There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
| Christ died so we may|
write articles about
|A multi-chef broth|
|Devil's in the details|
|The pearly gates|
Two varieties were widely known. In one version, Christ was so divine 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. This stance was taken by Marcionism, and seems to predate even Marcion's time, being criticized in 1 John 4:2-3. 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 on his death on the cross.
The term ‘docetic’ should be used with caution, since its use is rather nebulous. Robert M. Price insists that terms like "“docetism,” “encratism,” and “adoptionism,”" as well as "“Gnosticism”" have suffered a fate similar to "Xerox, Jello, and Kleenex," of being employed "far beyond what historically descriptive usage would allow."
Islamic theology also treats the incarnation of Jesus (or Isa), or at least his crucifixion, as docetic, as the Qur'an teaches (in sura 4:157-158) that he was assumed into heaven to return again, rather than having been successfully crucified.