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.
It isNOT about physical appearance. God IS Spirit and it is about having the same Spirit (character or mind). That is why Scripture reveals the "mind of Christ" so we will know the "mind of God," NOT Scripture, per se.
Yes, Scripture reveals to those who are worthy, the spiritual appearance of the Father and the Son which is the mind of God and the mind of Christ.
I find God fashioned or formed Adam from the existing dust of the ground - Genesis 2:7
God's image (reflection) is Not physical, but man being created in God's image or likeness is in connection to God's qualities or attributes such as: man being capable of having love, justice, mercy, wisdom, etc.
Does God consider men and women His children?
“No peace for the wicked, no peace for all mankind!”
I think not.
The love of man and the mercy of man etc is not the same as that of God.
But, biblically speaking, every believer is righteous in a positional sense. In Romans 4:4-5 the believer's faith, apart from works, is counted as righteousness.
Then there is also a 'practical righteousness' which results from living out your faith. This is experiential righteousness or sanctification or spiritual growth.
But, biblically speaking, every believer is righteous in a positional sense. In Romans 4:4-5 the believer's faith, apart from works, is counted as righteousness.
Then there is also a 'practical righteousness' which results from living out your faith. This is experiential righteousness or sanctification or spiritual growth.
I personally have needed to understand things practically and experientially rather than doctrinally, but I do realise we religiously have needed the doctrinal and ritualistic to connect (and keep records) of the various ideas/concepts over the different times and regions (that’s the dispensations mentioned in Scripture)
The goalposts never changed because what was said/meant in the 10 commandments and Jesus reiterated them in the 1st century was don’t intentionally lie, cheat, steal, murder, because there are consequences for our actions (both individually and collectively)
Actions are the carrying out of our intentions and motivations via the physical body we have - it is our ‘servant’ so to speak
1) WERE PROPHETS AND APOSTLES SIMPLY A “FACTION” WITHIN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH WHO “DISAGREED” WITH DOCETISM OR WERE THEY A PRIMARY SOURCE OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE?
Michael Way said : “Docetism was deemed a heresy by that faction of the church which disagreed with it. “ (post #115)
Characterizing prophets or apostles merely as a “faction of the church” seems incorrect. I think they represented much more than a "faction".
a) Were Prophets and Apostles who received their religion by revelation from God, authorized to determine what is and what is not authentic Christianity?
IF ancient Christian prophets and apostles did in fact, receive direct revelation from God regarding what was Christian religion and what was not Christian religion, then prophetic and apostolic revealed religion was not merely a “faction” within a religion but rather it was an authorized SOURCE of Christian religion.
2) DO THE QUOTES FROM MICHAEL WAY INDICATE DOCETISM WAS AUTHENTIC CHRISTIAN RELIGION OR DID THESE QUOTES INDICATE DOCETISM WAS NOT AN AUTHENTIC CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE?
Michael way said in post #76 : “1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7 may have been directed against Docetic teachings since they emphasize Jesus' 'coming in the flesh' thus possibly implying that some were teaching that Jesus did not come 'in the flesh.'”
I think this specific statement is correct. However, WHO does it refer to and is John the apostle teaching that Docetism was authentic and authorized Christian teaching?
Michael Way quoted the Historian Everett Ferguson in post #76 : “Ignatius was especially concerned about division in the churches, occasioned by the false teachings both of the Docetists, who said that Jesus Christ only ''seemed'' or ''appeared'' to be truly human; and of the Judaizers, who promoted Jewish practices.”
Ignatius isn’t simply “concerned” about these “false teachings” but in fact teaches they are incorrect and not authentic and true doctrines of Christianity.
Michael Way quoted Ignatius in post #82 thusly : “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. “
Ignatius describes a Docetist as : “such an one has denied the faith” (the Christian faith), indicating that Docetism is NOT authentic Christian faith, but is instead, a denial OF Christian faith.
Ignatius continues in the next sentence to tell us that this person “can neither be a lover of God, nor a lover of Christ” and is “a stranger to Christ”.
How can it be any more clear that Ignatius does not simply view Docetism as simply another “form” or “faction” of Christian belief, but instead views it as “non-Christian”? A “stranger” to Christ or Christian religion is not authentic Christianity.
3) WAS DOCETISM PRESENT WHEN EARLY CHRISTIAN RELIGION WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE PROPHETS AND BY JESUS AND THE APOSTLES OR WAS IT A LATER DOCTRINE?
My [Clear Lens] first mention of Docetism was in post #71 where I said : “Docetism is not represented in early Judeo-Christianity and so I have not studied Docetism much at all since it is only on the fringes of my interest.”
Michael Way pointed out in post #82: “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.”
Michael Way points out in post #82 “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.” (underline is mine)
These points by Kruger witness to the same point I made in my original post on Docetism (post #71) when I pointed out : “Docetism is not represented in early Judeo-Christianity...”
Authentic Christianity and its doctrines were established early on by the Prophets, and by Christ and his apostles.
As Kruger indicates, Docetism was a later doctrine that did not exist in early, and authentic Christianity.
In fact Kruger himself points out “…the earliest Christians plainly and repeatedly condemned this misunderstanding. Not only do we have the passage from Hebrews, but the apostle John makes Jesus’s humanity a test of orthodoxy: “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God” (1 John 4:2). And whoever rejects the reality that Jesus came “in the flesh” is called an “antichrist” (1 John 4:3). (underline is mine) ” https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/a...ters-divinity/
“AntiChrist” and it’s associated “AntiChristianity” is not merely a different “faction” of Christianity, it is a different religion that is in opposition to authentic Christianity.
Michael, your evidence that “Docetism was a heresy, but it was still a teaching within the church” (post #105) originates from quotes, ALL OF WHICH tell us Docetism was heresy and in error and NOT part of authentic Christianity.
None of them indicate Docetism originated “within the church” but in fact, this is why historians theorize Docetism came from OUTSIDE of Christianity.
4) DOES THE FACT THAT NO LITERATURE (SO FAR) FROM THE EARLIEST DOCETISTS TELL US THEY WERE VERY INFLUENTIAL IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY OR DOES IT INDICATE THEY WERE NOT "VERY INFLUENTIAL"?
When I ask for ANY early ancient literature from the Docetists Michael Way replied in post #90 that “much or most of ancient literature has been lost to the ravishes of time.”
Michael Way posted in post #95: “Bart Ehrman stated that based on the surviving documents of the time Docetism was one of five major competing Christologies in the early church.”
These are conflicting claims. The claim that “based on surviving literature” that hasn’t really survived at all is illogical. You have not been able to produce even a single line (so far) from the ancient docetic literature.
This historical dilemma is two fold.
The claim that “surviving literature” (post #95) hasn’t really survived (post #90) is problematic and thus it is not evidence for “extensive” Docetism (post #95) in original ancient Christianity.
Historically, IF Docetism was a significant movement with “extensive” influence (post #95) in early Christianity, or Judaism, or Islamic movements, there should be at least a scrap, a small papyri or SOME sort of literature representing docetism. Literature doesn’t ALL simply disappear or evaporate. This is where “The Dog ate my homework” excuse doesn’t work.
5) REGARDING MICHAEL WAYS QUOTES FROM 1 JOHN AND IGNATIUS : DO OTHER HISTORIANS TELL US DOCETISM ACTUALLY AROSE FROM WITHIN AUTHENTIC EARLY CHRISTIANITY OF FROM WITHOUT?
Clear said in post #112: “Michael, you also keep referring to 1 John 4:2 as though it supports the position that Docetism was authentic Christianity without considering or offering any further analysis. Why not simply consider other interpretations before making this conclusion?
For example, John was confronted with BOTH Hellenistic influence AND Jewish influence.
The Hellenists tended to have a Christology where Jesus was a divine being, but not human while the Jews tended believed Jesus was human and not particularly divine. BOTH of these were seen as heretical in the earliest Christian teachings of the Prophets and Apostles.
Even the enemies of Jesus believed in his “humanity”, but they did not believe what he did in the flesh was in any way salvific.
This is why other interpretations (such as R.E. Brown suggests) relate that 1 John 4:2 is pointing out that what Jesus did in the flesh was salvific, not merely human. (instead of your interpretation as a polemic against Docetism). In such a context, the phrase “in the flesh” isn’t a polemic against a docetic Christianity at all.
Similarly, R. Schnackenburg also pointed out in his writings that “flesh”/σρκη is not, in such verses related to Docetism and he also gives multiple examples from Johns writings to support his position.
So no, your position is not necessarily a “majority” opinion (though it may be the opinion you personally study the majority of the time).
I am not pointing these problems out to frustrate you, I simply want to point out that you need to consider other historical possibilities and try to understand why I want to see some of this early mystery literature that supposedly supports your position for myself.
You could certainly have some points that are correct, but I don’t see that Docetism represented early Christianity but instead, was merely a corruption and a heresy originating in ideas outside of early Christian teachings.”
… For example, L.W. Banard pointed out long ago that it is not at all clear that Ignatius is speaking Docetism itself. He reminds us that we often focus on two distinct heresies of “Judaism” and “gnostic Docetism” rather than considering that Ignatius may be describing only one heresy, that of “Jewish gnostic Docetism”.
For example, Banard maintains it is the same group that are accused of both Judaism AND Docetism and gives he gives several examples (e.g. warning against “old fables”, keeping the “sabbath” instead of “the Lords Day”, etc.) while other scholars believe the heresies are held by two separate groups. Which is it?
It’s difficult to tell because John uses the same basic speech when speaking of both heresies saying “they are not the planting of the father”. Notice that Ignatius calls both teachings “heterodoxy”. Heresy, not “authentic Christianity”.
Thus, other scholars have disagreed with your position and have taken the position that Ignatius is only really attacking a single position, that of “Judeo-Docetism” which was not taught in authentic Christianity but was always a heresy in Prophetic and apostolic Christianity (and to Ignatius as well). The fact that Gnosticism is found in diasporic Jewish thought increases the likelihood of this historical position.
Michael Way replied in post #15 “As for your statement that I have not shown that Ignatius was actually speaking about Docetism, you have to either be kidding or else you are being disingenuous. “
Michael, I do not think the dissenting historians are kidding nor are they being disingenuous.
They are simply pointing out that Docetism may not have arisen from the Christians themselves (within the church), but instead, it seems to have arisen from outside of Christianity (outside of the church).
Consider that your own quotes from the Historian Ferguson makes this same point the other historians I've quoted are making.
You quoted Ferguson in post #76 : “Historian Everett Ferguson in his book 'Church History', volume one, From Christ to the Pre-Reformation, commenting on Docetism writes on p. 55
“Ignatius was especially concerned about division in the churches, occasioned by the false teachings both of the Docetists, who said that Jesus Christ only ''seemed'' or ''appeared'' to be truly human; and of the Judaizers, who promoted Jewish practices. The two kinds of false teaching may come from the same group---a Docetic view of Christ could have solved some problems for Jewish believers in overcoming the paradox of a crucified Messiah. (post #76) (bold and underline is mine).
IF YOUR QUOTE from Ferguson is correct, (And very well may be correct is my point) that the Judaizers and the Docetists may be “the same group” then it should be obvious that the doctrine of Docetism may have originated in Judaism. If so, Judaism is not simply a “faction” of Christianity, but a faction from outside of Christianity that is infiltrating Christianity.
THIS is the same thing my quotes from other historians said.
You need to read your own quotes and better analyze what these historians you are quoting are actually saying.
Clear Lens said in post #112 “Michael Way. I apologize if this issue is bothersome to you but it would change the historical assumptions of religion historians if you are correct that Docetism was taught in the earliest form of authentic, ancient Christianity as authentic doctrine.”
Michael replied in post #115 “Disagreeing with you does not mean that I am ''bothered.''
I apologize if it sounded as if I was simply offering a “jab” or implying you were angry. My statement was meant to be conciliatory.
I simply felt you had been trying to disengage from this debate (that I was not disengaging from) and I wanted to reassure you that I was not simply trying to “give you a hard time”. I still think your insights have been wonderful and very much respect your opinions Michael.
1) WERE PROPHETS AND APOSTLES SIMPLY A “FACTION” WITHIN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH WHO “DISAGREED” WITH DOCETISM OR WERE THEY A PRIMARY SOURCE OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE?
Michael Way said : “Docetism was deemed a heresy by that faction of the church which disagreed with it. “ (post #115)
Characterizing prophets or apostles merely as a “faction of the church” seems incorrect. I think they represented much more than a "faction".
a) Were Prophets and Apostles who received their religion by revelation from God, authorized to determine what is and what is not authentic Christianity?
IF ancient Christian prophets and apostles did in fact, receive direct revelation from God regarding what was Christian religion and what was not Christian religion, then prophetic and apostolic revealed religion was not merely a “faction” within a religion but rather it was an authorized SOURCE of Christian religion.
2) DO THE QUOTES FROM MICHAEL WAY INDICATE DOCETISM WAS AUTHENTIC CHRISTIAN RELIGION OR DID THESE QUOTES INDICATE DOCETISM WAS NOT AN AUTHENTIC CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE?
Michael way said in post #76 : “1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7 may have been directed against Docetic teachings since they emphasize Jesus' 'coming in the flesh' thus possibly implying that some were teaching that Jesus did not come 'in the flesh.'”
I think this specific statement is correct. However, WHO does it refer to and is John the apostle teaching that Docetism was authentic and authorized Christian teaching?
Michael Way quoted the Historian Everett Ferguson in post #76 : “Ignatius was especially concerned about division in the churches, occasioned by the false teachings both of the Docetists, who said that Jesus Christ only ''seemed'' or ''appeared'' to be truly human; and of the Judaizers, who promoted Jewish practices.”
Ignatius isn’t simply “concerned” about these “false teachings” but in fact teaches they are incorrect and not authentic and true doctrines of Christianity.
Michael Way quoted Ignatius in post #82 thusly : “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. “
Ignatius describes a Docetist as : “such an one has denied the faith” (the Christian faith), indicating that Docetism is NOT authentic Christian faith, but is instead, a denial OF Christian faith.
Ignatius continues in the next sentence to tell us that this person “can neither be a lover of God, nor a lover of Christ” and is “a stranger to Christ”.
How can it be any more clear that Ignatius does not simply view Docetism as simply another “form” or “faction” of Christian belief, but instead views it as “non-Christian”? A “stranger” to Christ or Christian religion is not authentic Christianity.
3) WAS DOCETISM PRESENT WHEN EARLY CHRISTIAN RELIGION WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE PROPHETS AND BY JESUS AND THE APOSTLES OR WAS IT A LATER DOCTRINE?
My [Clear Lens] first mention of Docetism was in post #71 where I said : “Docetism is not represented in early Judeo-Christianity and so I have not studied Docetism much at all since it is only on the fringes of my interest.”
Michael Way pointed out in post #82: “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.”
Michael Way points out in post #82 “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.” (underline is mine)
These points by Kruger witness to the same point I made in my original post on Docetism (post #71) when I pointed out : “Docetism is not represented in early Judeo-Christianity...”
Authentic Christianity and its doctrines were established early on by the Prophets, and by Christ and his apostles.
As Kruger indicates, Docetism was a later doctrine that did not exist in early, and authentic Christianity.
In fact Kruger himself points out “…the earliest Christians plainly and repeatedly condemned this misunderstanding. Not only do we have the passage from Hebrews, but the apostle John makes Jesus’s humanity a test of orthodoxy: “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God” (1 John 4:2). And whoever rejects the reality that Jesus came “in the flesh” is called an “antichrist” (1 John 4:3). (underline is mine) ” https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/a...ters-divinity/
“AntiChrist” and it’s associated “AntiChristianity” is not merely a different “faction” of Christianity, it is a different religion that is in opposition to authentic Christianity.
Michael, your evidence that “Docetism was a heresy, but it was still a teaching within the church” (post #105) originates from quotes, ALL OF WHICH tell us Docetism was heresy and in error and NOT part of authentic Christianity.
None of them indicate Docetism originated “within the church” but in fact, this is why historians theorize Docetism came from OUTSIDE of Christianity.
4) DOES THE FACT THAT NO LITERATURE (SO FAR) FROM THE EARLIEST DOCETISTS TELL US THEY WERE VERY INFLUENTIAL IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY OR DOES IT INDICATE THEY WERE NOT "VERY INFLUENTIAL"?
When I ask for ANY early ancient literature from the Docetists Michael Way replied in post #90 that “much or most of ancient literature has been lost to the ravishes of time.”
Michael Way posted in post #95: “Bart Ehrman stated that based on the surviving documents of the time Docetism was one of five major competing Christologies in the early church.”
These are conflicting claims. The claim that “based on surviving literature” that hasn’t really survived at all is illogical. You have not been able to produce even a single line (so far) from the ancient docetic literature.
This historical dilemma is two fold.
The claim that “surviving literature” (post #95) hasn’t really survived (post #90) is problematic and thus it is not evidence for “extensive” Docetism (post #95) in original ancient Christianity.
Historically, IF Docetism was a significant movement with “extensive” influence (post #95) in early Christianity, or Judaism, or Islamic movements, there should be at least a scrap, a small papyri or SOME sort of literature representing docetism. Literature doesn’t ALL simply disappear or evaporate. This is where “The Dog ate my homework” excuse doesn’t work.
5) REGARDING MICHAEL WAYS QUOTES FROM 1 JOHN AND IGNATIUS : DO OTHER HISTORIANS TELL US DOCETISM ACTUALLY AROSE FROM WITHIN AUTHENTIC EARLY CHRISTIANITY OF FROM WITHOUT?
Clear said in post #112: “Michael, you also keep referring to 1 John 4:2 as though it supports the position that Docetism was authentic Christianity without considering or offering any further analysis. Why not simply consider other interpretations before making this conclusion?
For example, John was confronted with BOTH Hellenistic influence AND Jewish influence.
The Hellenists tended to have a Christology where Jesus was a divine being, but not human while the Jews tended believed Jesus was human and not particularly divine. BOTH of these were seen as heretical in the earliest Christian teachings of the Prophets and Apostles.
Even the enemies of Jesus believed in his “humanity”, but they did not believe what he did in the flesh was in any way salvific.
This is why other interpretations (such as R.E. Brown suggests) relate that 1 John 4:2 is pointing out that what Jesus did in the flesh was salvific, not merely human. (instead of your interpretation as a polemic against Docetism). In such a context, the phrase “in the flesh” isn’t a polemic against a docetic Christianity at all.
Similarly, R. Schnackenburg also pointed out in his writings that “flesh”/σρκη is not, in such verses related to Docetism and he also gives multiple examples from Johns writings to support his position.
So no, your position is not necessarily a “majority” opinion (though it may be the opinion you personally study the majority of the time).
I am not pointing these problems out to frustrate you, I simply want to point out that you need to consider other historical possibilities and try to understand why I want to see some of this early mystery literature that supposedly supports your position for myself.
You could certainly have some points that are correct, but I don’t see that Docetism represented early Christianity but instead, was merely a corruption and a heresy originating in ideas outside of early Christian teachings.”
… For example, L.W. Banard pointed out long ago that it is not at all clear that Ignatius is speaking Docetism itself. He reminds us that we often focus on two distinct heresies of “Judaism” and “gnostic Docetism” rather than considering that Ignatius may be describing only one heresy, that of “Jewish gnostic Docetism”.
For example, Banard maintains it is the same group that are accused of both Judaism AND Docetism and gives he gives several examples (e.g. warning against “old fables”, keeping the “sabbath” instead of “the Lords Day”, etc.) while other scholars believe the heresies are held by two separate groups. Which is it?
It’s difficult to tell because John uses the same basic speech when speaking of both heresies saying “they are not the planting of the father”. Notice that Ignatius calls both teachings “heterodoxy”. Heresy, not “authentic Christianity”.
Thus, other scholars have disagreed with your position and have taken the position that Ignatius is only really attacking a single position, that of “Judeo-Docetism” which was not taught in authentic Christianity but was always a heresy in Prophetic and apostolic Christianity (and to Ignatius as well). The fact that Gnosticism is found in diasporic Jewish thought increases the likelihood of this historical position.
Michael Way replied in post #15 “As for your statement that I have not shown that Ignatius was actually speaking about Docetism, you have to either be kidding or else you are being disingenuous. “
Michael, I do not think the dissenting historians are kidding nor are they being disingenuous.
They are simply pointing out that Docetism may not have arisen from the Christians themselves (within the church), but instead, it seems to have arisen from outside of Christianity (outside of the church).
Consider that your own quotes from the Historian Ferguson makes this same point the other historians I've quoted are making.
You quoted Ferguson in post #76 : “Historian Everett Ferguson in his book 'Church History', volume one, From Christ to the Pre-Reformation, commenting on Docetism writes on p. 55
“Ignatius was especially concerned about division in the churches, occasioned by the false teachings both of the Docetists, who said that Jesus Christ only ''seemed'' or ''appeared'' to be truly human; and of the Judaizers, who promoted Jewish practices. The two kinds of false teaching may come from the same group---a Docetic view of Christ could have solved some problems for Jewish believers in overcoming the paradox of a crucified Messiah. (post #76) (bold and underline is mine).
IF YOUR QUOTE from Ferguson is correct, (And very well may be correct is my point) that the Judaizers and the Docetists may be “the same group” then it should be obvious that the doctrine of Docetism may have originated in Judaism. If so, Judaism is not simply a “faction” of Christianity, but a faction from outside of Christianity that is infiltrating Christianity.
THIS is the same thing my quotes from other historians said.
You need to read your own quotes and better analyze what these historians you are quoting are actually saying.
Clear Lens said in post #112 “Michael Way. I apologize if this issue is bothersome to you but it would change the historical assumptions of religion historians if you are correct that Docetism was taught in the earliest form of authentic, ancient Christianity as authentic doctrine.”
Michael replied in post #115 “Disagreeing with you does not mean that I am ''bothered.''
I apologize if it sounded as if I was simply offering a “jab” or implying you were angry. My statement was meant to be conciliatory.
I simply felt you had been trying to disengage from this debate (that I was not disengaging from) and I wanted to reassure you that I was not simply trying to “give you a hard time”. I still think your insights have been wonderful and very much respect your opinions Michael.
No, I do not have to ''read my own quotes'' because I have read my own quotes.
I stated in my very first post on the subject - post 76, that it was debatable whether Docetism originated from within or from outside of Christianity. And I have said over and over that Docetism was a heresy.
Again, your view on the matter is a minority view in scholarship. And again, Ignatius was clearly referring to Docetism which you tried to imply that he may not have been in section 2 of your post 112.
As for section 4 of this post to which I'm replying, noting that there are surviving documents but that most documents have been lost is neither contradictory nor illogical. I never said that the surviving documents didn't survive.
Also, I never mentioned prophets and apostles and that they were 'factions' within the church. I made it quite clear that I've been talking about those in the church such as Marcion and those who promoted Gnosticism.
This is going nowhere. Again, we are just going to have to disagree. If you can't accept that but feel the need to get in the last word, knock yourself out.
Last edited by Michael Way; 05-16-2024 at 04:30 PM..
But, biblically speaking, every believer is righteous in a positional sense. In Romans 4:4-5 the believer's faith, apart from works, is counted as righteousness.
Then there is also a 'practical righteousness' which results from living out your faith. This is experiential righteousness or sanctification or spiritual growth.
The righteous who were in the OT were genuinely upright. People today don’t get it. They are on a dark road with nowhere to run. Following men with no inspiration. Jesus said He came for sinners not the righteous. He gets it.
Proverbs 16:13 “ Righteous lips are the delight of a king, and he loves those who speak what is right.”
Therefore the righteous speak what is right. Do so and you will be saved!
I was traveling for a few days and did not have time to respond
1) APOSTLES AND PROPHETS WERE THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT (EPH 2:20-22) AND NOT A "FACTION" WITHIN THE CHURCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clear lens
1) WERE PROPHETS AND APOSTLES SIMPLY A “FACTION” WITHIN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH WHO “DISAGREED” WITH DOCETISM OR WERE THEY A PRIMARY SOURCE OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE?
Michael Way said : “Docetism was deemed a heresy by that faction of the church which disagreed with it. “ (post #115)
Characterizing prophets or apostles merely as a “faction of the church” seems incorrect. I think they represented much more than a "faction".
a) Were Prophets and Apostles who received their religion by revelation from God, authorized to determine what is and what is not authentic Christianity?
IF ancient Christian prophets and apostles did in fact, receive direct revelation from God regarding what was Christian religion and what was not Christian religion, then prophetic and apostolic revealed religion was not merely a “faction” within a religion but rather it was an authorized SOURCE of Christian religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
Also, I never mentioned prophets and apostles and that they were 'factions' within the church. I made it quite clear that I've been talking about those in the church such as Marcion and those who promoted Gnosticism.
The point I was trying to make is that it was Prophets and Apostles who learned of, determined, and then taught Christian doctrine. In the earliest Christianity, prophets and apostles were able to define what was and what was not “Christian” teachings.
ALL of your apostolic era quotes so far (1 John, etc), IF they refer to Docetism, repudiate ("disagree with") this doctrine as "Christian Doctrine" by the Prophetic and Apostolic quotes you provided. This is what I meant that the apostle and prophets who repudiated this doctrine were not merely a "faction" of the church, but were the very individuals who defined what was Christian doctrine and what was not Christian doctrine.
Apostles and Prophets who produced and taught authentic Christian doctrines were not merely “that faction of the church which disagreed with it [docetism].” (Michael Way, post #115) but instead were the "foundation" upon which the church was built (eph 2:20-22). If the apostles indicated Docetism was not Christian doctrine, then it was not Christian doctrine, regardless of who else might have believed it.
2) WHAT DOES THE COMPLETE LACK OF HISTORICAL LITERATURE DEMONSTRATE? INFLUENCE OR NON-INFLUENCE?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clear lens
4) DOES THE FACT THAT NO LITERATURE (SO FAR) FROM THE EARLIEST DOCETISTS TELL US THEY WERE VERY INFLUENTIAL IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY OR DOES IT INDICATE THEY WERE NOT "VERY INFLUENTIAL"?
When I ask for ANY early ancient literature from the Docetists Michael Way replied in post #90 that “much or most of ancient literature has been lost to the ravishes of time.”
Michael Way posted in post #95: “Bart Ehrman stated that based on the surviving documents of the time Docetism was one of five major competing Christologies in the early church.”
These are conflicting claims. The claim that “based on surviving literature” that hasn’t really survived at all is illogical. You have not been able to produce even a single line (so far) from the ancient docetic literature.
This historical dilemma is two fold.
The claim that “surviving literature” (post #95) hasn’t really survived (post #90) is problematic and thus it is not evidence for “extensive” Docetism (post #95) in original ancient Christianity.
Historically, IF Docetism was a significant movement with “extensive” influence (post #95) in early Christianity, or Judaism, or Islamic movements, there should be at least a scrap, a small papyri or SOME sort of literature representing docetism. Literature doesn’t ALL simply disappear or evaporate. This is where “The Dog ate my homework” excuse doesn’t work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
As for section 4 of this post to which I'm replying, noting that there are surviving documents but that most documents have been lost is neither contradictory nor illogical. I never said that the surviving documents didn't survive.
You are correct. It was I who referred to “non-surviving” documents because you referred to “the surviving” documents but then no one can tell from your quotes what these mystery documents are, nor can we see them (so far) and we cannot examine them (so far) to analyze them and you could no produce a single line from them.
3) WE NEED TO CAREFULLY ANALYZE HISTORICAL DATA BEFORE SIMPLY ASSUMING IT CONFIRMS OUR OWN BIAS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clear lens
REGARDING WHETHER DOCETISM WAS TAUGHT IN EARLIEST JUDEO-CHRISTIANTY
5) REGARDING MICHAEL WAYS QUOTES FROM 1 JOHN AND IGNATIUS : DO OTHER HISTORIANS TELL US DOCETISM ACTUALLY AROSE FROM WITHIN AUTHENTIC EARLY CHRISTIANITY OF FROM WITHOUT?
Clear said in post #112: “Michael, you also keep referring to 1 John 4:2 as though it supports the position that Docetism was authentic Christianity without considering or offering any further analysis. Why not simply consider other interpretations before making this conclusion?
For example, John was confronted with BOTH Hellenistic influence AND Jewish influence.
The Hellenists tended to have a Christology where Jesus was a divine being, but not human while the Jews tended believed Jesus was human and not particularly divine. BOTH of these were seen as heretical in the earliest Christian teachings of the Prophets and Apostles.
Even the enemies of Jesus believed in his “humanity”, but they did not believe what he did in the flesh was in any way salvific.
This is why other interpretations (such as R.E. Brown suggests) relate that 1 John 4:2 is pointing out that what Jesus did in the flesh was salvific, not merely human. (instead of your interpretation as a polemic against Docetism). In such a context, the phrase “in the flesh” isn’t a polemic against a docetic Christianity at all.
Similarly, R. Schnackenburg also pointed out in his writings that “flesh”/σρκη is not, in such verses related to Docetism and he also gives multiple examples from Johns writings to support his position.
So no, your position is not necessarily a “majority” opinion (though it may be the opinion you personally study the majority of the time).
I am not pointing these problems out to frustrate you, I simply want to point out that you need to consider other historical possibilities and try to understand why I want to see some of this early mystery literature that supposedly supports your position for myself.
You could certainly have some points that are correct, but I don’t see that Docetism represented early Christianity but instead, was merely a corruption and a heresy originating in ideas outside of early Christian teachings.”
… For example, L.W. Banard pointed out long ago that it is not at all clear that Ignatius is speaking Docetism itself. He reminds us that we often focus on two distinct heresies of “Judaism” and “gnostic Docetism” rather than considering that Ignatius may be describing only one heresy, that of “Jewish gnostic Docetism”.
For example, Banard maintains it is the same group that are accused of both Judaism AND Docetism and gives he gives several examples (e.g. warning against “old fables”, keeping the “sabbath” instead of “the Lords Day”, etc.) while other scholars believe the heresies are held by two separate groups. Which is it?
It’s difficult to tell because John uses the same basic speech when speaking of both heresies saying “they are not the planting of the father”. Notice that Ignatius calls both teachings “heterodoxy”. Heresy, not “authentic Christianity”.
Thus, other scholars have disagreed with your position and have taken the position that Ignatius is only really attacking a single position, that of “Judeo-Docetism” which was not taught in authentic Christianity but was always a heresy in Prophetic and apostolic Christianity (and to Ignatius as well). The fact that Gnosticism is found in diasporic Jewish thought increases the likelihood of this historical position.
Michael Way replied in post #15 “As for your statement that I have not shown that Ignatius was actually speaking about Docetism, you have to either be kidding or else you are being disingenuous. “
Michael, I do not think the dissenting historians are kidding nor are they being disingenuous.
They are simply pointing out that Docetism may not have arisen from the Christians themselves (within the church), but instead, it seems to have arisen from outside of Christianity (outside of the church).
Consider that your own quotes from the Historian Ferguson makes this same point the other historians I've quoted are making.
You quoted Ferguson in post #76 : “Historian Everett Ferguson in his book 'Church History', volume one, From Christ to the Pre-Reformation, commenting on Docetism writes on p. 55
“Ignatius was especially concerned about division in the churches, occasioned by the false teachings both of the Docetists, who said that Jesus Christ only ''seemed'' or ''appeared'' to be truly human; and of the Judaizers, who promoted Jewish practices. The two kinds of false teaching may come from the same group---a Docetic view of Christ could have solved some problems for Jewish believers in overcoming the paradox of a crucified Messiah. (post #76) (bold and underline is mine).
IF YOUR QUOTE from Ferguson is correct, (And very well may be correct is my point) that the Judaizers and the Docetists may be “the same group” then it should be obvious that the doctrine of Docetism may have originated in Judaism. If so, Judaism is not simply a “faction” of Christianity, but a faction from outside of Christianity that is infiltrating Christianity.
THIS is the same thing my quotes from other historians said.
You need to read your own quotes and better analyze what these historians you are quoting are actually saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
No, I do not have to ''read my own quotes'' because I have read my own quotes.
I stated in my very first post on the subject - post 76, that it was debatable whether Docetism originated from within or from outside of Christianity. And I have said over and over that Docetism was a heresy.
Michael Way – When I said that you should “read” your quotes, I meant that you should study and analyze your quote for multiple meanings rather than simply to conclude that they confirm your personal bias instead of a different bias.
Ferguson, in your quote (post #76) tells us that “The two kinds of false teaching may come from the same group---a Docetic view of Christ could have solved some problems for Jewish believers in overcoming the paradox of a crucified Messiah. (post #76) (bold and underline is min)
If a Jew (“Judaizer is the word Ferguson used”) teaches Christians a Jewish doctrine (Docetism), even while inside a Christian church, it does not become a Christian doctrine, at all. Instead, it remains a Jewish doctrine that came from a “Judaizer”.
If a Jew, even nowadays, teaches that Jesus was not the Messiah, and a few Christians believe this Jewish doctrine, it does not become a “Christian doctrine” simply because some Christians believe this specific heresy.
This is why it matters both as to the origin of the doctrine and who was teaching it.
Examination of any ancient Docetic literature is important because such writings may indicate if this doctrine originated among and was taught by the “Judaizers” or some other non-christian group or by Christians themselves
The fact that you have (so far) been unable to offer even a single line from a single papyri of docetic literature means you have insufficient data upon which to make your claim that this was a “major” Christian teaching. Claims made without even a shred of evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The concept that historical theories should be based on historical evidence should be self-evident. That is why I asked you repeatedly for ANY evidence from ancient Docetic literature.
4) WHAT ARE THE "MINORITY" VS "MAJORITY" VIEWS SO FAR?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
Again, your view on the matter is a minority view in scholarship. And again, Ignatius was clearly referring to Docetism which you tried to imply that he may not have been in section 2 of your post 112.
You quoted from how many scholars that support your claim? Lets review
You quoted Ferguson (post #76) But he does not tell us this doctrine was a doctrine of the earliest Christianity. In fact he implies it may have been Jewish (from the Judaizers”). This doesn’t tell us it was a doctrine of the earliest Christianity.
You quoted Kruger (post #82), But he “states that Docetism is not attested in the mid-first century…”. This also implies Docetism was not a doctrine of the earliest Christianity. So this doesn’t help your claim.
You even admit (post #82) that “…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.”
YES, I DO want to imply that in the early and authentic form of Christianity Docetism was not represented by Christianity.
You said that the atheist Bart Ehrman (post #90) stated : “…Docetism was one of five Major competing Christologies in the early Church.” But you failed to provide any data that this was true in the earliest period of the Christian movement and remember, you already told us in post #82 that Kruger specifically states “Docetism is not attested in the mid-first century…” (YOUR quote, not mine)
So, YOU have not quoted a single historian that actually supports the specific claim that Docetism was a “major” (your word, not mine) Christology in the earliest period of the Christian movement.
So, L.W. Banard and R.E. Brown, in post #112, R. Schnackenburg (post #127),
also Ferguson (post #76) who implies it may have been Jewish doctrine (from the Judaizers”), and Kruger as well who tell us it that “Docetism is not attested in the mid-first century…” do not support your position, while the single atheist scholar (Ehrman) may or may not support your claim depending both upon “surviving literature” which (so far), no one has produced. You mentioned the “Nag Hamadi” library but failed to give readers a single quote (so far).
It is unclear why you claim to have a “majority” position among scholars. However I DO agree that simply offering “dueling lists” of scholars gets us nowhere. This is why I want the actual DATA and to see the early docetic literature to see what it actually says and who was teaching the doctrine.
5) BARE COMPETING HISTORICAL CLAIMS WITHOUT FIRM, UNDERLYING DATA, "GO NOWHERE".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
Michael Way said : “This is going nowhere. Again, we are just going to have to disagree. If you can't accept that but feel the need to get in the last word, knock yourself out.”
Thank you for understanding Michael that historical claims are “going nowhere” without more data than we have.
If you ever DO find ANY significant docetic literature from the period of the earliest Judeo-Christian movement, please make me aware of it so that I can adjust and correct my own historical models.
Thank you so much for your time and efforts Michael. I remain hopeful that your spiritual journey (AND MINE) will be wonderful and insightful.
Last edited by Clear lens; Today at 08:21 PM..
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.
