The evidence that Jesus ever existed is weaker than you might think

[MineralMan]

20. Having it both ways creates a serious conflict.

A conflict that I think cannot really be resolved in any rational way.

Did Jesus rise from the dead and ascend into Heaven? Literally? If not, then what was the point? Those things, which are the core beliefs of Christianity either actually happened or they did not happen. There's no metaphorical truth there.

Does the host become the actual body and blood of Jesus? The Pope says so. The Catechism says so. Really? Either it does or it does not. If someone insists that it does, as the Catholic Church claims, then it is a laughing matter. If it does not, then the ritual does not make sense in any real way.

What is literal and what metaphorical? What's the author of that article's opinion, verse by verse?

The Jesuits are known for their rational discourse, but try asking one of the two questions above. You'll get a sputtering response, because neither thing makes any logical sense, nor is either a rational thing in a literal way. So, are both things metaphors? For what? And why does RCC doctrine clearly state that both things are literally true?

The answer typically given is that we are not supposedly capable of understanding them. They are "Mysteries." Fictions.

Fictions we are meant to believe as if they were literally true, even if they're not. And that's where the whole thing breaks down.

If Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven and a cracker and some wine turn into the literal body and blood of Jesus, then anything could be true, including all of the weird stories in the Old Testament.

So which is it? Literal truth or metaphor? You can't have it both ways. Truly.

Nonsense. All of it, in my opinion.