Synonyms for docetism or Related words with docetism

sabellianism              trinitarianism              marcionism              modalism              gnostics              montanism              docetic              adoptionist              nestorianism              monophysitism              marcion              adoptionism              apocatastasis              antinomianism              gnosticism              deism              donatism              polytheism              supersessionism              judaizers              tritheism              monarchianism              manichaean              ebionites              pharisaic              dualist              hesychasm              valentinians              occasionalism              epicureans              montanists              eutychianism              marcionites              pantheistic              priscillian              manichaeism              palamism              gnostic              sethians              monophysite              exclusivism              miaphysitism              patripassianism              christology              nazarenes              monotheistic              montanist              pantheism              novatianism              sabellius             

Examples of "docetism"
The Qur'an has a docetic Christology, viewing Jesus as a divine illuminator rather than the redeemer (as he is viewed in Christianity). However, the Islamic docetism is not focused on the general life and person of Jesus or the Christ. In Islam "the Christ" ("al-masīḥ") is not generally viewed as distinct from humanity nor a special spirit being as in docetism or some gnosticisms. Islamic docetism focuses on a denial of the crucifixion of Jesus. Sura 4:157–158 reads:
Other polemical features include emphasising the physical nature of the resurrection, to counter docetism, by having the apostles place their fingers in the print of the nails, in the spear wound in his side, and checking for footprints (like similar imagery in the Gospel of John, having the appearance of design to specifically counter docetism rather than to reflect history).
Docetism was unequivocally rejected at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and is regarded as heretical by the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and Coptic Church.
Eventually, teaching of Alexander, Athanasius, and the other Nicene Fathers, that the Son was consubstantial and coeternal with the Father, were defined as orthodox dogma. All divergent beliefs were defined as heresies. This included Docetism, Arianism, Nestorianism, and Sabellianism.
In the period immediately following the Apostolic Age, specific beliefs such as Arianism and Docetism (polar opposites of each other) were criticized and eventually abandoned. Arianism which viewed Jesus as primarily an ordinary mortal was considered at first heretical in 325, then exonerated in 335 and eventually re-condemned as heretical at the First Council of Constantinople of 381. On the other end of the spectrum, Docetism argued that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, and that he was only a spiritual being. Docetic teachings were attacked by St. Ignatius of Antioch and were eventually abandoned by proto-orthodox Christians.
Docetism is broadly defined as any teaching that claims that Jesus' body was either absent or illusory. The term 'docetic' should be used with caution, since its use is rather nebulous. For Robert Price "docetism", together with "encratism", "Gnosticism" and "adoptionism", has been employed "far beyond what historically descriptive usage would allow". Two varieties were widely known. In one version, as in Marcionism, Christ was so divine that he could not have been human, since God lacked a material body, which therefore could not physically suffer. Jesus only "appeared" to be a flesh-and-blood man; his body was a phantasm. Other groups who were accused of docetism held that Jesus was a man in the flesh, but Christ was a separate entity who entered Jesus's body in the form of a dove at his baptism, empowered him to perform miracles, and abandoned him upon his death on the cross.
Since Arthur Drews published his "The Christ Myth" (Die Christusmythe) in 1909, occasional connections have been drawn between docetist theories and the modern idea that Christ was a myth. Shailer Mathews called Drews' theory a "modern docetism". Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare thought any connection to be based on a misunderstanding of docetism. The idea recurred in classicist Michael Grant's 1977 review of the evidence for Jesus, who compared modern scepticism about an historical Jesus to the ancient docetic idea that Jesus only "seemed" to come into the world "in the flesh". Modern theories did away with "seeming".
While these characteristics fit a Monophysite framework, a slight majority of scholars consider that Ignatius was waging a polemic on two distinct fronts, one Jewish, the other docetic; a minority holds that he was concerned with a group that commingled Judaism and docetism. Others, however, doubt that there was actual docetism threatening the churches, arguing that he was merely criticizing Christians who lived Jewishly or that his critical remarks were directed at an Ebionite or Cerinthian possessionist Christology, according to which Christ was a heavenly spirit that temporarily possessed Jesus.
It mentions the resurrection of Jesus: (2:1a) "Now, he suffered all these things for our sake, that we might be saved. And he truly suffered, even as he truly raised himself up; not as certain unbelievers say, that he suffered in semblance, they themselves only existing in semblance." The term translated "semblance" is the Greek work "dokein" (δοκεῖν, "to seem") from which the heresy of docetism got its name. The primary purpose of the letter to the Smyrnaeans is to counter those who make the claims of docetism.
The work's apparent intent is to uphold orthodox Christian doctrine, refuting Gnosticism - in particular the teachings of Cerinthus - and docetism. Although presented as having been written shortly after the Resurrection, it refers to Paul of Tarsus. It offers predictions of the fall of Jerusalem and of the Second Coming.
Among early Christians there was considerable debate over the nature of the Godhead, with some denying the incarnation but not the deity of Jesus (Docetism) and others later calling for an Arian conception of God. Despite at least one earlier local synod rejecting the claim of Arius, this Christological issue was to be one of the items addressed at the First Council of Nicaea.
The theology of miaphysitism is based on an understanding of the nature (Greek "physis") of Christ: divine and human. After steering between the doctrines of docetism (that Christ only appeared to be human) and adoptionism (that Christ was a man chosen by God), the Church began to explore the mystery of Christ's nature further. Two positions in particular caused controversy:
That the bottom bar is slanted has two explanations, to represent the very real agony which Christ experienced on the cross (a refutation of Docetism) and to signify that the thief on Christ's right chose the right path while the thief on the left did not.
But Gnosticism did not portray Jesus as merely human. All Gnostic writings depict Christ as purely divine, his human body being a mere illusion (see Docetism). Gnostic sects saw Christ this way because they regarded matter as evil, and therefore believed that a divine spirit would never have taken on a material body.
It is a paraphrase of a statement in Tertullian's work "De Carne Christi" ("ca." 203-206), "prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est", which can be translated: "it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd". The context is a defence of the tenets of orthodox Christianity against docetism:
In the second verse, the line "no crying he makes" is considered by some to fall into the heresy of docetism, with the line's implication that, by not crying, Jesus could not have been fully human as is taught by orthodox Christian doctrine.
To Ehrman, "Proto-orthodox Christians argued that Jesus Christ was both divine and human, that he was one being instead of two, and that he had taught his disciples the truth." This view that he is "a unity of both divine and human" (the Hypostatic union) is opposed to both Adoptionism (that Jesus was only human) and Docetism (that Christ was only divine).
A major focus of the surviving fragment of the Gospel of Peter is the passion narrative, which is notable for ascribing responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus to Herod Antipas rather than to Pontius Pilate. Furthermore, this gospel denies the crucifixion of Jesus which contradicts the belief of mainstream Christianity but has similarities with Docetism.
The wording and syntax of this epistle in its original Greek demonstrates that the author was capable and fluent. The epistle is addressed to Christians in general, and it warns them about the doctrine of certain errant teachers to whom they were exposed. Examples of heterodox opinions that were circulating in the early 2nd century include Docetism, Marcionism, and Gnosticism.
Most Christians believe Jesus did initially die, but was then resurrected from the dead by God, before being raised bodily to heaven to sit at the Right Hand of God with a promise to someday return to earth. The minority views that Jesus didn't die are known as the Swoon hypothesis and Docetism.