Why not Docetism?

[BenSinner]

A few years ago I made a thread asking how we could separate Jesus’ resurrection from the claims of other non-Christian religious figures who allegedly resurrected.

A Hindu poster mentioned that they were different because a Hindu deity never had an actual human body. They just had a mimic body that man confused as a real material human body. So basically this is a form of Docetism toward a Hindu deity.

My question is, what exactly is illogical about Docetism regarding Jesus? How can it be proven wrong? What implications would it have on Christianity if it WAS proven right?

 

[pianistclare]

It’s illogical becuase we know Christ was reallly born, flesh and blood.
He lived, people saw Him, touched him, watched Him bleed to death and die.
He was not a ghost or an illusion. The entirety of the New Testament is a testimony to the reality that He was truly God and truly Man.
It cannot be proven as correct. If He was only a changling or a spirit, no one would ahve been surpirsed to see the tomb empty. Thomas wuld never have been able to put his finger into his wound. The people on the road to Emmaus would never have walked an spoken at length sat at table and had Eucharist without being in thepresence of a real human person. It’s His Divinity that enabled HIm to vanish from their sight.
Peace.

 

[joeybaggz]

Thomas would never have been able to put his finger into his wound.
Peace.

You beat me to it, Clare.
For the OP
Would the Magi have brought gifts to an illusion? Would an illusion have cooked a fish dinner for the eleven after the Resurrection,? Would the Roman soldiers scourge an illusion,? and on and on. About the only time we see Christ in the NT as other than flesh and blood is at the Transfiguration, where he appeared with Moses and Elijah in his glory.
You can’t drive nails through an illusory hand or foot.

 

[fredystairs]

Greetings Ben,

First some background: The definition of Docetism: “the distinctive thesis which gave it its name (Greek word for Docetism = to seem) was that Christ’s manhood, and hence His sufferings, where unreal, phantasmal.” (J.N.D. Kelly Early Christian Doctrines, page 141). Docetism is a very old heresy. It is mentioned in the First Letter of St. John: "This is how you recognize God’s Spirit: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God. (1 John 4:2). The implication being that if the spirit does not acknowledge Jesus come in the flesh (i.e. Docetism) does not belong to God.

The Early Church Fathers taught against it. St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp both wrote against it, as did others.

As to why it was necessary for Jesus to take on a human flesh, let me offer the following: (some of the below is taken from The Mystery of Jesus Christ, A Christology and Soteriology Textbook

In the book of Genesis we read that God created man in his “image and likeness”(Gen. 1: 26) and with this creation man has been given a spiritual and immortal soul. This creation makes man a person and gives him a certain dignity that separates him from the other animals. Upon his creation, man was in a state of justice and holiness.

God placed man in the Garden of Eden, giving him all the fruit that grew in the Garden, except for the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2: 16-17). Man rebelled against God by not obeying his command and thus sinned against him (Gen. 3: 1-7). Because of this failure on the part of Adam and Eve, man was no longer in a state of justice or holiness: he “lost his supernatural likeness to God and had a diminution in his natural likeness because his human nature deteriorated.” A restoration of this holiness was needed; a savior was needed to bridge the gap between man and God that sin had created. While God could have chosen other ways to effect this redemption, he chose to give man “the grace of being redeemed in the most perfect way, that is, ex toto genere justitiae, (in the fullest sense of justice).” But man, being imperfect, could not make the necessary sacrifice to satisfy the debt created by the sin of Adam in the fullest sense of justice. “Only the Man-God could make satisfaction in strict justice.” Thus God became man in the person of Jesus Christ to offer himself as an acceptable sacrifice to God to redeem man from his sin. This is the primary reason that God became man and is attested to in the Scriptures: “For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19: 10). “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tim. 1: 15). There are many other verses that attest to this as well.

Jesus’ sacrifice of himself completely atones for man’s loss of both his supernatural likeness to God and his diminution in his natural likeness that sin caused. St. Augustine, in his writings on the Trinity, notes that the one physical death of Jesus Christ redeemed man both physically and spiritually. The redemption brought about by Christ saves man completely.

continued

 

[fredystairs]

In addition to the actual salvation of man from the deaths that are the consequence of Adam’s sin, the Catechism of the Catholic Church lists three other reasons that God became man. First, by the Incarnation, God manifests his love for us. God would not leave us in our depravity, but rather would show us his love by dying for us and taking on our sins.
Second, he gave us a model by which we can become holy. By his sacrifice, he shows us that we can become holy by sacrificing ourselves for others. ‘The Word became flesh to be our model of holiness: “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me.”’ (CCC 459, quoting Matthew 11: 29)
Third, by God taking on human nature, he allows us to become “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” (CCC 460, quoting St. Irenaeus. Adv. Haeres.)

God became man to provide salvation to man so that he (man) can be saved from his fallen state. By doing so, he gives us an example of how we must live our own lives for others. Hope this helps!!

 

[Gorgias]

Let’s play devil’s advocate…

If He was only a changling or a spirit, no one would ahve been surpirsed to see the tomb empty.

That only speaks to the fact that he was an effective appearance.

Thomas wuld never have been able to put his finger into his wound.

The Bible doesn’t say that he did, only that Jesus invited him to do so.

The people on the road to Emmaus would never have walked an spoken at length sat at table and had Eucharist without being in thepresence of a real human person.

Again, that’s only a tribute to how well he appeared to be real… at least, to the skeptic.

On the other hand, in the post-resurrection appearance in which Jesus asks for fish, doesn’t that speak to the fact that the Evangelist is addressing the precise question we’re discussing? That is, that he wants to demonstrate that Jesus isn’t a phantom?

 

[BenSinner]

Exactly.

How can Jesus’s material body be proven and not just a phantom? There are many instances in the lives of the saints where they were psychically harmed by demons, who are not material beings. What separates Jesus from them (in terms on material body, not morality)?