And, consider the following:

Protestants believe in the Bible. It is their sole source of understanding the Word. So, if it is easy for "Sola Scriptura" to dominate one's life in faith, isn't this really showing that the Protestant believer is accepting all of the aspects of compiling and deciphering the ancient Scriptures? This has to be the most logical assumption. Those traditions have been recorded and compiled for the Bible. The Gospel was spread by word of mouth and then those words were written as the text of the Bible. The Bible didn't just appear out of thin air.

Could it be that Protestants could not obey the teachings of the Church that something had to be done to counter the rejected doctrine? Sure. Isn't this the entire reason for Protestantism? So, it really isn't about the Scriptures, it is about the doctrine that has everybody up in arms. This problem is in existence today. But, this problem existed even during the birthing pains of Christianity. The Gnostics--although, not called "Gnostics" until much later--had a major influence in theological thinking. Some of this "gnosis" can be evident in the Scriptures. The Book of John is less of a historical account of Jesus and more of a theological account of His teachings. But, to understand the theology, one must have some of the "gnosis" understanding of oneself in the scheme of things.

I have read a very interesting turn of phrase used by the Gnostics. "Eat what is dead, what does it become?" is a very thought provoking phrase. Why has this phrase caught my interest? It deals with a major Catholic doctrine--transubstantiation. In the Gnostic saying, the word "eat" is a metaphor for bringing something to life. It means to bring an idea or thought to understanding and making it real. The Catholic "gnaws" on the body of Christ. This interpretation means exactly that, to eat the flesh. But, I truly wonder if this is the real meaning of John 6:54. I think and believe that when we "eat" his flesh, we bring his Word to a real-ness, an understanding, and a life within ourselves. It is a gnosis of the Word, but not a physical consumption, it is a "knowing" or "awakening" to the understanding of the Word--Jesus Christ. One could even say, "born again".

So, John 6:54 is more of a gnosis influenced theology. But, who should we believe? We have a variety of theologies to consider: Gnosticism, Protestantism, and Catholicism.

We need to accept the truth, when we find it, in regards to "transubstantiation". The Protestants seem to have adopted the Gnostic belief. For them, John 6:54 is a verse written in strict metaphoric language. The idea of "eating", in this case, is symbolic. It is much the same as the Gnostic thinking or "eating". The believer must learn, understand, and live the Word. Protestants do not believe this verse to have the same meaning as Catholics do. The Catholic Church did the job of destroying the Gnostics by putting them and their theology to death. The Catholic Church has made the attempts to erase Gnosticism from the Bible. But, have they really succeeded? I'm not sure, but John 6:54 does seem to be very questionable. Either way, the Catholics take this verse to be literal in its meaning. By doing so, the bread becomes the actual body of Christ. The Holy Eucharist is the body of Christ--no Gnostic ideology here. So, which doctrine is the true one?

I see a real problem in deciding on which doctrine to follow: symbolism or real presence. If I choose to follow the Protestants in believing that the bread is a symbol of knowledge and faith, than I must then be perpetuating a form of Gnosticism. On the other hand, if I choose to follow Catholicism, I am perpetuating the belief that Jesus Christ has come down from Heaven and made Himself present in the Holy Eucharist. But, hang on; Jesus said to celebrate the last supper in remembrance of Him. So, what is really going on here?

Jesus has made many things clear, but the clarity of his sayings are not so clear to me that I must continue to search for the truth. John 6:54 will continue to confuse my understanding until I see the real meaning of it. How can I understand what Jesus is teaching me when I read two verses that seem to contradict each other? He tells us to "do this in remembrance of Me", but then He tells the Pharisees to "eat of this body and have eternal life". He tells the Apostles to break the bread, "this is my body", but tells the Pharisees "...this body nourishes" (my paraphrases).

Consider these quotes:

Naasenes:

"If you ate dead things and made them living,
if you eat living things,
what will you do?"
(Hippolytus)

Jesus:

"On the days when you were eating
that which is dead,
you were making it as that
which lives.
When you come into the light,
what will you do?"
(Jesus)

While we're at it, consider these two people and their works:

Iranaeus and Origen played a critical role in separating the apocrypha from the genuine Scriptures. This meant identifying Gnostic heretical writings and agrapha (unwritten) ,then canonizing the real traditions and writings, which make up the Bible. Everything else was "the other gospels"--heretical fodder. Fodder? let's try for anathema!

rod..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 01, 2003

Answers

Correction:

"The Protestants seem to have adopted the Gnostic belief. For them, John 6:54 is a verse written in strict non-metaphoric language; it is figurative language."

rod..

..
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 01, 2003.

rod,

Jesus spoke in many parables. You choose not to accept it because you are still tied down to the Roman Church. You have been shown that it is indeed figurative langauge, but you choose to isolate the verse and take it out of context.

The bible is not some mysterious book that needs interpretation by a special church. The Holy Spirit drives you into truth.

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth..." John 16:13

"These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie , and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." 1 John 2:26-27

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), October 02, 2003.

David, I'm uncomfortable telling you this; you are a victim of "Sola Scriptura". You have completely ignored what I've written and hidden your eyes in fear of historical events and facts. My faith in Christ is stronger than before, I fear no history. I am searching for the hard truth and this may mean digging for theology and doctrine that will support the Scriptures based not on esoteric ideology--Sola Scriptura--that leaves doubt in the believer, but in actual events and traditions handed down through the Bible.

rod..

.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 02, 2003.

I am not a victim of anything. Jesus set the example for us by using the Holy Scriptures when Satan tempted him. He did not use oral tradition or quote Jehovah, he used God's Written Words. I choose to follow the example Jesus Christ set for me.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), October 02, 2003.

You are NOW "isolating" one event to prove your point. You are also using the Scriptures, which are based on Apostlic oral traditions, to make a point. You are hiding from reality, once again. History cannot destroy the Faith.

rod..

..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 03, 2003.