... HE WAS A MAN! Or don't you believe in the incarnation?
There was no "transubstantiation" of the Lord's body. He did not simply appear to be flesh, but The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. He did not have the accidents and appearances of being a man. He was a man. Our salvation is dependent upon that fact. The gnostics believed that he only had the accidents and appearances of being a man. Are you a gnostic?
Duh. That's the point. All appearances were of Him being only a man. But faith leads us to believe He was a man and God.
Let's turn your earlier argument around. You can believe what appears to be a man is God Incarnate. You can believe what appears to be an ancient earth formed through eons of matter expanding from a singularity in space-time with fossils of animals which appear to be millions of years old are in fact the result of 6 literal days of creation.
But you can't believe what looks like bread is in fact flesh?
SD
Yes of course, but he was also God. That's the point: he looked merely like a man, yet he was both man and God.
... HE WAS A MAN! Or don't you believe in the incarnation?
He was God-man, He never ceased being God although he appeared to the senses to be a man like other men, and yet He was in fact God. That was the point. Am I being too subtle or are you being intentionally obtuse?