When you gonna' move out of Denial City? It was a strawman, period. Unless you are a mind-reader (which you are not).
>>>>Thus, for someone to even hint that there can be no connection between the physical and the spiritual denies basic realities which Christianity has always embraced.<<<<
That's inaccurate. The man hinted no such thing - not as you describe it anyway, and not to the extent you would have that apply, so thus was the strawman. It came about right after the man just wrote that the Lord's spirit was present within himself, too. Think about it. There's the combination that counts for most everything. Lacking that, one cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Perhaps you may not realize it, but from within your assorted suppositions (which I know all too well, having been subjected to those, on this forum, for long years) and the accusations you keep making about persons here on this forum, in the way you are arguing for connection between flesh and blood, you are arguing against the man's own personal testimony, and in how you are seeking to apply your arguments to support the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation, are tending towards arguing against the Lord's own words also;
John 3
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
The annihilation of the "species" (of the bread) argument is just so much Grecian philosophy gone to rot and corruption at hands of the Latin Church scholastics. If that's what you had in mind -- supporting transubstantiation (it was, wasn't it?) --- I must say that on this forum, you are playing wicked evil games with things of the Lord. You really should simply stop. If you don't -- then you could get "it" from both sides...
>>>>You can’t argue against anything I have said effectively apparently<<<<<
I can, I do, and I have often, although it's like arguing with a viper. I'm left feeling filthy each time I need read anything you care to write, if then needing crawl into the argument enough to illustrate just where and how it doesn't quite work.
There are simpler and gentler ways, which are of Him ---instead of things of the Lord being of the men of the Roman Catholic Church (in the way they explain and assert a this, or a that, among that "religion")
You can believe your own little twisted up stories about those things, if you need to. Just don't expect me to do the same.
>>>> And I refuse to turn away from Christ as you suggest.<<<<
You've got that entirely backwards.
It's more like the need for you to be turning towards Him, while turning away from religiosity that is ostensibly all about him, but which is not always --- for it too often becomes like a last-ditch effort on part of the deceiver to keep one from encountering the true Christ by offering substitute in place of Christ.
>>>>>You have a Happy Easter, Blue. And remember, the resurrection in itself, is proof that there is a connection between the physical and spiritual.<<<<<
Yes, of course there was a connection during Christ's resurrection. That still doesn't support transubstantiation, so therefore is neither here, nor there, regarding the prior context of this discussion.
“Goodbye. I’m not going to deal with a single other thing you had to say in this reply. It’s not worth it. You’re still wrong and will stay that way (until you repent—turn around and go the other way).”
“Goodbye.”
As an Easter gift I’ll help you stick to your own words.