[jo kus]

Yes, it "would" make sense, but we know that isn't what happened. Weren't most of Paul's letters to the churches meant to correct mistakes in what he had very recently taught them? Isn't it true that different churches got it "right" to very differing degrees? And this is after personal teaching by Paul himself. If all that is true, then it would be no stretch to think that some churches practiced the Eucharist as you do and some didn't. For some reason Paul chose not to write about it at all, as currently practiced. That's a big red flag for me. I somehow doubt that all the churches had the Eucharist right, but they were otherwise all messed up on a myriad of other issues, including the identity of Christ Himself. Paul devoted a lot of ink to that issue. Well, with that mentality, how do you even know WHAT the first Christians believed? How do you know the Bible we have today is not a collection of writings put together by heterodox churches? If we continue down the road you are going, then all of Christianity is placed in serious doubt.

Sorry, but this line of reasoning is unnecessary. You are holding a standard of proof that you would never hold to any other historical event. It is reasonable to say that we have an historical continuity between the Bible and second century of belief and practice.

I just know that it is extremely odd that it is not in the Bible if something this central to your faith is true.

The Eucharist is in the bible. You just refuse to accept "this is my body" as literal.

Without scriptural support you are mixing God's timelessness with man's real time

LOL! The entire bible mixes God's timelessness with man's real time...

But seriously, which of Christ's human acts WERE NOT united with His divine self? I know you are not going to tell me that the cross was the only time when His two natures were united. Therefore, I don't see how it is logical that you single out this one event in this respect.

Jesus' entire life was redemptive, but it culminates with His Passion and Death, the "reason" why He came, to atone for our sins through the ultimate self-sacrifice. We unite with that because Jesus is divine. Man and God have been united through Jesus Christ. Jesus told us to "do this in remembrance of Me". To the Jew, this means to make one present. While we could unite ourselves to His entire life, we have been instructed specifically to unite to the Paschal Mystery, the culmination of His earthly ministry.

PLUS, folks on my side quote from a variety of OT authors 5 times more than the Catholics do! :) ALL scripture is equally inspired and inerrant.

Probably.

You are doing all my work for me. :) Of course my context was going through a clergyman in Catholicism to get to God. Yes, Christ came in the flesh, and what did He do? Did He hole-up as a monk, sending third-party emissaries to do His preaching for Him? Did He put a firm buffer between Himself and the common man, such that He was inaccessible directly?

I am not doing your work, you just don't get it...

Jesus is STILL in the flesh. By having a visible man who is "in the person of Christ", we have Christ sacramentally present to us, forgiving our sins, presenting His Body for our nourishment, baptizing us into His People, witnessing our marriages, and laying hands on us to heal us when sick. Do you have a problem with the physical world? Do you believe that God no longer acts through His creation? Jesus CONTINUES to save men through the visible auspice of His bishops and priests. We have no intention of taking on any form of Gnosticism, that fear of the physical.

Regards

[Forest Keeper]

Well, with that mentality, how do you even know WHAT the first Christians believed? How do you know the Bible we have today is not a collection of writings put together by heterodox churches? If we continue down the road you are going, then all of Christianity is placed in serious doubt.

That's part of the faith. I have faith that God preserved His word as He wanted us to know it. Otherwise, as you imply, there would be no point. I don't feel it is warranted to thank men for this, all glory from me goes to God.

It is reasonable to say that we have an historical continuity between the Bible and second century of belief and practice.

That is likely true, but not necessarily to the full degree. Different churches had different practices and we know for sure that churches Paul visited personally were having serious problems.

Do you have a problem with the physical world? Do you believe that God no longer acts through His creation?

No, I believe that God acts through all believers, not just the select, unelected few.