The Gospel of Philip and Transubstantiation

The Gospel of Philip and Transubstantiation

Ignatius identifies the flesh with faith and the blood with love (Trall 8 Ign Rom 8:3)  My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me that loves anything; but there is living water springing up in me, and which says to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

The Didache, written in the late-first or early-second century, referred to the elements of the Lord’s table as “spiritual food and drink” (The Didache, chapter 10). The long passage detailing the Lord's Table in this early Christian document gives no hint of transubstantiation whatsoever.

We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name's sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant.

Jesus often used metaphor in order to communicate a point. For example, he says “I am the door,” “I am the vine,” “You are the salt of the earth,” and “You are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:13-14) but people know that we don’t take such statement literally. After all, who believes that Christ is literally a door swinging on a hinge?

Does the Gospel of Philip teach the doctrine of Transubstantiation?

A superficial reading of the the Gospel of Philip may lead one to conclude that it teaches Transubstantiation with sayings like "The eucharist is Jesus" but this is not the case as we will see below

The master [did] everything in a mystery: baptism, chrism, eucharist, redemption, and bridal chamber.[For this reason] he said, “I have come to make [the lower] like the [upper and the] outer like the [inner, and to unite] them in that place.” [He spoke] here in symbols [and images].

Here the word mystery is musthrion 3466: μυστήριον meaning means ‘something hidden or secret’ – our word ‘mystery’.

a secret, of which initiation is necessary; in the NT: the counsels of God, once hidden but now revealed in the Gospel or some fact thereof; the Christian revelation generally; particular truths or details of the Christian revelation.

The word does not mean a "sacrament(s)"

The language surrounding ‘sacraments’ did not develop in the Church for some time. We hear of a ritual of baptism in the Christian community of the Acts of the Apostles, and of the ‘breaking of bread’ – the Eucharist (Acts 2:38, 41- 42). These celebrations were called by their name, there was no generic term for these experiences.

The Lord [did] everything in a symbolic secret: a baptism, and a anointing, and a eucharist, and a redemption, and a bridal chamber. [For this reason] he said, “I have come to make [the lower] like the [upper and the] outer like the [inner, and to unite] them in that place.” [He spoke] here in symbols [and images].

The Greek word musthrion, translated “symbolic secret,” has reference primarily to that which is known by those who are initiated.

GPh 67:27–30:“The Lord did everything like a symbolic secret: baptism, chrism, Eucharist, redemption and bridal chamber.”

It is clear, however, that this text does not speak about “mysteries” in the sense of sacraments, but about the hidden, symbolic meaning of the Saviour’s deeds in the world. (Einar Thomassen)

Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world cannot receive truth in any other way. There is a rebirth and an image of rebirth. It is necessary to be born again truly through the image. How is it with the resurrection and the image? Through the image it must rise. The bridal chamber and the image? Through the image one must enter the truth: this is the restoration.

Flesh and Blood Symbolic 

24 Some are afraid lest they rise naked. Because of this they wish to rise in the flesh, and they do not know that it is those who wear the flesh who are naked. It is those who [...] to unclothe themselves who are not naked. "Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Co 15:50). What is this which will not inherit? This which is on us. But what is this, too, which will inherit? It is that which belongs to Jesus and his blood. Because of this he said "He who shall not eat my flesh and drink my blood has not life in him" (Jn 6:53). What is it? His flesh is the word, and his blood is the Holy Spirit. He who has received these has food and he has drink and clothing. I find fault with the others who say that it will not rise. Then both of them are at fault. You say that the flesh will not rise. But tell me what will rise, that we may honor you. You say the Spirit in the flesh, and it is also this light in the flesh. (But) this too is a matter which is in the flesh, for whatever you shall say, you say nothing outside the flesh. It is necessary to rise in this flesh, since everything exists in it. In this world, those who put on garments are better than the garments. In the Kingdom of Heaven, the garments are better than those that put them on. (Gospel of Philip)

The Gospel of Philip in particular shows that Valentinians understood the flesh and the blood of the Savior to be symbolic thus, for instance, the “flesh” is the Logos and the “blood” is the Holy Spirit

According to the Gnostic perspective, the "flesh" of the Savior is equated with the Logos, which means the divine Word or wisdom, and the "blood" is identified with the Holy Spirit. The Gnostic interpretation suggests that the true essence of Jesus' teachings lies in his spiritual wisdom (Logos) and the transformative power of the Holy Spirit.

This interpretation aligns with Gnostic beliefs, where attaining gnosis (hidden knowledge) and spiritual enlightenment are seen as the keys to salvation and union with the divine. Gnostics often approached religious concepts and biblical narratives allegorically, seeking to reveal deeper mystical insights.

Literally, the blood of Christ which was shed on Calvary would be of no use to them. It trickled down his side; it oozed from his hands and feet; it gushed from the spear gash; and fell on the ground and dried away like any other blood, and nobody could find it if they tried, and if they could, it would not be of any spiritual value.

Wisdom steers a middle course and aims to get that nice equilibrium of facts which results from a comprehensive study of the scriptures.

The 'blood of Christ' refers to the essence, or life-giving properties, of Jesus' teachings.

The spirit and the blood are one and the same:

Jesus shocked everyone by saying: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6:53-54).

Jesus tried in vain to explain that he was not speaking about drinking the blood that flows in his natural body.  He was talking of the “blood” that flows in his spiritual body.  He said: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63).

Rising naked and wearing the flesh: Some people fear rising naked, which could signify being stripped of the physical body. Instead, they wish to rise in the flesh, not realizing that those who "wear the flesh" are the ones who are actually naked. Here, "wearing the flesh" may refer to identifying too closely with the physical body and not recognizing the deeper spiritual reality.

"Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 15:50): The text quotes this verse from the New Testament, suggesting that the physical body alone cannot attain spiritual enlightenment or enter the kingdom of God.

"He who shall not eat my flesh and drink my blood has not life in him" (John 6:53): This quote from the Gospel of John is also interpreted symbolically. Here, Jesus' flesh is identified with the "word" or divine wisdom (Logos), and his blood is associated with the Holy Spirit. To "eat his flesh and drink his blood" symbolizes partaking in the spiritual essence of Jesus' teachings and receiving the Holy Spirit.

"His flesh is the word, and his blood is the Holy Spirit": The text explicitly explains that Jesus' flesh is the Logos (the divine word or wisdom), and his blood is the Holy Spirit. Both are seen as spiritual essences, not to be taken literally as physical elements.

The Gospel of Philip indeed presents a symbolic interpretation of Jesus' flesh and blood, equating them with the Logos (the divine Word or wisdom) and the Holy Spirit, respectively. This symbolic understanding is central to the Gnostic perspective on Jesus and the Eucharist.

The Flesh as the Logos: In the Gnostic view, the Logos represents divine wisdom, the creative force, and the guiding principle of the universe. It is the embodiment of spiritual truth and knowledge. The Gospel of Philip associates the flesh of Jesus with the Logos, implying that the true essence of Jesus lies in his teachings and divine wisdom. The emphasis is on the spiritual aspect of Jesus, rather than his physical body.


The Blood as the Holy Spirit: Similarly, the Gospel of Philip identifies the blood of Jesus with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, in Gnostic thought, is the divine presence that brings spiritual enlightenment and transformation. It is the active force that awakens the divine spark within individuals and leads them to gnosis, or hidden knowledge. By equating Jesus' blood with the Holy Spirit, the Gospel of Philip emphasizes the role of spiritual enlightenment and divine revelation in understanding the true essence of Jesus.

Symbolic Eating and Drinking: The passage in the Gospel of Philip, "He who shall not eat my flesh and drink my blood has not life in him" (John 6:53), takes on a symbolic meaning in Gnostic thought. Rather than endorsing a literal consumption of Jesus' physical body and blood, the passage suggests partaking in the spiritual essence of Jesus' teachings (flesh as the Logos) and receiving the transformative power of the Holy Spirit (blood as the Holy Spirit).

Rejecting Transubstantiation: The Gnostic understanding of the Eucharist as a symbolic communion with Jesus' spiritual essence (Logos and Holy Spirit) stands in contrast to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Transubstantiation teaches that the substance of the bread and wine literally changes into the physical body and blood of Christ during the consecration of the Eucharist. The Gnostic interpretation in the Gospel of Philip rejects this literal transformation in favor of a symbolic and spiritual understanding of the Eucharist.

Conclusion: The Gospel of Philip's teaching that the flesh and blood of Jesus are symbolically associated with the Logos and the Holy Spirit reflects the Gnostic emphasis on hidden knowledge, spiritual enlightenment, and the inner Christ. This symbolic interpretation of Jesus' teachings and the Eucharist highlights the Gnostic belief in the spiritual nature of Christianity, diverging from the traditional understanding of sacraments and transubstantiation found in orthodox Christianity.

For more information on this saying from the Gospel of Philip see:

Valentinian Teaching on the Resurrection
What is the blood and Flesh of Christ

13 He is “heavenly bread” and “spiritual food” furnishing life by food and knowledge, “the light of men,” that is, of the Church. Therefore those who ate the heavenly bread died, but he who eats the true bread of the Spirit shall not die. The Son is the living bread which was given by the Father to those who wish to eat. “And my flesh is the bread which I will give,” he says, that is, to him whose flesh is nourished by the Eucharist; or better still, the flesh is his body, “which is the Church,” “heavenly bread,” a blessed Assembly. And perhaps just as the elect are essentially derived from the same substance, and as they will also attain the same end. . .(Extracts from the Works of Theodotus and the So-Called Oriental Teachings at the Time of Valentinu)

The excerpt you provided appears to be from "Excerpta ex Theodotus" or "Extracts from the Works of Theodotus," which is a Gnostic text attributed to Theodotus and is associated with the teachings of Valentinus, a prominent Gnostic teacher of the 2nd century. It contains Gnostic interpretations of spiritual concepts, including references to "heavenly bread," "spiritual food," and the Eucharist. Let's break down the key points:

"Heavenly bread" and "spiritual food": In this context, these terms likely refer to the spiritual nourishment and knowledge that the Gnostic community believes they receive through their mystical understanding of Jesus' teachings and the hidden truths of existence.

"The light of men": This phrase is likely interpreted allegorically to represent the illumination and enlightenment provided to the Gnostic community through their Gnosis or spiritual knowledge.

"The Son is the living bread which was given by the Father": This statement reflects the Gnostic belief that Jesus, the Son, is the one who imparts spiritual life and knowledge to those who seek it.

"And my flesh is the bread which I will give": Here, the Gnostic interpretation of Jesus' words about his flesh as the bread may refer to the spiritual significance they attribute to the Eucharist or communion. It suggests that partaking in the Eucharistic ritual symbolizes nourishment by the true spiritual essence embodied by Jesus.

"The flesh is his body, 'which is the Church'": The Gnostic understanding may equate the true body of Christ not with the physical form but with the spiritual essence of the Church, which is the assembly of the enlightened believers.

"Perhaps just as the elect are essentially derived from the same substance": This phrase likely highlights the Gnostic belief in the spiritual unity and divine origin of the enlightened ones or the elect within their community.

57 The eucharist is Jesus. For he is called in Syriac "Pharisatha," which is "the one who is spread out," for Jesus came to crucify the world.

this saying does not prove much just that Jesus is the eucharist that's all 

eucharist literally thanksgiving, actually the Lord's Last Supper 

spread out has a double meaning breaking of bread and the death on the cross

  

Men too walk long distances but do not get anywhere, When evening came for them, they saw neither city nor village, neither creation nor nature, power and angel. In vain have these miserable men taken trouble over the Eucharist'

Segelberg suggests that this passage 'might be a criticism of the eucharistic practices of the Church,' and renders 'Men too walk long distances but do not get anywhere' (15-17) and 'In vain have these miserable men taken trouble over the Eucharist' (20-21). This interpretation is certainly valid in that the passage is a condemnation of unproductive effort. (Gospel of Philip, R. McL. Wilson)

The Eucharist of the Churches lacks pneuma or spirit it does not give life. Therefore those who have frequently taken communion have nevertheless not received anything but when the evening of life comes then they are as un-spiritual as when they began life. Their church is a donkey church. ( Segelberg)


For more information on this saying from the Gospel of Philip see
Jesus the Measurement Spread Out

,106 The cup of prayer contains wine and water, for it represents the blood for which thanksgiving is offered. It is full of the holy spirit, and it belongs to the completely perfect human. When we drink it, we take to ourselves the perfect human. The living water is a body, and we must put on the living human. Thus, when one is about to go down into the water, one strips in order to put on the living human.

The cup represents Jesus at the last supper

Priest or Holy Man

114 The priest is completely holy, down to his very body. For if he has taken the bread, he will consecrate it. Or the cup or anything else that he gets, he will consecrate. Then how will he not consecrate the body also?

In the Coptic the word "priest" is not used, the word used is a "holy man" or a "saint" it is a dishonest translation to use the word "priest" it changes the meaning of the text. The Valentinians did not have a priesthood. According to Tertullian, "Today one man is bishop and tomorrow another; the person who is a deacon today, tomorrow is a reader; the one who is a priest is a layman tomorrow. For even on the laity they impose the functions of priesthood." ( Tertullian Against the Valentinians 1) He goes on to relate that even women could take the role of bishop, much to his horror. 

From the Quote from Tertullian we can see that the Valentinian congregations were organised autonomously.

The correct word to be used is "holy man" or "saint" this is seen from the translations by Thomas Paterson Brown and R. McL. Wilson:

The holy man is holy altogether, down to his body. For if he has received the bread he .will make it holy, or the cup, or anything else that he receives, purifying them. And how will he not purify the body also? (Gospel of Philip R. McL. Wilson Translation)

How does a person purify the body? The answer is given in the Gospel of Truth: 'Through the unity shall each one find himself Through knowledge he will purify himself from diversity into unity, swallowing up the matter in him like a flame, darkness by light, death by life.' He who is holy is capable of making everything holy, even to the body. (Gospel of Truth)

according to Philip a believer becomes 'not a Christian but a Christ at the anointing

The saint respresents Jesus' flesh He must consecrate the bread which is his body. Likewise the saint represents the blood of Christ  the saint or holy person must consecrate the blood

Eating Blood

Eating or drinking blood is forbidden

Acts 15:19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

When they had said these things in the prayer, they embraced each other and they went to eat their holy food, which has no blood in it. (The Prayer of Thanksgiving The Nag Hammadi Library)


104. Furthermore, thus it is regarding the Bread with the Cup and the Chrism: there is nonetheless another (sacrament) exalted over these (Gospel of Philip)

Holy communion

communion, kept secret--There are times when it is to our own spiritual benefit and to God's glory to keep things concealed and, like Mary, to ponder them in our heart until the due time for expression. There are joys of the Spirit that are secret between a man and his Lord. One feels a sense of condemnation and depletion if he talks too freely about his communion with the Lord.

Christians have lost the mystical meaning of the communion service. The object of the ritual was to enable the worshipper to establish oneness with the Deity, to symbolically die and rise again from the dead and have a new life with the Deity in a new world. This was a well-cultivated theme in many religions of the day. The people believed that by drinking the blood and eating the bread it would be possible to absorb the qualities of the Deity.

But what is the mystical meaning that Jesus was seeking to convey to us? Communion is union in consciousness with God. It is more than an intellectual thought or a feeling even though these are included. In a moment of union the soul is quickened and we are exhilarated both mentally and emotionally. This is especially true when an individual first begins the practice of communion or silent meditation.

The communion service that Jesus instituted is contained in His words, “When you pray, go within your closet and shut the door and pray to your Father Who is in secret.” Many people reach out in thought and feeling to a god they think is out in space. But the true God, the Source of Creativity and Intelligence, is within you. Of course, God is omnipresent, but your place of contact or communion with Him is within your consciousness. What happens or can happen in a true communion service? The soul can experience a feeling of security and peace even though outer circumstances may seem to indicate turmoil and instability.

Gnostic Saints or Fathers of Christian Gnosticism

Gnostic Saints or Fathers of Christian Gnosticism

Gnostics often considered pre-Christian figures to be among their important early teachers and leaders. Adam and his son Seth were especially important. Several figures appear in Gnostic versions of old testament stories who do not appear in canonical versions, such as Norea, who saves the Gnostics from the flood in the time of Noah. The three companions of Daniel are called by many names in Gnostic texts, and often invoked. John the Baptist is sometimes claimed as an early Gnostic leader — for example, by the Mandaeans

Jesus Christ is usually claimed as a gnostic leader by gnostics, as are several of his apostles, such as Thomas the Apostle, often thought of as the founder of the Thomasine form of Gnosticism. Indeed, Mary Magdelene is respected as a Gnostic leader, and is considered superior to the twelve apostles by some gnostic texts, such as the Gospel of Mary. John the Evangelist is claimed as a Gnostic by some Gnostic interpreters. As is even St Paul. The Gospel of Thomas relates that the disciples asked Jesus, after his resurrection and before his Ascension, "We are aware that you will depart from us. Who will be our leader?" Jesus said to them, "No matter where you come [from] it is to James the Just that you shall go, for whose sake heaven and earth have come to exist."

A student of Valentinius claims that Theudas was a student of St. Paul, and in turn taught Valentinius, which would put Theudas in the late 1st century if true.

Valentinus, who may have been a student of Basilides, and Theudas was a prominent Gnostic teacher of another major form of Gnosticism in the second century AD. He taught many other Gnostic fathers whose names we know, and his school survived for centuries.

His school was later divided into Eastern and Western branches based on a Christological dispute. Western Valentinians include: Ptolemy the Valentinian, whose letter to Flora survives, and who seems to have been martryed in 152; Flora a female Valentinian who corresponded with Ptolemy; Heracleon who has several surviving excerpts; Hermogenes (the painter) a late 2nd century painter, Monoimus the Arab, and Prodicus the Gnostic, Secundus, Florinus (a presbyter), Alexander, and Theotimus. Eastern Valentinians include: Marcus the Valentinian, a magician interested in using Gematria with Valentinianism; Axionicus of Antioch, who was alive in time of Tertullian; and Theodotus who also has several surviving excerpts in Clement of Alexandria's Extracts from the Works of Theodotus; Ambrose and Candidus (in the 3rd century).

The Church Fathers or Fathers of the Church is a term used in Catholic and Orthodox forms of Christianity to refer to the early and influential theologians and writers in the Christian Church. The study of the Fathers is known as Patristics. There is no evidence that ancient Gnostic Christians used this term for their leaders. 

It is generally supposed that a saint is someone who, having led a blameless and pious life and worked a few so-called well authenticated miracles, is then honoured by the Pope (though not until he or she has been dead for many years!). Having been beatified and canonised such an one is then reverently alluded to as Saint Francis or Saint Cecelia etc. It becomes a sort of honorary title. This has everything to do with Roman Catholic tradition and nothing whatsoever to do with the Biblical meaning of the word ‘saint’. Both in the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New, the word translated ‘saint’ comes from a root word which means ‘to be made clean’.The many Scriptural references to living members of the congregation as “holy ones,” or “saints” (Dy, KJ), make it clear that a person is not made a holy one, or “saint,” by men or by an organization, nor does such a one have to wait until after death to be made a “saint.” He is a “holy one” by virtue of God’s calling of him to joint heirship with Christ. He is holy in the eyes of God while he is on earth, with the hope of heavenly life in the spirit realm, wherein dwell Jehovah God and his Son, along with the holy angels.—1Pe 1:3, 4; 2Ch 6:30; Mr 12:25; Ac 7:56.

Gnostic Apostolic Succession

Valentinian Teaching on the Resurrection

Valentinian Teaching on the Resurrection

or

Christian Gnostic Understanding of the Resurrection

Before we begin the study we will have an opening reading from the gospel of Philip

Some people are afraid that they may arise from the dead naked, and so they want to arise in flesh. They do not know that it is those who wear the [flesh] who are naked. Those who are [able] to take it off are not naked.
“Flesh [and blood will] not inherit God’s kingdom.” What is this flesh that will not [57] inherit? It is what we are wearing. And what is this flesh that will inherit? It is the flesh and blood of Jesus.
For this reason he said, “One who does not eat my flesh and drink my blood does not have life within.” What does this mean? His flesh is the word and his blood is the holy spirit. Whoever has received these has food, drink, and clothing.
And I also disagree with others who say that the flesh will not arise. Both views are wrong. You say that the flesh will not arise? Then tell me what will arise, so we may salute you. You say it is the spirit in the flesh, and also the light in the flesh? But what is in the flesh is the word, and what you are talking about is nothing other than flesh. It is necessary to arise in this sort of flesh, since everything exists in it.
In this world those who wear clothes are superior to the clothes. In heaven’s kingdom the clothes are superior to those who wear them. (The Gospel of Philip)

Another reading from the gospel of Philip 

The lord rose from the dead. He became as he was, but now his body was perfect. He possessed flesh, but this was true flesh. Our flesh isn’t true. Ours is only an image of the true. (The Gospel of Philip)

It is commonly said that the Gnostics denied the resurrection of the flesh on the ground that the flesh (being material) was evil and could have no part in the world of the spirit but the Gospel of Philip, Heracleon, Theodotus, and the Treatise on the Resurrection addressed to Rheginus show that the situation is somewhat more complex.

First Valentinians believed the soul is mortal not immortal 

By the words “it was at the point of death,” the teaching of those who claim that the soul is immortal is refuted. In agreement with this is the statement that “the body and soul are destoyed in Hell.” (Matthew 10:28) The soul is not immortal, but is possessed only of a disposition towards salvation, for it is the perishable which puts on imperishability and the mortal which puts on immortality when “its death is swallowed up in victory.” [1 Corinthians 15:54] (Heracleon: Fragments from his Commentary on the Gospel of John)

Next Valentinians understand the soul to be the natural body:

And the angels are bodies; at any rate they are seen. Why even the soul is a body, for the Apostle says, “It is sown a body of soul, it is raised a body of spirit.” And how can the souls which are being punished be sensible of it, if they are not bodies? Certainly he says, “Fear him who, after death, is able to cast soul and body into hell (Theodotus: Excerpta ex Theodoto)

50 “Taking dust from the earth”: not of the land but a portion of matter but of varied constitution and colour, he fashioned a soul, earthly and material, irrational and consubstantial with that of the beasts. This is the man “according to the image.” But the man who is “according to the likeness” of the Creator himself, is he whom he has breathed into and inseminated into the former, placing in him by angels something consubstantial with himself. Inasmuch as he is invisible and immaterial, he called his substance “the breath of life,” but that which was given form became a “living soul,” and he himself confesses that it is so in the prophetic writings. (Theodotus: Excerpta ex Theodoto)

The Pleroma is corporeal

10 But not even the world of spirit and of intellect, nor the arch angels and the First-Created, no, nor even he himself is shapeless and formless and without figure, and incorporeal; but he also has his own shape and body corresponding to his preeminence over all spiritual beings, as also those who were first created have bodies corresponding to their preeminence over the beings subordinate to them. For, in general, that which has come into being is not unsubstantial, but they have form and body, though unlike the bodies in this world. (Theodotus: Excerpta ex Theodoto)

The first passage states that neither the world of spirit and intellect, nor the archangels, nor even the First-Created (likely referring to the highest spiritual beings) are shapeless, formless, or incorporeal.
It suggests that even in the spiritual realm (the Pleroma), beings have their own shapes and bodies. These shapes and bodies are not unsubstantial but have a definite form and substance.

In the context of the resurrection, this passage contributes to the broader Gnostic understanding of the relationship between the material and the spiritual. It challenges the idea that the spiritual realm is entirely incorporeal and suggests that even within the spiritual realm, there is a level of materiality or form.

The Nature of the Resurrection 

For the Apostle says, “For he who ascended is the same as he who descended.” And they call the Creator, the image of the Only-Begotten. Therefore even the works of the image are the same and therefore the Lord, having made the dead whom he raised an image of the spiritual resurrection, raised them not so that their flesh was incorruptible but as if they were going to die again. (Theodotus: Excerpta ex Theodoto)

The passage from "Theodotus: Excerpta ex Theodoto" begins by referencing an apostolic statement that suggests a connection between the one who ascended (presumably Christ) and the one who descended. It also refers to the Creator as the image of the Only-Begotten, which could imply a theological connection between God and the image He created. The key point here is that the resurrection described is not about making the flesh incorruptible. Instead, it seems to emphasize that those raised are still subject to death, albeit experiencing a spiritual resurrection.

It implies that those raised from the dead by the Lord are an "image of the spiritual resurrection" but not necessarily granted incorruptible flesh. This indicates that their resurrection might not be of the same nature as Jesus' resurrection.

Hebrews 11:35: In Hebrews, there is a reference to women receiving their dead raised to life again. This verse also introduces the idea of a "better resurrection" that some may obtain. This "better resurrection" can be seen as a more significant or elevated form of resurrection.

Those who say that the master first died and then arose are wrong, for he first arose and then died. If someone is not first resurrected, would that person not die? As God lives, that one would <die>. (The Gospel of Philip)

As Christ rose from the grave and had his mortal body changed to an immortalized body, so the true believer will share his reward (Phil. 3:21). Through baptism we associate ourselves with Christ's death and resurrection, showing our belief that we, too, will share the reward which he received through his resurrection (Rom.6:3-5). Through sharing in his sufferings now, we will also share his reward: "Bearing about (now) in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body" (2 Cor. 4:10). "He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit" (Rom. 8:11). With this hope, we therefore wait for "the redemption of our body" (Rom. 8:23), through that body being immortalized.

His flesh is the word and his blood is the holy spirit

Flesh [and blood will] not inherit God’s kingdom.” What is this flesh that will not [57] inherit? It is what we are wearing. And what is this flesh that will inherit? It is the flesh and blood of Jesus.

For this reason he said, “One who does not eat my flesh and drink my blood does not have life within.” What does this mean? His flesh is the word and his blood is the holy spirit. Whoever has received these has food, drink, and clothing. (The Gospel of Philip)

the readers are warned in another saying in the Gospel of Philip "neither to fear nor to love the flesh" but at a distinction is apparently drawn between the true flesh and a flesh which is only an image of the true

Flesh and blood are allegorized as the logos and the holy spirit. while literal flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom the word and holy spirit surely can.

Ignatius identifies the flesh with faith and the blood with love (Trall 8 Ign Rom 8:3)

The exposition of john 6:53 forms the transition between the two parts of this saying and is possibly the link which connects them. The flesh and blood we now have will not inherit the kingdom but the flesh of Jesus is true flesh and will inherit.

And I also disagree with others who say that the flesh will not arise. Both views are wrong. You say that the flesh will not arise? Then tell me what will arise, so we may salute you. You say it is the spirit in the flesh, and also the light in the flesh? But what is in the flesh is the word, and what you are talking about is nothing other than flesh. It is necessary to arise in this sort of flesh, since everything exists in it.
 (Gospel of Philip)

The idea is that the true believer must rise in this mortal flesh in order to put on immortality to be clothed with the heavenly garment

And let no one of you say that this very flesh shall not be judged, nor rise again. Consider ye in what [state] ye were saved, in what ye received sight, if not while ye were in this flesh. We must therefore preserve the flesh as the temple of God. For as ye were called in the flesh, ye shall also come [to be judged] in the flesh.....so shall we also receive the reward in this flesh.

2 Clem. 9, for example, insists that we shall in this flesh receive our reward and Tertullian later deals with the question at length

Tertullian, who became a Christian about eighty-five years after the reception of the book of Revelation by the apostle John, that is, about a.d. 185, in writing upon the resurrection, says: "He who raises the dead to life will raise the body in its perfect integrity. This is part of the change which the body will undergo at the resurrection; for though the dead will be raised in the flesh, yet they who attain to the resurrection of happiness will pass into the angelic state and put on the vesture of immortality, according to the declaration of the apostle Paul, that 'this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality;' and again, that 'our vile bodies will be changed that they may be fashioned like unto the glorious body of Christ.'"

In this testimony, Tertullian teaches, first, the resurrection of the same kind of flesh as that deposited in the grave; and, second, that those of them thus restored to life, who may be appointed to happiness do not remain in the same state, and of the same nature; but pass out of it in passing into the angelic state, and so putting on the vesture of immortality; in which, as Jesus expresses it, "they can die no more; for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of the Deity, being the children of the resurrection" (Luke xx. 36). [This is for the consideration of those who style "mortal resurrection," as they term it, a new doctrine

So, never doubt concerning the resurrection, my son Rheginos! For if you were not existing in flesh, you received flesh when you entered this world. Why will you not receive flesh when you ascend into the Aeon? That which is better than the flesh is that which is for (the) cause of life (From The Treatise on the Resurrection)

The text argues that just as humans received flesh when entering the physical world, they will receive flesh in the Aeon after the Resurrection of the dead.

But the resurrection does not have this aforesaid character, for it is the truth which stands firm. It is the revelation of what is, and the transformation of things, and a transition into newness. For imperishability descends upon the perishable; the light flows down upon the darkness, swallowing it up; and the Pleroma fills up the deficiency. These are the symbols and the images of the resurrection. He it is who makes the good. (From The Treatise on the Resurrection)

Resurrection as Truth and Transformation: Resurrection is described as a revelation of truth, a transformation of the perishable into imperishable, and a transition into newness.

For if you remember reading in the Gospel that Elijah appeared and Moses with him, do not think the resurrection is an illusion, but it is truth! Indeed it is more fitting to say that the world is an illusion, rather than the resurrection which came into being through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (From The Treatise on the Resurrection)

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the author here is defending the doctrine of the resurrection.

Some are afraid lest they rise naked [this is the false (carnal) reasoning that Adam and Eve conceived after the fall]. Because of this they wish to rise in the flesh [they labor to accrue their own power and glory by making their own fruitless garments], and they do not know that it is those who wear the flesh who are naked [these are ignorant of the Truth and continue to covet the things of the world, these have not even the capacity to reject the truth as they have not yet found it]. It is those who [...] to unclothe themselves who are not naked [likely “it is those who [are not afraid] to unclothe themselves” – not afraid to look in the mirror and see their own nakedness (their own reckless behavior] and take steps to correct it]. What is this which will not inherit? This which is on us ["Flesh and blood (the carnal nature) shall not inherit the kingdom of God" –]. But what is this, too, which will inherit [the same body only it is now recognized as a holy temple conceiving a Christ within it]? It is that which belongs to Yahushua and his blood [the body comprised of those whom He “redeemed from among men” by His seed, the promise]. Because of this he said "He who shall not eat my flesh [receive the Word and digest it believing it to be true] and drink my blood [receive the spirit of Christ, i.e. the will of the Father and the anointing that comes with it] has not life in him". What is it? His flesh is the word [as opposed to our flesh which is falsehood and desires emanating from the 5 physical senses giving rise to our carnal nature)], and his blood is the Holy Spirit [the unction of spirit which makes us One in Him so that we might receive that perfect Law in our hearts guiding us in Agape Love and selfless giving]. He who has received these [both the “Word” “Christ in you” and “holy spirit” anointing] has food [accurate knowledge of the truth] and he has drink [the fountain of life – the Spirit of Truth which he becomes himself – “no one shall ask his brother for all will know Me”] and clothing [that white robe which is symbolic of immortality earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven]. I find fault with the others who say that it [the “fleshly body”] will not rise. Then both of them are at fault. You say that the flesh will not rise. But tell me what will rise, that we may honor you [the “body” of Christ, that “new creation”!]. You say the Spirit in the flesh [wrong – “in the body” the flesh (sarx) is not the body (soma) the ways of the flesh must be sacrificed that the newly formed son within the body might grow], and it is also this light [spiritual enlightenment] in the flesh [again wrong, for the same reason above]. (But) this too is a matter which is in the flesh [i.e. it is carnal thinking and those saying it do not apprehend the truth], for whatever you [the “natural man”] shall say, you say nothing outside the flesh. It is necessary to rise in this flesh [again, we must all enter the “water below” i.e. become individual living souls, “sown first in a physical body”], since everything exists in it [everything exists in the flesh it is necessary to rise in mortal flesh so that this mortal flesh can put on immortality.] In this world, those who put on garments are better than the garments [that which is visible by outward acts of love and compassion]. In the Kingdom of Heaven, the garments are better than those that put them on [the individual spirit receives the Father’s robe which is far greater than the “body” as those that put it on are glorified by it for it is the Fathers own character] (Philip 17).

Gnostics and Transubstantiation

Gnostics and Transubstantiation

What is Transubstantiation?

Regarding transubstantiation, The Encyclopædia Britannica (9th Ed.) states: “The Church of Rome teaches that the whole substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist is converted by consecration into the Body and Blood of Christ, in such a manner that Christ in His entirety, including his human soul and His divine nature, is contained in the elements; and that with such a thorough transmutation that not only is the whole Christ contained in the wine as well as the bread, but with the same completeness in each particle of the bread, and in each drop of the wine.” The Council of Lateran of 1215 pronounced accursed any who would in any way doubt transubstantiation.

The Catholic Church glories in the mystery of transubstantiation, describing the elements in the moment of consecration as being "switched aside with the speed of a lightening flash, and its place is taken by what looks like a line of fire--a single thread of communication, reaching up, without division or alteration, to the Lord Christ Himself." This is ironic, since the formulation of the doctrine of transubstantiation is traditionally attributed to St. John and St. Ignatious for the sole purpose of keeping the idea of the union of God's spirit with flesh in Jesus before the minds (and eyes) of the early Christians in order to battle the heretical dualisms of the Doceticism.

Transubstantiation is completely unbiblical, being a doctrine that grew out of the Docetic controversies of the mid second century and gradually developing to full flower in the 4th century. Those who believed in Doceticism claimed that Jesus did not have literal flesh and blood, it only appeared that way. The early post-apostolic Christians countered that Jesus indeed had ordinary human flesh and blood and they began to emphasize this in the Lord's Supper.

Note not all Gnostics believed in Doceticism see the post  Non-Docetic Teachings in the Nag Hammadi Library

Some Gnostics sects refused to break bread altogether: 

Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 110): “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1).

Are there some Gnostic who reject the doctrine of Transubstantiation?

Yes in the early Church, before 200AD, both Gnostics and the church took the same symbolic view of the bread and juice. But those Gnostics who did partake of the Table of the Lord, were openly criticized by the church as being inconsistent.

"How can they (Gnostics) be consistent with, themselves when they say the bread for which they give thanks is the body of their Lord and the cup his blood, if they do not say he is the Son of the Creator of the world? ... Let them either change their views or avoid offering the bread and wine. But our view is in harmony with the eucharist, and the eucharist confirms our view". (Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.xviii.4, 5)

Irenaeus refutes the Gnostics on the basis that the Lord would not use "evil material things" like bread and juice in the Lord's Supper. Had Irenaeus argued that the bread and juice Transubstantiated (changed) into something different from what they appear, the Gnostics would have agreed, saying this change was essential because Jesus did not have physical flesh either!

"Irenaeus has the realist terminology but not the realist thought. There is no conversion of the elements. Indeed, if there were any change in the substance of the elements, his argument that our bodies-in reality, not in appearance-are raised would be subverted." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 114)

A generation after Irenaeus, Tertullian (160–225) used the same arguments against the Gnostic heretic Marcion. However, Tertullian provided more information into how the eucharistic elements ought to be understood. Tertullian wrote:

“Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh” (Against Marcion, 4.40).

From this it may be inferred that the Valentinians celebrated the Eucharist with bread and a cup. This conclusion is confirmed by the Gospel of Philip and the Eucharistic prayers in NHC XI, 43–44. The Gospel of Philip in particular shows that Valentinians could speak without difficulty about partaking of the flesh and the blood of the Savior in the Eucharist, because they gave a symbolic meaning to these words: thus, for instance, the “flesh” is the Logos and the “blood” is the Holy Spirit.

But what is this, too, which will inherit? It is that which belongs to Jesus and his blood. Because of this he said "He who shall not eat my flesh and drink my blood has not life in him" (Jn 6:53). What is it? His flesh is the word, and his blood is the Holy Spirit. He who has received these has food and he has drink and clothing. (The Gospel of Philip)

What is the Blood of Christ? The Gospel of Philip

When they had said these things in the prayer, they embraced each other and they went to eat their holy food, which has no blood in it. (The Prayer of Thanksgiving, The Nag Hammadi Library)

The Didache, written in the late-first or early-second century, referred to the elements of the Lord’s table as “spiritual food and drink” (The Didache, chapter 10). The long passage detailing the Lord's Table in this early Christian document gives no hint of transubstantiation whatsoever.

We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name's sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant.

The Cathars and Transubstantiation

Cathars & Bogomils the True Christians

[Talk Gnosis] The Lost Teachings of the Cathars

The Cathars a  proto-Protestant sect which denied transubstantiation, purgatory, prayers for the dead and the invocation of saints (prayers to saints) and also that the Cathars held to the unique authority of scripture. Cathars also read the Bible in and rejected most Catholic sacraments.[6] The Cathars also denied infant baptism, as they felt that infants are not able to understand the meaning of baptism

The Cathars are another famous sect in history that denied the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The Cathars also refused the sacrament of the eucharist saying that it could not possibly be the body of Christ.

The term “transubstantiation” was used against the Cathars at the fourth Lateran Council in 1215. It was at this council that the teaching of the Cathars was formally condemned.

The doctrine of transubstantiation, first formally declared at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, looks suspiciously like a way of contradicting Cathar teaching on the impossibility of combining earthly and spiritual elements

Cathar teachings shared by the Waldensians became defining features of Protestant belief. Many of these teachings follow from the rejection of Roman Catholic "tradition" in favour of scripture. Protestants, like Cathars, rejected the medieval Roman doctrine of transubstantiation and infant baptism.

The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation was formally propounded in 1215 based on contemporary philosophical notions that were later discredited. The Cathar practise of blessing bread before meals by contrast is identical to the practice of the earliest Christians at communal meals called agapes (abandoned by mainstream churches in the second or third centuries when their own agapes degenerated into disreputable occasions)

Matthew records the words our Lord used at that  time: “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and  blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples,  and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the  cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying,  Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new  testament [ie covenant], which is shed for many for  the remission of sins” (Matt 26:26–28).

From their frequent use at the Memorial  Meeting these words are well known to us, as they  are to most church goers because they are frequently  quoted at Holy Communion or Mass services also.  The Roman Catholic Church claims that when the  priest quotes the words “this is my body” the wafer  of bread he is holding miraculously becomes the  flesh of Jesus, and that when he quotes the words  “this is my blood” the wine becomes the blood of  Jesus. A few moments thought should be sufficient  to realize that this is not what our Lord intended  when he used the words himself – after all, he was  actually present bodily with the disciples as he  spoke the words!

Bullinger makes this pithy statement about the  phrase “this is my body”:

“Few passages have been more perverted than  these simple words. Rome has insisted on the literal  or the figurative sense of words just as it suits her  own purposes, and not at all according to the laws of  philology and the true science of language.” (Figures of  Speech Used in the Bible, page 738)

The language used by the Lord is not unusual  nor is it overly cryptic. These phrases are simple  cases of metaphor. Exactly the same construction  is used in many places in the New Testament in  phrases which present no difficulty to understand.  For example:

• I am the door of the sheep (John 10:7)
• I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman (John 15:1)
• That Rock was Christ (1 Cor 10:4)
• The seven heads are seven mountains (Rev 17:9).

In each case no reader would assume that the words  are meant to be read as literally true – our Lord is not  a literal door, vine or rock, but he is all of these things  in a symbolic or figurative sense. The same linguistic  logic should be applied to the Lord’s statements in  Matthew 26 about the bread and the wine.

Whether transubstantiation is fact or fiction depends upon the meaning of Jesus’ words at Matthew 26:26, 28 (Cath. Confrat.), where he is quoted as saying, among other things, “This is my body,” “this is my blood of the new covenant.” Is it reasonable and consistent with the rest of the Bible to hold that these words indicate that an incomprehensible mysterious miracle of the greatest magnitude had taken place? No, it is not.

The fiction of transubstantiation is opposed to one of the most basic teachings of the Bible, the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ, as noted at Matthew 20:28 and 1 Timothy 2:5, 6. As the apostle Paul shows at Hebrews 9:22, “Unless blood is shed, there can be no remission of sins.” (Knox) Transubstantiation involves an admittedly “bloodless sacrifice” and therefore cannot wipe out sins as claimed.

Then too, Paul, at Hebrews chapters 9 and 10, repeatedly insists that Jesus Christ died only once, that only one sacrifice is needed. It is therefore a denying of Paul’s words to hold that other sacrifices are needed, and it is blasphemy to hold that imperfect men can create the divine Christ afresh daily and sacrifice him

And if Jesus, by saying, ‘this is my body, my blood,’ miraculously changed the bread and wine into his very flesh and blood, performing the most noteworthy miracle of his ministry, surely this would not only have been explicitly stated but made paramount throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures. But transubstantiation is not even mentioned, let alone discussed, because it is not a fact but only fiction. It is not taught in the Bible.

The Cathars .

The Cathars or Albigenses have been identified as proto-Protestant by people such as Jean Duvernoy and John Foxe[1][2] among others.[3] The debate over the relationship with Albigenses and Protestants has been a matter of theological interest and controversy in history.[3] The comparison of Protestantism and Albigensianism was mainly important among French Protestants while German Protestants rarely discussed the Cathars.[3] Affiliations with Catharism and Protestantism have been criticized by many historians, and those arguing for an affiliation between Protestants and Cathars have historically relied upon the presupposition that Cathar theology has been misinterpreted by the medieval Catholic church.[3]


John Foxe believed that the Albigenses were similar to reformed theology, he praised the Albigenses as martyrs.[4] Today the Cathars are still seen as protestant precursors by some Baptists, particularly those who adhere to the theory of Baptist successionism.[5]


What has appealed to some Protestants about the Albigenses was their rejection of transubstantiation, purgatory, crucifix, prayers for the dead, the invocation of saints and also that the Cathars held to the unique authority of scripture.[3] Cathars also read the Bible in the vernacular languages and rejected most Catholic sacraments.[6] The Cathars also denied infant baptism, as they felt that infants are not able to understand the meaning of baptism

The term “transubstantiation” was used against the Cathars at the fourth Lateran Council in 1215. It was at this council that the teaching of the Cathars was formally condemned.

The Cathars also refused the sacrament of the eucharist saying that it could not possibly be the body of Christ.

The following is a quote taken from the Inquisitor Bernard Gui's experiences with the Cathar practices and beliefs:

Then they attack and vituperate, in turn, all the sacraments of the Church, especially the sacrament of the eucharist, saying that it cannot contain the body of Christ, for had this been as great as the largest mountain Christians would have entirely consumed it before this. They assert that the host comes from straw, that it passes through the tails of horses, to wit, when the flour is cleaned by a sieve (of horse hair); that, moreover, it passes through the body and comes to a vile end, which, they say, could not happen if God were in it

"They spared their branches," says Gibbon, "over the face of Europe." United in common hatred of idolatry and Rome; they were connected by an ecclesiastical organization of over-seers and presbyteries, usually styled elders and pastors. The French called them "Bulgarians" by way of reproach, meaning thereby "unnatural sinners". Their catholic enemies also falsely styled them Manichaeans, and charged them with contempt of the Old Testament, and the denial of the body of Christ, either on the cross or in the bread and wine. They repudiated the catholic dogmas connected with the cross and eucharist; but they took both bread and wine, discerning by "the testimony of the anointed Jesus which they held," the representation therein of his broken body and blood, shed for remission of the sins of the many (Matt. 26:28). "A confession of simple worship and blameless manners," says Gibbon, "is extorted from their enemies; and so high was their standard of perfection, that the increasing congregations were divided into two classes of disciples, of those, who practised, and those who aspired. It was in the country of the Albigeois, in the southern provinces of France,

The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation was formally propounded in 1215 based on contemporary philosophical notions that were later discredited. The Cathar practise of blessing bread before meals by contrast is identical to the practice of the earliest Christians at communal meals called agapes (abandoned by mainstream churches in the second or third centuries when their own agapes degenerated into disreputable occasions)

The Lord's Supper

Matthew 26:27  And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

28  for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.

Luke 22:20  And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, [even] that which is poured out for you.

God's covenant with mankind, through His perfect expression, Christ Jesus. This contract was completed through Jesus Christ's breaking the bread and blessing the cup. The bread symbolizes the flesh or body that is spiritual knowlege, or the wisdom. The wine symbolizes the blood of Jesus Christ, or spiritual life .

By mentally eating the flesh and spiritually drinking the blood of Jesus Christ we install within our consciousness the eternal truth of the Gospel and drink of the waters of eternal life.

bread of life--The word of Truth that imparts new vitality to mind and body. "Thou shalt eat bread at my table continually" (2 Sam. 9:7).

blood of Christ--The life contained in God's Word

Who are the Quartodecimans?