Mark Shea has brought it to my attention that I am a little prone to gnostic thought, which is annoying to say the least. In particular the first example given. It seems to me that Paul has something to answer for in this regard, in that even whilst admonishing "some of" the Corinthians for saying that Christ has not been raised bodily, he says stuff like this:

So is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

What a confusing analogy he is using:

You foolish man! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.

Silly of me really.

Just goes to show that you can't dive into this theology malarkey without running across some confusing things. Peter knows the score:

[O]ur beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction[.]

Tell me about it. What occurs to me is that I remember saying to James that transubstantiation seemed a rather unneccesary doctrine, given that the eucharist might as well be a "purely" spiritual gift. Hmm - well I'm less than sure of that now. I mean, there was the incarnation(physical) and his death on the cross(physical), and his resurrection, after which he pointed out in various ways that he was (physical). None of these things, I'm sure, were ad hoc on God's part, things that he would have done differently had he been thinking straight, so whence my disposition to put the Eucharist, which is to say a participation in some way in Christ's physical sacrifice, in another category? Just thinking out loud.

n.p. I'm alive Stretch and Verne > I've got a lovely Bunch of Coconuts mixed with The Beautiful People (ah-aaahh!)