Yeah, and to think that a virgin became pregnant without knowing a man and that she gave birth to the Incarnate God is too ludirous for words. To think that a person can have two natures is too ludicrous for words. To think that that divine person was killed and then resurrected is just too ludicrous for words. To think that God is a Trinity is just too ludicrous for words.
If we reject what seems to be too ludicrous for words, then we are all in a lot of trouble. To the unbeliever, pretty much everything we believe is ludicrous.
The Eucharist, and its true understanding which has been taught for 2000 years, is a major stumbling block, just as it was for the Jews in John 6 and just as it is for people like you who reject the historic understanding and teaching of Christianity and choose to follow a heresy that the Reformation[sic] revived and perpetuated.
the808bass, you ask about Tradition, the belief in a non-symbolic Eucharist is a part of that Tradition.
Disclaimer: Please note that my first paragraph is an example of an argument reductio ad absurdum and should in no way cause anyone to think that I deny the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, the Hypostatic Union, the Crucifixtion, the Resurrection, or the Trinity. I affirm those wonderous Truths with every fiber of my being.
Pray for John Paul II
Unfortunately for you, there is no explicit delineation of that doctrine from the beginning. (We obviously disagree on the meaning of John 6. I don't hold your interpretation to be invalid, just incorrect. In other words, both interpretations give account of the evidence at hand. You think yours does better. I, mine.)
But, apart from the statements of Scripture and your accompanying interpretation, you have no oral tradition that explicitly delineates the doctrine (in fact, one has to wait a bit to even get it in writing). When someone asks for the oral tradition (and this is the entire point of my challenge), we are told to look at the Tradition. They are not equal. Your Tradition has developed, oral tradition does not. Your Tradition is not "from the beginning." Oral tradition was. Your Tradition equals Roman Catholic doctrine. That's not wrong. It's not even bad. Tradition brings stability and structure. I am not against tradition. But the claim that Tradition is equal to the oral tradition of the early church is unsubstantiated.