On the meaning of Docetism

[Anonymous No.17520126]

Docetism, as Gnosticism, is pure Catholic ascription. Other than primary texts, no source speaks of what Docetism actually is, only what the Catholic thinks, or pretends to think, it is. Disregarding the main argument that the accusation of ignoring the Christological problem by vulgar dividing can be turned against the Catholic by simply claiming literal incarnation as vulgar merging, the allegedly Docetic (Christian) primary texts contain none of the aspects allegedly integral to Docetism. Nothing pertaining to Jesus can be mapped onto a God-real/Man-illusory distinction therein. Docetism is only defined as such, or indeed only defined at all, because said texts excite and reveal what the Catholic fears, in this case the divinity and humanity of Jesus being at odds with each other, which is not surprising given that Catholicism is based on degrading both. For example:

>The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me." - The Apocalypse of Peter

Nothing suggests that the living Jesus is distinctly God and/or real and the substitute being put to shame is distinctly Man and/or illusory. Rather, this maps onto Victor vs. Atonement: the latter is real proper but retroactively superseded by the former. Strangely enough, I must commend the Catholic for abandoning vanilla Victor theories, per Augustine, themselves (un)surprisingly quite Docetic in the mainstream sense, in favor of pure Atonement, which is ironically as close as it gets to the Gnostic argument that the Victor is first and foremost triumphant over himself, over the Atonement itself as an even greater transgression than victory over the "Father".

[Anonymous No.17520131]

>>17520126
meds, take them

[Anonymous No.17520132]

>>17520126

>Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. I was another upon Whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance. - The Second Treatise of the Great Seth

Note what is hidden in plain sight: Jesus explicitly confirms that it was him AND that it was "their father" and Simon. Fundamentally this is an allegorical summary of Dialectical, or "Positive", Monism. It is naive to think of Monism as just mutual incontinence between the members of the Dyad. Dualism is relatively more Monadic. Rather, think of mutually-dignifying identities, per THE identity, as the principle of non-Duality. Should one project himself onto another in bad faith, the other should not likewise reflect IN bad faith but reflect THE bad faith. Another pair of mirrors perpendicular to the initial pair. In "death" one shows the other's evil not by merely reflecting it but by reflecting both one's Self and the other accusing him, whence his rejection of the initial accusation, per the principle, as well as his rejection of that particular instance of, and AS, mutual reflection, thus "dying", which the other rejects, per the principle, letting him "die". As the argument mirrors its object, one might say that such explanations being cloaked in Catholic ascription is itself Docetic.

[Anonymous No.17520565]

>>17520126
>>17520132

Stay away from these heresies, anon. They will lead you astray. They lead nowhere.

There are riches enough in the truth itself. Read Lonergan, Insight. Or the several volumes of Bernard McGinn on the history of Mysticism. Or Scheeben's Mysteries of Christianity. Or any number of other, healthily orthodox texts.