Sadly for so many, unless they see the mark of the nails in His hands and put their fingers into the nailmarks and put their hands into His side, they will not believe. Same applies to His Body and Blood in the holy Eucharist. Unless they can see the Flesh and Blood with their own eyes, they will not believe.
Here comes “the flesh profits nothing” comments. Question. If Christ’s flesh truly profits us nothing, then why did He take our flesh and die in our flesh?
yes "While spirit and flesh don’t divide as different powers, they divide very well by different objects. Flesh is anything turned away from Christ; spirit is anything oriented toward him. If passions or reason or the will or a teaching or a practice is turned toward Christ it is spirit, if not, flesh.* Mt. 26:41 is testifying about the tension of the divided heart lacking the simplicity of devotion, but this division runs though the whole of the person and cannot be localized in any power." thomism wordPress 'Spirit v Flesh'
"All analogies for the Incarnation hide more than they reveal, but the best one we have is the union between the human soul and body. Though soul is intrinsically spiritual and so in itself of a different essence than matter, the substantial unity of soul to body allows matter to perform a properly spiritual action. Thought is immaterial, but brains think. The union of the Word and Christ’s body is also of things as forever distinct in essence as spirit and matter, but the union nonetheless allows his body to perform a properly divine action. The body of Christ is joined ontologically to the Word, and the Word is everywhere. The obvious objection to all this is that it asserts a bodily non-bodiliness, which is perhaps the only option worse than simply imagining Christ in orbit somewhere. But this might suffer from an account of bodies too dominated by imagination. Whatever affects physical entities according to a principle intrinsic to it is a body, and through the Incarnation the Word acts on bodies not only by spiritual agency, but according to a physical principle he has made intrinsic to himself. Again, the body with a human soul is both body and yet does not share in all the limitations of body; and the corporeity of Christ, at once truly corporeal and yet ubiquitous, is the limit case of this." thomism word Press "No spacetime beyond spacetimme"
Sadly for so many, unless they see the mark of the nails in His hands and put their fingers into the nailmarks and put their hands into His side, they will not believe. Same applies to His Body and Blood in the holy Eucharist. Unless they can see the Flesh and Blood with their own eyes, they will not believe.
Here comes “the flesh profits nothing” comments. Question. If Christ’s flesh truly profits us nothing, then why did He take our flesh and die in our flesh?
yes "While spirit and flesh don’t divide as different powers, they divide very well by different objects. Flesh is anything turned away from Christ; spirit is anything oriented toward him. If passions or reason or the will or a teaching or a practice is turned toward Christ it is spirit, if not, flesh.* Mt. 26:41 is testifying about the tension of the divided heart lacking the simplicity of devotion, but this division runs though the whole of the person and cannot be localized in any power." thomism wordPress 'Spirit v Flesh'
🤍🤍🤍
For my flesh is metaphorical food, and my blood symbolic drink
"All analogies for the Incarnation hide more than they reveal, but the best one we have is the union between the human soul and body. Though soul is intrinsically spiritual and so in itself of a different essence than matter, the substantial unity of soul to body allows matter to perform a properly spiritual action. Thought is immaterial, but brains think. The union of the Word and Christ’s body is also of things as forever distinct in essence as spirit and matter, but the union nonetheless allows his body to perform a properly divine action. The body of Christ is joined ontologically to the Word, and the Word is everywhere.
The obvious objection to all this is that it asserts a bodily non-bodiliness, which is perhaps the only option worse than simply imagining Christ in orbit somewhere. But this might suffer from an account of bodies too dominated by imagination. Whatever affects physical entities according to a principle intrinsic to it is a body, and through the Incarnation the Word acts on bodies not only by spiritual agency, but according to a physical principle he has made intrinsic to himself. Again, the body with a human soul is both body and yet does not share in all the limitations of body; and the corporeity of Christ, at once truly corporeal and yet ubiquitous, is the limit case of this." thomism word Press "No spacetime beyond spacetimme"
Jesus was rum cake i guess