Irish monks who were dedicated to copying books and evangelizing people.
Two things were done primarily by the Irish during the 5th and 6th centuries. First, they carefully copied and preserved the books that fell into their hands. Latin literature would have been lost without the Irish; furthermore, as Cahill points out, “there would have perished in the west not only literacy but all the habits of mind that encourage thought.” Second, they established monasteries all over Europe that were devoted to preaching, teaching, and ministering to the local populations. These two activities point out the way for Christians to take dominion over the future.
We know comes from the Monks labor intensive job of hand copying manuscripts on either vellum (calf skin) or parchment (sheep or goat skin). This is not a quick method of writing!
Quote:
The skins were cleaned, stretched, scraped, and whitened with chalk to provide bright, strong, and smooth pages for writing.
Before starting to copy a text, the scribe marked the margins of the page and ruled lines to write on. Then he began, writing in ink with a quill pen made from a goose or swan feather. The lines of text were fairly short, usually no more than four to nine words each. Most scribes knew several writing styles, and a person commissioning a book could select the lettering style.
Finally, all of the pages were folded, sewn together, and bound between covers of wood or leather. Often metal clasps or leather ties would hold the book shut.
I am wondering who you have in mind because Adam was Not a pre-mortal spirit but formed/fashioned out of the dust of the ground - Genesis 2:7 - and Eve was formed/fashioned from Adam's mortal rib
All of our bodies, I believe, were formed after our spirits. I believe we all lived as in God's presence as spirit beings for many millennia prior to being born here on earth. I believe this was true of Adam and Eve, too.
The pre-existence of souls was condemned as heresy in the Second Council of Constantinople in AD 553.
Those who reject pre-existence, which would be every Christian denomination that accepts the conclusions of the Second Council of Constantinople (i.e., all Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians and many Protestants), simply see Jeremiah 1:5 as another passage about God's foreknowledge. This ecumenical Council explicitly stated "If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema."
It's interesting to me that it took five and a half centuries after Christ for this belief to be condemned. That tells me that a significant number of Christians actually did believe it for all that time. You don't have to condemn something that very few people even believe to be so.
1) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT DOCETISM REPRESENTED AUTHENTIC AND ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES IN ANCIENT JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY
I am not sure why you think your argument that docetism existed proves the point that it represented authentic Christianity.
Docetism was always considered heretical by ancient authentic orthodox Christianity.
Read your examples from John. Even your examples to me from John demonstrate my point that it was heretical and did not represent authentic ancient Christian doctrine.
Perhaps you misunderstand me? I am not claiming and have never claimed Docetism did not and does not exist even today.
There are certainly examples of it even nowadays in the form of metaphorization and other mechanisms.
As MysticPhD pointed out in the above post, even he has been described ("accused") of teaching docetism as some of his posts seem to indicate to other posters.
My claim is that Docetism never represented ancient historical, Christianity and that most of the examples of "historical" docetism are simply historical descriptions but I have not seen significant ancient literature written by the Docetists themselves that became popular to any degree. Even your examples do not have even a single line from actual docetists, but merely describe that they existed and what they claimed and their effects.
2) IF NO ONE ON THE FORUM AND IN HISTORICAL CIRCLES HAS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF AUTHENTIC LITERATURE FROM DOCETISTS, THIS SHOULD BE EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS MINIMAL EVIDENCE (IF ANY AT ALL) THAT DOCETISM EVER REPRESENTED AUTHENTIC AND ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY
Docetism is simply not significantly represented in early literature and it never represented early Christianity but instead, It was always a departure from orthodoxy.
This is one reason why no single forum member (so far) has been able to quote any significant ancient docetic literature while we have vast amounts of literature describing the early non-docetic Judeo-Christianity. For example, re-read all of yours posts and read post #80 from Yorktown Girl. Neither of them have quotes from ancient Docetic literature itself. Your (and her) examples, simply describe the history of docetism (and they both confirm my point that it was heretical and did not represent authentic ancient Christian religion.)
If you or Yorktown Girl can find any significant amount of ancient literary evidence produced by the Docetists that indicate otherwise (any at all), I would be interested in seeing it.
I think you are correct not to try to prove Docetism is, or ever was an authentic and orthodox form of Christianity.
Okay, I do have a little more to say about this.
I think that the idea of needing to see ''significant amounts of ancient literary evidence produced by the Docetists'' themselves in order to determine how extensive it was in the early church is expecting too much. Until 1945 with the discovery of the Gnostic manuscripts at Nag Hammadi, the only thing we knew concerning the Gnostics came from the early Church fathers themselves who were speaking out against the Gnostics. And so it is with the Docetists. We have mention of Docetism by some of the early church fathers such as the statement by Ignatius which I posted. Even the Bible itself hints at it.
As mentioned by YorktownGal, much or most of ancient literature has been lost to the ravishes of time.
Bart Ehrman has stated that Docetism was one of five Major competing Christologies in the early Church.
You may want to consider revising your requirements for determining how extensive Docetism was in the early church. But if not, that's fine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
