There are a lot of different gnostics and they had a few different heresies. One of the main unifying heresies of the gnostics was that only knowledge (gnosis)/acknowledgment was required for salvation (“faith alone”).
“The flesh profits nothing” refers to the finite nature of OUR flesh, not HIS flesh. This is obvious since he says 6 times “you must eat of my body or you have no life in you.” Obviously His flesh profits us greatly. As more and more followers walked away, He did not explain what would have been quite simple to explain: “It’s just a metaphor, come back.”
"only knowledge (gnosis)/acknowledgment was required for salvation (“faith alone”)." Knowledge is not faith. You can "know" and still reject. Faith is necessary to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 3:14). Was anything else required of the thief on the cross?
What is His flesh? In the beginning was the Word, the Word was God (Jn. 1:1) and the Word became flesh (v. 14). My words are Spirit and life, Man shall live not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out from the mouth of God. Christ is the word, even the bread, that came out from God. The reality of the flesh of Christ is the Word. He came that we might have life. His words convey His life. His flesh does not exist in the physical world anymore. The doctrine of transubstantiation was just an attempt to understand how it would be possible to eat His flesh. Had His disciples thought that He meant for them to consume His body in order to have life, Joseph of Arimethea and whoever was with him in collecting Jesus' body would have cannibalized it. That would surely be of more value than a transubstantiated flesh. And the "flesh profits nothing" because whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach goes out in the drain (Matt. 15:17).
And what is it "to eat?' It is a word that contains the thought of taking something that is outside of you into you and it becomes part of you, your constitution. Peter, in Acts 10, was shown that "eating unclean meat," was not a matter of what you put in your mouth, it was a metaphor for persons (meat) you associate with (eat). The history of the Jews was that they associated with (ate) idolaters (meat) and became idolaters. That understanding became his testimony in the house of Cornelius. And the uncleanness has to do with what is in their hearts (Acts. 15:9), as Jesus also said in Matt. 15:18-19. The "heart," of course, not being the physical pump, but the inward parts, our thoughts, feelings, will, and conscience. The physical flesh of Jesus is not consumable, but His Spirit in resurrection is consumable through faith. The Spirit conveys God in Christ as heavenly food into us. When we "eat" His flesh (the Spirit/word) by having our mind renewed with the mind of Christ, we become the Body of Christ. Taste the milk of the word and see that the Lord is good (1 Pet. 2:2-3).
I don't believe I said anything about baptism. Correct, John's baptism was while Jesus lived. Agreed, we’re not talking about infant baptism. While Jesus was dying on the cross, He was initiating the New Covenant. If you look at the history of making covenants, it involved a sacrifice. He was that sacrifice.
Some believe, based on Mark 16:16, that we must be baptized to be saved. That is what the first part of the sentence says, however, the second part of the sentence says, "but he who does not believe shall be condemned." it does NOT say, he who is not baptized shall be condemned. It is because of unbelief that we are condemned, NOT because we are not baptized. There are many places that state that we receive eternal life through belief alone (see: Jn. 3:36; Gal. 3:6, 9, 11; Jn. 11:25-26). In Acts 2:21, we’re saved by calling on His name. So, what does baptism save us from if it is not condemnation? "Saved" implies more than just release from eternal perdition (see Acts 2:40ish).
In one Spirit, we are baptized INTO His name, which means INTO Christ Himself AND His Body (1 Cor. 12:13). Here, the Gr. Preposition “eis,” is used, which means “into”, or going from one place to another. Same Gr. word is used in Matt. 28:19.). So, it’s not just a contract, it is a union. In the Bible, baptism implies death and resurrection in union with Christ. Going into the water signifies being one with Christ in death and burial. Coming out of the water signifies coming out with Him in resurrection (Rom. 6:3, 4; Col. 2:12) to live in newness of life. I know there are other verses, but we can’t cover them all here.
The ONLY reason faith alone was required of the thief on the cross was because he was in his dying moments unable to be baptized, confess his sins, or eat of the Body of Christ. It’s borderline dishonest to suggest that beause a man who was crucified next to Christ didnt need baptism then technically no one does. You let me know when you get crucified not knowing Christ and learn of Him literally while you are crucified, and you can claim you don’t need to be baptized.
There are a lot of different gnostics and they had a few different heresies. One of the main unifying heresies of the gnostics was that only knowledge (gnosis)/acknowledgment was required for salvation (“faith alone”).
“The flesh profits nothing” refers to the finite nature of OUR flesh, not HIS flesh. This is obvious since he says 6 times “you must eat of my body or you have no life in you.” Obviously His flesh profits us greatly. As more and more followers walked away, He did not explain what would have been quite simple to explain: “It’s just a metaphor, come back.”
"only knowledge (gnosis)/acknowledgment was required for salvation (“faith alone”)." Knowledge is not faith. You can "know" and still reject. Faith is necessary to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 3:14). Was anything else required of the thief on the cross?
What is His flesh? In the beginning was the Word, the Word was God (Jn. 1:1) and the Word became flesh (v. 14). My words are Spirit and life, Man shall live not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out from the mouth of God. Christ is the word, even the bread, that came out from God. The reality of the flesh of Christ is the Word. He came that we might have life. His words convey His life. His flesh does not exist in the physical world anymore. The doctrine of transubstantiation was just an attempt to understand how it would be possible to eat His flesh. Had His disciples thought that He meant for them to consume His body in order to have life, Joseph of Arimethea and whoever was with him in collecting Jesus' body would have cannibalized it. That would surely be of more value than a transubstantiated flesh. And the "flesh profits nothing" because whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach goes out in the drain (Matt. 15:17).
And what is it "to eat?' It is a word that contains the thought of taking something that is outside of you into you and it becomes part of you, your constitution. Peter, in Acts 10, was shown that "eating unclean meat," was not a matter of what you put in your mouth, it was a metaphor for persons (meat) you associate with (eat). The history of the Jews was that they associated with (ate) idolaters (meat) and became idolaters. That understanding became his testimony in the house of Cornelius. And the uncleanness has to do with what is in their hearts (Acts. 15:9), as Jesus also said in Matt. 15:18-19. The "heart," of course, not being the physical pump, but the inward parts, our thoughts, feelings, will, and conscience. The physical flesh of Jesus is not consumable, but His Spirit in resurrection is consumable through faith. The Spirit conveys God in Christ as heavenly food into us. When we "eat" His flesh (the Spirit/word) by having our mind renewed with the mind of Christ, we become the Body of Christ. Taste the milk of the word and see that the Lord is good (1 Pet. 2:2-3).
I don't believe I said anything about baptism. Correct, John's baptism was while Jesus lived. Agreed, we’re not talking about infant baptism. While Jesus was dying on the cross, He was initiating the New Covenant. If you look at the history of making covenants, it involved a sacrifice. He was that sacrifice.
Some believe, based on Mark 16:16, that we must be baptized to be saved. That is what the first part of the sentence says, however, the second part of the sentence says, "but he who does not believe shall be condemned." it does NOT say, he who is not baptized shall be condemned. It is because of unbelief that we are condemned, NOT because we are not baptized. There are many places that state that we receive eternal life through belief alone (see: Jn. 3:36; Gal. 3:6, 9, 11; Jn. 11:25-26). In Acts 2:21, we’re saved by calling on His name. So, what does baptism save us from if it is not condemnation? "Saved" implies more than just release from eternal perdition (see Acts 2:40ish).
In one Spirit, we are baptized INTO His name, which means INTO Christ Himself AND His Body (1 Cor. 12:13). Here, the Gr. Preposition “eis,” is used, which means “into”, or going from one place to another. Same Gr. word is used in Matt. 28:19.). So, it’s not just a contract, it is a union. In the Bible, baptism implies death and resurrection in union with Christ. Going into the water signifies being one with Christ in death and burial. Coming out of the water signifies coming out with Him in resurrection (Rom. 6:3, 4; Col. 2:12) to live in newness of life. I know there are other verses, but we can’t cover them all here.
The ONLY reason faith alone was required of the thief on the cross was because he was in his dying moments unable to be baptized, confess his sins, or eat of the Body of Christ. It’s borderline dishonest to suggest that beause a man who was crucified next to Christ didnt need baptism then technically no one does. You let me know when you get crucified not knowing Christ and learn of Him literally while you are crucified, and you can claim you don’t need to be baptized.