[Campion]

There is no Biblical precedent where something supernatural occurred where the outward evidence indicated no miracle had taken place.

Hey, Manfred ... this sentence is horsefeathers.

The Incarnation itself is the Biblical precedent where something supernatural occurred (God became man) where the outward evidence indicated no miracle had taken place (the Baby in the manger still looked like a baby in the manger).

In fact, one Catholic apologist has pointed out that every Protestant objection to the Eucharist can be turned around and used as an objection to the Incarnation. Perhaps that's why so many Protestant denominations have deteriorated to the point that they deny even the deity of Christ, hmm?

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

“horsefeathers” .. is that meant to be pejorative?

“The Incarnation itself is the Biblical precedent where something supernatural occurred (God became man) where the outward evidence indicated no miracle had taken place (the Baby in the manger still looked like a baby in the manger).”

“In fact, one Catholic apologist has pointed out that every Protestant objection to the Eucharist can be turned around and used as an objection to the Incarnation.”

This is so funny as to be hard to believe. You think there was NOTHING supernatural apparent in the birth of the Lord Jesus? What did the shepherds see and hear in the field? What caused Herod to seek the magi? What drew the magi to Jerusalem? What caused pre-born John to jump in the womb?

RCs must conclude that the Eucharist is tied to the incarnation, because if the Truth were known, there would be a another reformation.

[Uncle Chip]

In fact, one Catholic apologist has pointed out that every Protestant objection to the Eucharist can be turned around and used as an objection to the Incarnation.

And yet that same Catholic apologist has to admit that the doctrine of the Catholic Eucharist is itself a denial of the Resurrection.