Was docetism about someone else being crucified in Jesus's place?

but what about positions that might be more i didn't upload it right so uh that's a shame i was almost certain i did let me just check these what's this thing laughing and joking too much and becoming excessive it's an old video by vacations oh here it is the first thing

destiny what is the first thing christians disagreed on just um this is an important i think it's of use to you what is the first thing that christians disagreed on can you say it loudly the trinity no absolutely not because the trinity never even began to appear for a long time the trinity took over almost 400 years to develop in christianity almost 400 years the trinity goes through five historical stages and in the beginning they're not talking about trinity they're talking about the

divinity of the sun and they're talking about the logos the word whether it's divine or not whether it's with god or not with god what that means so right now i'll cut it short dr omar goes on to explain that the first thing they disagree about is docetism and and then he goes on to explain that now although he's he's kind of he says or amongst the first things they disagreed on was docetism and although in that statement he's kind of right

but his explanation of it i feel is either you know it's it's it's definitely inaccurate to what he's portraying so somebody had sent me this said what do you think about it so i thought okay i'll share my thoughts now you see docetism this within christianity right it was it was kind of like an umbrella um or a banner under which there were several kind of

um varying people groups it wasn't a belief that originated with a school pers like a church per se so we have like islam like schools of law they have like churches or the official church it didn't come from the church and it it's to do with jesus what dr umar goes on to say is that this belief was he quotes a passage from the bible that jesus them saying that no sooner had the son of god been crucified that some amongst us

started to say that he wasn't even that it wasn't even him that or he wasn't even the man or something like this he quotes um and you see so he says well you see docetism this whole thing it comes from dolcane and it's to do with the term of appearing and he goes on to explain that this whole disagreement in christianity was that jesus was not the man that got crucified but somebody was made to look like jesus and he got crucified and jesus went off and this is what he he argues the quran

is saying and and that that was also the first heresy or disagreement within christianity now right okay first of all from an islamic perspective i don't believe that's what happened at all i don't even believe that that's what the quran is saying it says that what it appeared to them and what appeared to them i would say the crucifixion appeared to them as though it was successful but it wasn't not jesus although one could argue that sure the wording could be it could give off this kind of a meaning if you wanted to

take it that way now as far as what dr umar is quoting here it is not really accurate in the sense that it's i suppose unless it's a mistake but it if he's doing it on purpose then i guess it's misleading because dosatism according to christianity was actually the debate about jesus was he the man or was he just you know was he flesh

you see you know the way some braves or many brilliance have this belief that the prophet wasn't a man he was he was light so they say look the prophet never used to have a shadow and stuff like this now this isn't really mainstream islam and people generally don't believe in that but this similarly this is the kind of debate that docetism was about and it was about was jesus uh human or was he just pure divine

and some people obviously were arguing that no he was the divine but that he had embodied the spirit had kind of the word had embodied the flesh so other people had a problem with that because they were saying well you know if you bring him into humanity too much then it's a problem so they had said things some had argued that jesus wasn't even born through a virgin birth he wasn't born through birth he just came and some people had said things like he was you know even though he looked like a human but he wasn't

actually there like maybe he was angelic or like a hologram or i don't know like he was basically just appearing as a human but he wasn't actually a human being he wasn't body and flesh according to many of them of these people who believed in this now that's what the actual debate was about so they were saying that when he was born as a baby he didn't cry why didn't he cry because he obviously you know he's he's he's god or the you know the the son of god so he wouldn't cry because he wasn't

really a human anyway and and it's interesting that this is why later on one of the next major debates is about mary the mother of god and she has to equally be on a pawn and then hence many of them saying she didn't you know she gave childbirth like this there was nothing there was no pain and it's interesting the quran contrasts that by saying that the pains of labor brought her to this place and she shook the tree trunk and and it mentions you know it's an odd thing to mention about mary her her labor pains you know she says i wish you know

phonia died before this day it's an odd thing to mention why the the labor pains i mean sure you know we understand it's natural there's always labor pains it's because yes there was this and it still continues you know in in in certain you know with the church as as actual doctrine the status of mary and part of that was argued that she uh i believe saint thomas aquinas as well argues that that she felt no she was like angelic and you know she felt no child labor pains and nothing and

so anyway we're getting off track so the whole purpose of this debate was not to do with the crucifixion although they do mention that look at the crucifixion did jesus actually feel pain like was when he was being beaten up was he actually feeling pain because to some of those people they saw that as no he's god how can he so to them they were like no he wasn't even human he was just pretending and yes there was a person known as simon magus now this is although it's also been put under um this kind of dosatism or gnosis it was

not really the main debate of those the resemblance thing like appearing to be like jesus wasn't like what dr umar is saying always to do with you know when he got crucifixed was it jesus or another man it was about jesus's humanity as a whole did he appear to be a man or was he a man that's what the actual debate was but yes there was someone known as simon magus who kind of appears later on elsewhere and he tells people that he's actually still jesus and he says um

you know i am like he is jesus he's telling all these people and he says that what happened when jesus was getting crucified he got swapped with me sorry with simon of some people say is the same as simon of cyrene simon magus and so basically they executed simon magus and not knowing and jesus got away as impersonating simon magus and saying look i'm him but this this person was also another kind of like uh like a charlatan and all this kind of stuff and he was

he there's there's all kinds of issues with him with this character simon but that's one little thing yes it's true and people that maybe did you know kind of like relay that story or some noses kind of people may have paid attention to it but this was not docetism dosetism was about jesus's humanity or was he just a resemblance so dr umarkan was presenting that look really the quran touches upon the oldest or the first heresy of christianity that the man crucified