09/25/2026
I want to discuss an issue between religious geoups. St. Ignatious of Antioch who is known for his seven letters. I want to take an excerpt from his letter to the Ephesians, Cha. 7.
"There is one physician who is possessed both of flesh and Spirit; both made and not made. God existing in flesh; true Life in death."
This is where the paradox lays. On the one hand it can be taken from a metaphysical point of view that not only Jesus, but even those who believe in the Father, are both physical and spiritual. I don't think there are many who would argue this from either side. One is flesh, or made; the other is Spirit, and it is here where the line gets blurry. True life and death.
For the Gnostic there is a distinction here, and it's that the not made is a Spark of God, and eternal. In this when the Life, which has been living in the death...the made, leaves the flesh, the made ceases to exist. The spirit " spirits away the soul" and then there is a reconcilliation ( karmic examination) to assess the soul, however there is not necessarily a reunion with the Source. You would be reincarnated. For the Orthodox, the hand was played and now you accept your fate at judgement...hence the urgency for imposing a life they choose on others.
For the more Orthodox Christian, it is the life as well, but here the emphasis is on the individual and the church. We follow a life of worship and when we die we await the rapture and the ressurrection of our bodies. How we live our lives determine if we are the wheat, or the chaff, which is done away with in the judgement. This is daunting to imagine evwn being possible to be wheat in a world of sin.
This brings into play my point, and the important distinction between the two aspects of religious life. Ignatious is using physician in context of a healer of life/ faith, and we rightly must assume he is talking/ describing Jesus. His implication from the Orthodox view is this is unique to this God-man, Christ embodied flesh, and that He came to defeat death. This is where the distinction between salvation and ressurrection split apart. The Orthodox view has salvation coming through belief in Jesus Christ either Paulinian ( without works), or James (by good works) as your personal savior, and both are best associated with church worship as an unofficial, but necessary instrument in achieving that end.
The Gnostic would perceive Jesus' embodiment of Christ, His life lived and his sacrifice and ressurrection as more symbolic in the knowing that we are the same as He. That in fact they would rewrite Ignatious's sentenance to "we, who are..." instead of "there is one physician." This makes Jesus the teacher of how to be saved, not a Being you can't get there without. This is a problem which unnecessarily divides us.
The bottom line for me is we do not consider ourselves worthy on our own to be in unity with God, even though Christ Jesus stated we could. This is the condition in our world reality which makes us not believe in our self, that alone we cannot succeed.
Both sides are equally seeking Divine union, but at the core, whichever you follow, does demand you know Jesus Christ through His example and teachings. Jesus tell us in John that belief in Him is to do the works ( live your life after his example) and WE would do even greater works.
The distinction between the two is on the one hand, you cannot be saved without Jesus' death on the cross and the Church, and on the other hand that an empty cross means what is left is His teachings and life lived and that is enough. That every living thing has within it a Life of God. You don't need anything, or anyone to find IT. You just need to come to Know IT and respect that IT is even in your enemy.
