Search

According to the doctrine of so-called docetic Christology, earthly Jesus and heavenly Christ were two different persons. It was Jesus who suffered on the cross, Christ just entered Jesus’ body for a while and abandoned it before his death on the cross; consequently, suffering of Christ was mere appearance. On the base of some passages from Gnostic texts containing examples of docetic Chrstology, the author attempts here to trace the origin of that concept, starting with the New Testament (Pt. 1: Synoptic Gospels). In the previous part of the article (Pt. 2. 1) he analyzed such Paul’s passages as Rom. 1.3–4 and Gal. 4.4–7; in this part he deals with 1Cor 8.4–6 in order to find out whether the concept of pre-existent Jesus is present or not. The author argues in favour of the second answer. To be continued .

This article argues that the quests for the historical Jesus have largely operated with an understanding of history hindered by a severely constricted range of divine and human possibilities. By outlining human ‘self-understanding’ as a historiographical question, it emphasises the determinative role in historical judgement played by the historian's assumptions about the range of possibility available to the processes of human thought. Highlighting three particular concerns that historians tend to connect to ‘docetism’, it suggests a couple of ways that metaphysical and theological forms of reasoning could expand the horizon of possibilities available to historical Jesus scholarship in a way that will augment access to the historical figure of Jesus.

This article, for the first time, analyses one of Augustine’s sermons in order to find out to what extent he was acquainted with Mani and his teachings. Once again, it turns out that the former Manichaean auditor was very well acquainted with Manichaean belief and practice. One piece of data in sermo 182, namely that Manicheans could make polemical use of the expression Libera nos a malo in the Lord’s Prayer, even seems to be unique.

In reply to Jesus’ question to his disciples, “Who do you say I am?”, the early church used the biblical symbol of God as Spirit to explain how God is present and active in Jesus and the contents of Jesus’ divinity. By the second century, the Apologists responded to christological controversies such as adoptionism, monarchianism, docetism and modalism, as well as the introduction of the gospel to a Greek-speaking audience that required the utilisation of hellenistic philosophical terms. As part of their contextual hermeneutical endeavour, they introduced Logos Christology, with its focus on Jesus as the word (Logos) of God incarnate, who also speaks the word of God, emphasising his divinity to the neglect or diminishment of his humanity. It is argued that Western Christology can benefit from the supplement of Spirit Christology, which is evaluated at the hand of certain criteria useful in evaluating a valid Christology. Because of the influence of its growth and its emphasis on the Spirit, especially in the global South, Pentecostalism is ideally situated to introduce Spirit Christology as a productive systematic christological addition to the christological discourse. The essence of pentecostal hermeneutic, defined as the hermeneutic in which the Holy Spirit is involved in the interpretation of Scripture, lies in its pneumatocentric emphasis. It emphasises the fundamental need for an existential relationship with Christ that represents the experience of the presence of God through the Spirit that is christologically and pneumatologically inscribed. It views the three persons of the Trinity within the context of the economy of salvation to explain their inter-trinitarian relationships. It requires that the filioque view be rejected because it presupposes that the Father-Son relationship is a primary relationship of origin and subordinates the Spirit to the Son, which cannot be accepted. Lastly Pentecostalism’s general view of God falling outside the human frame of reference is illustrated by their practice of speaking in tongues. Spirit Christology supplements the use of intellectual reason with the exercise of discursive and intuitive reason to form a conception of the hidden super-essential Godhead of the Bible.

Gnostic studies mainly depended on the Church Fathers' approach to heresies until the discovery of the Coptic Nag Hammadi codices in 1945. As we are slowly moving away from this patristic approach to Gnosticism, docetism is still defined as a tendency to regard Jesus' body as an appearance, and not as a real incarnate body. Irenaeus' refutation of all heresies presents the Valentinian and Basilidian Christologies as clearly docetist. A comparison of direct Valentinian sources such as theExtractsof Theodotus with Valentinian tractates from Nag Hammadi shows on the contrary that Valentinians had a clear notion of the incarnation. As for the Basilidians, theElenchosof Ps.-Hippolytus, theSecond Logos of the Great Sethand the CopticApocalypse of Petercan be used to demonstrate that docetism is not the proper category to interpret Basilidian Christology and Soteriology because the purification of the real body of the Saviour lies at the heart of that system.

There is no credible evidence that Marcion was a docetist. Marcion’s alleged belief that Christ was a phantasm is found in accusations made by Tertullian, but these accusations are a form of reductio ad absurdum and not firsthand information on Marcion’s Christology. There are in fact remnants of data in Tertullian’s Adversus Marcionem, which point to Marcion’s teaching about the material flesh of Christ, a flesh that suffers and dies on the cross. Tertullian dismisses these artifacts as proof that Marcion was foolishly inconsistent: he taught docetism, but still accepted Christ’s suffering and death. Scholars should no longer accept Tertullian’s caricature uncritically, especially in light of the overwhelming amount of other second and third century sources that are unanimously silent about any docetic thinking in Marcion. Moreover, much of the confusion in modern scholarship is shown to derive from Adolf von Harnack’s equivocating explanations about Marcion’s alleged docetism.

John admonishes believers to show love to one another and urges them not only to talk about love, but to demonstrate it as well. This sermon focuses on actively showing love to others because the need today is more love.

Hebrews 4.14–16 is used to explore the idea that Jesus was free from sin. The text raises both pastoral and theological questions, hinting at docetism and making God seem remote from human beings. The writer’s aim is a worthy one, but is best served by not asserting Jesus’ moral perfection and by bringing divine and human closer together.

This article, for the first time, analyses one of Augustine's sermons in order to find out to what extent he was acquainted with Mani and his teachings. Once again, it turns out that the former Manichaean auditor was very well acquainted with Manichaean belief and practice. One piece of data in sermo 182, namely that Manicheans could make polemical use of the expression Libera nos a malo in the Lord's Prayer, even seems to be unique.

Hilary of Poitiers’s discussion of Christ’s human experience and suffering in De trinitate has caused immense problems for modern interpreters, who often accuse him of docetic tendencies. The focus on docetism has silenced the true significance of Hilary’s argument. His view of Christ’s human experience actually serves to enhance, not diminish or deny, the reality of Christ’s humanity. Stoic psychological categories allow Hilary to speak of Christ’s suffering without pain as legitimately human, and Hilary’s christological framework enables his discussion of Christ’s experience to have immense implications for all humanity, developing an anthropology based upon the lived experience of Christ.

Welche Rolle spielt die Christologie in der Auseinandersetzung Augustins mit einzelnen Manichaern und in seiner antimanichaischen Polemik generell? Der vorliegende Beitrag vergleicht alle christologischen Aussagen des westlichen Manichaismus, mit denen Augustin nachweislich konfrontiert war, mit dessen jeweiliger Entgegnung; auserdem untersucht er, wie Augustin von sich aus die manichaische Christusfigur darstellt und bewertet. Die Untersuchung gliedert sich in die Aspekte 1.) Christus als eine historische Person, 2.) der in der Welt leidende Christus, 3.) Christus als Lichtwesen und 4.) Christus als Offenbarer und Erloser. Mein Ergebnis lautet, dass die manichaische Christologie Augustin durchaus Angriffsflache bietet und die Gelegenheit, seine eigene Christologie zu profilieren; dies ist der Fall bei der Thematik der Leiblosigkeit Christi. Gegen die metaphorische Vereinnahmung der biblischen Passionsberichte und bezuglich der Lichtgestalt bzw. -metaphorik des manichaischen Christus steht Augustin kein v...

Abstract: Why does correlation work perfectly between the Eucharist and Christ, whereas neither the notion of transubstantiation nor Chalcedonian Christology appears in Scripture? Although Vermigli keeps repeating that Scripture provides no basis for transubstantiation based on the distinction between substance and accidents, he relies on the Chalcedonian Formula. At least in the Treatise and in the Disputation Vermigli does not question to what extent these distinctions are “according to the Scriptures.” Is it because Chalcedonian Christology is older than transubstantiation defined by the fourth Lateran Council in 1215? This should not be viewed as the proper explanation for Vermigli's position against transubstantiation. Rather, the human nature of Christ is not just an accident. Human nature does not need to be understood that way in order to secure the real presence of God in Jesus Christ. Likewise, the “nature and substance” of bread does not need to “go away” or be “cast away” in order to make room for the substance of Christ and thus ensure the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Otherwise, transubstantiation could be viewed as only a continuation—or a revival—of docetism: to contend that through transubstantiation “it seems to be bread, but is not” amounts to saying that Christ's flesh and body was not true flesh, but only an appearance. The analysis of this controversy regarding the presence of Christ in the Eucharist can be best understood as a chapter of what can be called “indirect Christology.”

Astute scholars have already pointed to the fact that it is Tertullian's vehement anti-docetism that best explains his rejection of the notion that Mary's virginity did not relate only to the question of the conception of Jesus. Insistence on Mary's virginity in the act of giving birth (in partu) or thereafter (post partum) would, for Tertullian, weaken the argument that Jesus was possessed of true humanity in his flesh. This important question in historical theology is revisited from the literary perspective of rhetorical criticism. I wish to argue that it is really Tertullian's handling of Scripture as an evidential tool in the construction of a rhetorical position that allows him to use reference to Mary's virginity as part of his anti-docetic position. A close examination of the rhetoric of Tertullian's De Carne Christi will illustrate this point.

One of the most radical heresies of early Christianity, Docetism, maintained that Jesus did not really die on the cross but only appeared to do so. Some docetic conceptions go further, denying Jesus a physical body altogether. This article argues that a claim that Jesus' sacrifice was not really accomplished appeared among the very first followers of Jesus. For first-century Jews Isaac provided an obvious model of someone who - in his akedah ("binding") as described in Genesis 22 - had almost been sacrificed, but not quite. The figure of Isaac, which soon became a typos, or figura, of Christ for the church fathers, as the Akedah was understood as a sacramentum futuri, must have been the source of this docetic interpretation of the crucifixion. Various gnostic texts and traditions describe Christ laughing in heaven while Simon of Cyrene is being crucified in his place. This laughter of Christ has not so far been properly understood. This article proposes to see in it a reference to the etymology of Isaac's name, yzhaq ("he will laugh"). This etymology was widely known among first-century Jews. Philo, for instance, discusses it on various occasions, even claiming that Isaac was actually the son of God, not of Abraham, and that his mother Sarah was a virgin when she conceived him. © 2004 The Johns Hopkins University Press.

St. Paul's “spiritual body” is envisaged as imaginal body, the wordimaginal standing for the intermediate realm of beings and events in Neoplatonism and Sufism. Swedenborg's world of spirits and angels conforms to this view and so is seen as contributing to a richer understanding of St. Paul in the sense of a “good” docetism. Crucial in this kind of revisioning the mystery of resurrection is the creative power of visionary imagination, which, in turn, is inseparable from the reality of the soul as thesitus of visionary events.

The market for historical Jesuses has never been hotter. A mob of Jesus books have hit the bookstore shelves recently, whose authors star on videotapes, chat on radio talk shows, and appear on transcontinental live video programs. While interest in Jesus flourishes, however, there is no consensus about what Jesus was really like. The scholars who have landed mass-market publishers are not necessarily the most widely-respected representatives of their fields of inquiry; indeed, there is considerable scholarly resistance to the recent spate of Jesuses.

Si, a la suite de Paul, il est possible d'affirmer que ce n'est plus moi qui vis mais le Christ qui vit en moi, n'est-ce pas la contradictoire avec la particularite de Jesus qui a une identite liee a son genre sexuel irreducible a l'autre ? Dire que l'identite sexuelle est purement contingente et accidentelle, n'est-ce pas la sous-estimer ? L'A. entend poser la problematique du scandale de la particularite et de l'irreductibilite a ce qui est autre. Pour ce faire, il pose la question de la possibilite qu'ont les femmes a se rendre conformes a l'image du Christ. L'A. explore toutes les solutions en montrant tous les risques qu'elles comportent, y compris celui du docetisme

Marcion is an intriguing figure in early Christian history. He has commanded attention on two topics: the church's appropriation of the scriptures of Judaism, and the emergence of a canon of specifically Christian scriptures. A major corollary of Marcion's ditheism was a sharp disparagement of the creation. His disdain for the material order found two principal expressions, namely docetic Christology and moral rigorism. Ditheism, docetism and devaluation of the material world and the body, Marcion's teaching is in other ways distinct from Christian Gnostic systems. Beyond his ditheism, what drew the strongest fire of Marcion's critics was his view of Jewish scripture. Marcion's rejection of the scriptures of Judaism amid the challenges posed by the Christian employment of Jewish scriptures, it had some appeal within the Gentile church. Marcion's activity was the sine qua non of the formation of the New Testament, and that the New Testament canon arose principally or even exclusively as a reaction to him.

This article consists of three distinct parts. The first part offers a number of observations on land as a lens to interpret economic inequalities in South Africa. The second part extrapolates such observations to explore the ecological dimensions of urban land reform with specific reference to the ongoing service delivery protests over sanitation (dubbed ‘poo protesting’) as reported in the media and more specifically in the Cape Times. The third part offers some theological and ethical reflections on the human need for sanitation as a form of internal critique of the engagement with such service delivery protests by the so-called ‘Concerned Citizens Group’ in which the author was involved.

Contrary to David R. Law, M. Hassenfratz-Coffinet considers that Thomasius’ approach is more promising than Weston’s. The latter’s dualistic anthropology (body/soul), the question of the meaning of incarnation for God and the risk of docetism are problematic, and metaphysics seems to overrule theology in his system. With Thomasius, a perfectly « self-determined » vision of God is problematic, yet the humanity of Christ as well as Jesus’ human development are treated in the better way.

THE GENERAL RELIGIOUS SETTING If the question of authorship was the crucial problem and issue for late nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century scholarship, the question of the background or setting and sources of the Gospel came to dominate twentieth-century research and the determination of the nature and character of Johannine theology. At issue is the question of the Johannine world. From what world of Hellenism, Judaism, or early Christianity does the Fourth Gospel stem? Quite obviously these are not mutually exclusive possibilities, for it is clear that whatever else its background, the Gospel of John stems from some early Christian environment. Moreover, recent scholarship has shown us that Judaism itself existed within the cultural and conceptual world of Hellenism, distinctive though it may have been. Hellenism Within the broader Mediterranean world, John was once thought to have originated among Greeks or pagans, that is, among Christians who had not previously been Jews. Such a view arose in recognition of the fact that the Gospel of John, and even the Jesus of that Gospel, speaks a language different from the Synoptic Gospels and the Synoptic Jesus. His vocabulary and style, as well as his phrasing, are more like those of I John than those of the Synoptic Jesus. The very beginning of the Fourth Gospel, the prologue (1:1–18), appears philosophical or even metaphysical in its aim or interests.

Keel's approach is nonhistorical in the sense that he refers neither to the doubtful connection between Jesus and Buddhist India nor to the incongruous similarity between the Christian concept of the transcendental God and the traditional Korean concept of Hanunim but instead to the universal elements in both Christianity and Buddhism-namely, love and freedomeven though those ideals are expressed in different forms and throughout history grounded by different metaphysics. His approach is rare and thus all the more precious when we consider the spiritual climate of present-day South Korea, where radical fundamentalist Christians claim an exclusive veracity for their faith and some Buddhists copy this attitude of exclusivity. One additional remark about Keel's approach is in order. This creative article seems to pose a challenge to those Western Christian theologians who enjoy a certain monopoly on scholarship. Keel seems to play the Socratic role of the "gadfly" trying to awaken the slumbering giant of Western self-indulgence. Keel's effort cannot be simply ignored by Western theologians as another docetism.

In all the Ignatian epistles, except the Epistle to the Romans, we find polemical remarks and warnings against heretical tendencies which threatened the churches of Asia Minor.It is not quite easy to obtain a clear picture of the heretics combatted by Ignatius. One point only is evident: their docetism. They considered Christ's life on earth, his birth, his human body, his death and resurrection as mere appearance.

The question of whether the Johannine Christ is described in almost docetic way as a divine being which, though in human form, but without human contestation over the earth, even though it progresses through the Passion, has long been seen by Kasemann again. Here it should be pointed only to a single train of the Fourth Gospel that does not fit into this picture into. It is abbreviated in thesis form and expressed: Jesus is not the Revelator, for John; he is the witness of God. Faith are, nothing of victory, but only the defeat of Jesus in mind. So it seems to the author that the often criticized "Docetism" the Johannine Christology ultimately nothing else than the radical nature, sees in John the earthly the all-important, the world-conquering victory of God. Keywords: Docetism; witness of God; Johannine Christology; Jesus; Fourth Gospel