If someone was referred to as a “princess,” an “angel,” and a “daughter” ... wouldn’t you assume that the least supernatural description is the most accurate? In other words, I call my daughter a princess and an angel, but she is not literally either a princes or angel; she is my daughter.
Similarly, Scripture refers to the bread as both “body” and “bread.” One of those is literally true: that what Scripture labels as “bread” is, in fact, “bread.”
But you’re free to think it’s corpuscles and ligaments and such.
You wrote:
“If someone was referred to as a “princess,” an “angel,” and a “daughter” ... wouldn’t you assume that the least supernatural description is the most accurate?”
So, according to your logic, Jesus must only be a man. According to your logic He can’t be man and God. Do you actually think these things through before you post them?
“In other words, I call my daughter a princess and an angel, but she is not literally either a princes or angel; she is my daughter.’
Your analogy fails because your daughter is neither and angel nor a princess. Clearly the bread was bread. Clearly Jesus made it His flesh. He said so.
“Similarly, Scripture refers to the bread as both “body” and “bread.” One of those is literally true: that what Scripture labels as “bread” is, in fact, “bread.””
Again, then Jesus can only be a man or God. According to you He can’t be both.
“But you’re free to think it’s corpuscles and ligaments and such.”
Myocardium actually. http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html