Replies

Ah, so the unbelievers got it and the Apostles were too ignorant to get it. I see, I get the picture. The spiritually blind understood while the spiritually accute were morons. Interesting given your prior stances on this. The incredulity is that they percieved wrongly that Jesus was talking about cannibalism - he was not.

Wrong again. Why dont' you go test the souls at Burger King, or do something useful?

Those who turned away did not believe Jesus could give us His flesh to eat. They could only think carnally and were turned off by the idea of "cannibalism."

The Apostles did not knwo what to thnk of it, but they had faith in Jesus and knew not where elae they could go.

At the Last Supper, it became apparent that the eating of His Flesh would be done under the appearance of bread and Wine. IT all clicked together.

Except for those today, who still turn away, unable to believe the Jesus could have us eat His Flesh and not be cannibals. The story lives on. One side trusts Jesus to fulfill His Word in a non-repulsive manner. The other side loses faith and walks away mumbling.

It's like the absurd notion that Baptism in water washes away sin. Ignorance. John's baptism was and is a baptism of REPENTANCE - not of cleansing from sin. One doesn't prepare the way for the savior by saving everyone before he arrives.

You really, truly are ignorant. Why is any Catholic supposed to take you seriously when you don't understand the basic fundamental teachings? For what it's worth, all your bloviating here is besides the point. We don't teach that John's Baptism was efficacious. IT was merely symbolic.

It was only after the Resurrection, that Jesus commanded Baptism to be done that it became efficacious.

Of course, the most basic of understanding of Catholicism would help. As usual, you open your mouth to reveal your total ignorance.

At the Last Supper, it became apparent that the eating of His Flesh would be done under the appearance of bread and Wine. IT all clicked together.

All clicked together? LOL. Yeah, right. It just made sense out of the blue because now it was bread and wine instead of a present tense directive to 'be ye therefore canibals' in John 6. Sure it makes sense now that you say it's just bread and wine and it's just a remembrance and these things are merely symbolic - oops went too far didn't I. When it is symbolic it doesn't make sense because they have to eat the book of the new covenant and lord knows one can't eat words - right. Not unless it's symbolic anyway - as in the OT examples of it being said and done.

It was only after the Resurrection, that Jesus commanded Baptism to be done that it became efficacious.

But you're mixing apples and oranges - Jesus' baptism is of spirit. He didn't command that people be dunked in water to get the spirit. He commanded that people be born again through belief and confessing Christ, then that they be baptised of the Holy spirit. No mention of water Baptism - much less of it becoming an all in one fix that some religions have seen fit to try and teach it as being. Form above substance.