Curtis said:

Paul’s last letter, 2 Timothy, which he wrote from Rome about AD 67, he names ten people who had visited him in Rome. But he does not mention Peter. If Peter were the Pope (which is a name made up by man) He would have surely visited Paul.

Click to expand...

Why?
The Christians were all over the place during the time of Paul. The existance of the early church (Christians in Rome) began during the time of Nero. You would have to look up in history books to find when the first communities sprouted up in Rome, and when the first church buildulings were finally built. The term Catholic doesnt represent a particular group, the term Catholic means all believers of Jesus.

Actually lower case c means universal. Upper case C means Roman Catholic specific. (look it up)

Bill said:

we have been dealing with now the 2nd popes in a row that is extreem liberal.

Click to expand...

Do you think Protestants believe in a Pope? What, in your opinion.. makes someone a Protestant or a Roman Catholic?

If you don't know the answer to that question, how can you be sure you are a Roman Catholic?

It's simple.
Jesus was in charge.
The dirty, stinking, evil Jews killed him SO before that he handed over leadership to Peter.
Jesus has the authority and as such can give that authority to whomever He wants.
Peter however by default still a sinner and mortal can NOT give such authority to another. That's where the Catholics got things wrong among other things they do.
We (Protestants) don't have a man/figurehead and for legit reasons.

There are NO commandments from God for the establishment of the office of the people.
No commandments/instructions for the very COSTLY Catholic churches.
No commandments/instructions for the very COSTLY "clothing" their priests and others wear.
No commandments/instructions for the creation, use, and reason for the Rosary.

The word "Catholic" means "universal". All born-again believers are part of the "universal" Church, but not all born-again believers are part of the "Roman Catholic" Church.

The Emperor of Rome, "Agustine" (I think that was his name) at that time had many different religions in Rome, and Agustine wanted to combine all these different religions into a single religion, and so he called this new religion "the Roman Catholic Church"

There are many different rituals from all different beliefs incorporated into the Roman Catholic Church (which are to many to list here), which is why we see a lot of weird beliefs that came from other ungodly religions.

Matt 16:16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Matt 16:17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
Matt 16:18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
Matt 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."
Matt 16:20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.

Notice the date of the Church. It was still future when He spoke. I will build. The materials may have been prepared beforehand, but the actual building began at our Lord’s resurrection. He is the Architect. Through the centuries He has been building, and if we are in His Church today, we are there because He excavated us out of the first Adam, and placed us in the very position we now occupy. The foundations of that Church were not in the Apostle (Petros) but in his confession (petra)of the divine sonship of Jesus. See Joh_5:18. Its impregnability is attested, for the Lord Himself defends it. See Rev_2:1. The gates of Hades, that is, the unseen world, include all the principalities and powers that are allied against God’s people. They cannot prevail, Eph_6:12.

What do you think the foundation of Christianity is built on? The fact that Peters name is Peter (Petros)
or the fact That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God (petra)
Peter didn't need the father to reveal to him that his name was Peter. He needed the Father to reveal that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God! That revelation could only come from the Father.. not from flesh and blood.

Why did Jesus tell the disciples not tell people that He was the Christ?
Because it needed to be revealed to them by the Father.. not by flesh and blood.

B-A-C said:

Matt 16:16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Matt 16:17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
Matt 16:18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
Matt 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."
Matt 16:20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.

Notice the date of the Church. It was still future when He spoke. I will build. The materials may have been prepared beforehand, but the actual building began at our Lord’s resurrection. He is the Architect. Through the centuries He has been building, and if we are in His Church today, we are there because He excavated us out of the first Adam, and placed us in the very position we now occupy. The foundations of that Church were not in the Apostle (Petros) but in his confession (petra)of the divine sonship of Jesus. See Joh_5:18. Its impregnability is attested, for the Lord Himself defends it. See Rev_2:1. The gates of Hades, that is, the unseen world, include all the principalities and powers that are allied against God’s people. They cannot prevail, Eph_6:12.

What do you think the foundation of Christianity is built on? The fact that Peters name is Peter (Petros)
or the fact That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God (petra)
Peter didn't need the father to reveal to him that his name was Peter. He needed the Father to reveal that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God! That revelation could only come from the Father.. not from flesh and blood.

Why did Jesus tell the disciples not tell people that He was the Christ?
Because it needed to be revealed to them by the Father.. not by flesh and blood.

Click to expand...

Hello B-A-C,

Your belief in free-will astonishes me because you literally quote the Word of God telling the Apostle Peter "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 16:17) in response to Peter's confession "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16).

Your free-will ability makes you superior to Peter; in other words, you don't need God to reveal who Christ is to you because you possess free-will, but Peter does need God to reveal who Christ is him. This according to your Free-willian Philosophy (proof post #27 and post #69 in "A LACK OF CHOICE?" thread).

You see, you wrote 'It we take these verses in literal context... He "only" chose the twelve. He didn't choose anyone else except the twelve' (proof post #69) about Lord Jesus Christ's words "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16).

Therefore, Jesus says "you did not choose Me" (John 15:16) to the Apostle Peter, but you believe that you choose Jesus thus you believe that you are superior to Peter.

Believe Jesus!

Love,
Kermos

B-A-C said:

Do you think Protestants believe in a Pope? What, in your opinion.. makes someone a Protestant or a Roman Catholic?

If you don't know the answer to that question, how can you be sure you are a Roman Catholic?

Click to expand...

The Protestant churches have just as much problems as we do. There are numerious accounts of gay bishops and whole congregations in baptist and Evangelical groups going the same route. This problem is not anyone groups problem. It is everyones problem

B-A-C said:

Do you think Protestants believe in a Pope? What, in your opinion.. makes someone a Protestant or a Roman Catholic?

If you don't know the answer to that question, how can you be sure you are a Roman Catholic?

Click to expand...

The primary difference has to do with the belief that the Eucharist is Jesus, not representing Jesus.

You need to note 2 things. 1) when Jesus introduced the Eucharist to His disciples, most walked away because of this teaching, except the apostles.
2) Jesus didn't reject the disciples that walked away.

The importance of these two facts, the Apostles continued the faith of the Eucharist which continued for another 1500 years until the Reformation. And that even though people walked away, again. That they aren't rejected by Jesus, as Jesus understands it isnt for all to grasp.

Now we Catholics continue the tradition of the apostles, and at least for myself I do not condemn the Protestants, because I also see them as my brothers and sisters in Jesus,
something that the Catholics and Protestants still have to learn to understand.

Bill said:

Yes.

Jesus gave the authority to Peter, and Peter (in the catholic church) is refered to the first pope. (Pope meaning chosen leader)

I want to add a couple things to this.

We all came from one Christian Church, and all read the same scripture, and all have the same core faith and all see God the Father as our Father.

While Jesus was on earth, the majority of Jesus disciples would not accept the teaching of the Eucharist. It was too much for them. But the thing that's really important in this is that Jesus did not reject them. He didn't tell them to go away, and in the Scripture it doesn't say that they left Jesus completely they just didn't accept the teaching.

When the Catholic Church were being idiots, and I believe that it was the Catholic Church that was probably the primary reason for the split in the first place. And for Martin Luther to go on his way. And to begin the Reformation. God didn't reject anyone even though everyone went their way.

And we can see this in the fact that there are Miracles that take place in both the Catholic church and in the Protestant churches. We cannot deny the Miracles that go on. No matter how the Catholics think of the Protestants nor the Protestants think of the Catholics you cannot deny the fact that God is involved in both.

Peter is the chosen leader of all Christians. It doesn't matter which route you took, he's still the leader.

Click to expand...

Hi Bill, do you have any scripture that you can share about Peter being "the chosen leader of all Christians" and the "pope" (who I believe calls himself the Holy Father ... correct me if I am wrong?) ... any evidence or backing for this would be so appreciated, thanks Linda xx

Bill said:

The primary difference has to do with the belief that the Eucharist is Jesus, not representing Jesus.

You need to note 2 things. 1) when Jesus introduced the Eucharist to His disciples, most walked away because of this teaching, except the apostles.
2) Jesus didn't reject the disciples that walked away.

Click to expand...

So this is the only differnce to you?

You don't recognize the Pope.
You don't recognize earthly men as priests?
You don't believe Mary was sinless?
You don't believe Masry remained a virgin?
You don't believe Mary is the mother of God?
You don't believe churches should be named after Mary? (i.e Our Lady of... whatever)
You don't believe Mary is a mediator God and men?

That's great you don't believe any of that, maybe you are more Protestant than I thought.

Thank you for sharing your perspective on the Eucharist and referencing John 6:53–66. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this important topic with you.

As a Protestant, I believe the key difference between our traditions is not just about the nature of the Eucharist, but about the entire framework of how we approach Christ’s sacrifice, mediation, and the priesthood.

1. John 6:53–66: A Spiritual Teaching, Not a Liturgical Instruction​

Jesus’ words about eating His flesh and drinking His blood were deeply symbolic and spiritual. Many disciples misunderstood Him and left, but Jesus did not clarify with a literal explanation—He instead said:

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.” (John 6:63)

Click to expand...

This suggests that Jesus was speaking metaphorically, pointing to faith in His sacrificial death, not instituting a literal ritual of consuming His physical body.

---

2. The Lord’s Supper: A Memorial, Not a Sacrifice​

In Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24–25, Jesus says:

“Do this in remembrance of me.”

Click to expand...

This clearly frames the Lord’s Supper as a memorial, not a re-sacrifice. Hebrews 10:10–14 reinforces this:

“We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Click to expand...

The idea of transubstantiation, where Christ is physically present and offered again, seems to contradict the finality of His one sacrifice.

---

3. No More Priestly Office​

In the Old Testament, priests offered sacrifices repeatedly. But in the New Testament, Jesus becomes our final High Priest (Hebrews 4:14–5:10), and believers are now a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9). There is no biblical mandate for a continuing priestly office that mediates grace through sacraments.

---

4. Faith, Not Ritual, Brings Life​

Jesus said in John 6:47:

“Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.”

Click to expand...

This verse precedes His teaching on eating His flesh and drinking His blood, suggesting that faith in Him—not participation in a ritual—is what brings eternal life.

---

I respect your tradition and its reverence for the Eucharist, but I believe Scripture teaches that Christ’s sacrifice was once for all, and that communion is a symbolic act of remembrance, not a literal consumption or re-sacrifice.

Would love to hear your thoughts and continue the conversation!

B-A-C said:

So this is the only differnce to you?

You don't recognize the Pope.
You don't recognize earthly men as priests?
You don't believe Mary was sinless?
You don't believe Masry remained a virgin?
You don't believe Mary is the mother of God?
You don't believe churches should be named after Mary? (i.e Our Lady of... whatever)
You don't believe Mary is a mediator God and men?

That's great you don't believe any of that, maybe you are more Protestant than I thought.

Click to expand...

Well let me go in this route. So you don't believe that Mary is the mother of Jesus? I'm just curious. You don't believe that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus? You don't believe the scripture when it's both the Holy Spirit and Jesus talking to you? I'm just curious I mean you want to base your faith on the scripture but then when the scriptures presented to you you don't want to believe any of it because it makes you too much like a Catholic. That's just retarded thinking.

It says in the scripture that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. And as we know the scripture is the word of God or inspired by Jesus. So if this is all correct then when the Holy Spirit speaking through Mary says from this day forward all nations will call me blessed. You're going to just throw that to the dogs because doing that makes you too Catholic. So how Christian are you? I'm in seriously. You're only as Christian as far as your faith allows you to be. But you don't follow the Bible.

I'm not saying you're not a good person. I'm not saying you're not Christian. I'm just saying you don't follow the Bible as much as you think you do.

This is true with a lot of Christians out there. They will say that they are followers of Jesus but when it comes to reality on what the scripture says then they have to block at it and say no I don't follow that and then there's a million different excuses as to why they don't follow that. The excuses usually are that it makes them look like they're Catholic.

So what's more important following the scripture or looking like your Catholic?

B-A-C said:

Thank you for sharing your perspective on the Eucharist and referencing John 6:53–66. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this important topic with you.

As a Protestant, I believe the key difference between our traditions is not just about the nature of the Eucharist, but about the entire framework of how we approach Christ’s sacrifice, mediation, and the priesthood.

1. John 6:53–66: A Spiritual Teaching, Not a Liturgical Instruction​

Jesus’ words about eating His flesh and drinking His blood were deeply symbolic and spiritual. Many disciples misunderstood Him and left, but Jesus did not clarify with a literal explanation—He instead said:


This suggests that Jesus was speaking metaphorically, pointing to faith in His sacrificial death, not instituting a literal ritual of consuming His physical body.

---

2. The Lord’s Supper: A Memorial, Not a Sacrifice​

In Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24–25, Jesus says:


This clearly frames the Lord’s Supper as a memorial, not a re-sacrifice. Hebrews 10:10–14 reinforces this:


The idea of transubstantiation, where Christ is physically present and offered again, seems to contradict the finality of His one sacrifice.

---

3. No More Priestly Office​

In the Old Testament, priests offered sacrifices repeatedly. But in the New Testament, Jesus becomes our final High Priest (Hebrews 4:14–5:10), and believers are now a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9). There is no biblical mandate for a continuing priestly office that mediates grace through sacraments.

---

4. Faith, Not Ritual, Brings Life​

Jesus said in John 6:47:


This verse precedes His teaching on eating His flesh and drinking His blood, suggesting that faith in Him—not participation in a ritual—is what brings eternal life.

---

I respect your tradition and its reverence for the Eucharist, but I believe Scripture teaches that Christ’s sacrifice was once for all, ana/that communion is a symbolic act of remembrance, not a literal consumption or re-sacrifice.

Would love to hear your thoughts and continue the conversation!

Click to expand...

Who are we to decide what is liturgical and what is reality when it comes to the scripture?

If it's just a memorial type thing why did so many disciples leave? I mean clearly those that could not deal with it must have thought the same as you are doing now. Realizing that Jesus is talking about the bread and the wine becoming the body and blood of Christ. He didn't say this is like the body he didn't say this is like my blood he said this is my body and this is my blood.

Like I said somewhere recently. Jesus didn't condemn those that couldn't handle the teaching of the Eucharist. So this is something that we all need to understand that not everyone was meant to receive it. At least in the fashion of the bread and the wine or the body and the blood of that way. But there is more to Jesus than just the bread and the wine when it comes to receiving Jesus. As an example you received the spiritual Eucharist when you receive the word of God into your heart.

What part of God is not God? I'm sure you've heard me ask this question a number of times. So if a person receives Jesus into their heart. And another person receives Jesus via the Eucharist and into their heart what exactly is the difference between the two?

Let us talk about the priesthood for a minute. As you quoted in the scripture just a moment ago. " the Believers are now a royal priesthood" for you to sit there and say that the priesthood does not exist is foolishness unless you are not a believer.

Following the scripture.
If you're going to claim that I follow the scripture then you better start following all of the scripture instead of bits and pieces of it. So when the holy spirit says through Mary, from this day forward all nations will call me blessed. My question to you is do you call Mary blessed? Catholics refer to her as the Blessed Mother. Guess what we're following the scripture because she is the mother of Jesus.

I looked up the information on the Pope or where it originates from. And the original word comes out of the Greek meaning Papa. And it started somewhere in the year 70 when the leader of the Christians at that time was referred to that.

As it turns out, if you follow the encyclopedia on the beginning of the Christian church you'll find that Peter James and John were considered the fathers of the church. And then there were a few others that were also considered fathers of the church later on. Linus was the leader of the church after Peter and so on.

"The word "Pope" originates from the Greek word "pappas" (πάππας), which means "father". This term was initially used as an affectionate term for fathers and later came to be applied to bishops and patriarchs, especially in the Eastern Church. Ultimately, the title "Pope" became exclusively associated with the Bishop of Rome and the leader of the Catholic Church"

"Before Constantine's Edict of Milan in 313 AD which legalized Christianity within the Roman Empire, many influential leaders contributed to the growth and development of the Christian Church.

Some key figures and groups during this period include:

Apostles: The earliest leaders, chosen directly by Jesus, include Peter, James, and John, considered the "pillars of the Church". Paul also played a crucial role in spreading Christianity, especially among Gentiles.Apostolic Fathers: These individuals are thought to have had personal contact with the apostles or their disciples. They include figures like Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Barnabas.. "
Contribution from the Websters encyclopedia.

There was a lot more but I didn't copy it all down. However remember this is all the Christian church. And the word catholic first was posted around the year 100. Catholic meaning everyone in the church from all over the world.

So you can see that things were from the beginning in the Christian church the terminology of pope and the word catholic.

Bill said:

So you can see that things were from the beginning in the Christian church the terminology of pope and the word catholic.

Click to expand...

pope(n.)
"the Bishop of Rome as head of the Roman Catholic Church," c. 1200, from Old English papa (9c.), from Church Latin papa "bishop, pope" (in classical Latin, "tutor"), from Greek papas "patriarch, bishop," originally "father" (see papa).

Applied to bishops of Asia Minor and taken as a title by the Bishop of Alexandria c. 250. In the Western Church, applied especially to the Bishop of Rome since the time of Leo the Great (440-461), the first great asserter of its privileges, and claimed exclusively by them from 1073 (usually in English with a capital P-).

catholic(adj.)
mid-14c., catholik, "of the doctrines of the ancient Church" (before the East/West schism), literally "universally accepted," from French catholique, from Church Latin catholicus "universal, general," from Greek katholikos, from phrase kath' holou "on the whole, in general," from kata "about" + genitive of holos "whole" (from PIE root *sol- "whole, well-kept").

Medieval Latin catholicus was practically synonymous with Christianus and meant "constituting or conforming to the church, its faith and organization" (as opposed to local sects or heresies).

With capital C-, it was applied by Protestants to the Church in Rome by c. 1554, after the Reformation began in England. The general sense of "embracing all, universal" in English is from 1550s. The meaning "not narrow-minded or bigoted" is from 1580s. The Latin word was rendered in Old English as eallgeleaflic.

Catholic
"member of the Roman Catholic church," 1560s, from Catholic (adj.).

Christian(n., adj.)
1520s as a noun, "a believer in and follower of Christ;" 1550s as an adjective, "professing the Christian religion, received into the Christian church," 16c. forms replacing Middle English Cristen (adjective and noun), from Old English cristen, from a West Germanic borrowing of Church Latin christianus, from Ecclesiastical Greek christianos, from Christos (see Christ). First used in Antioch, according to Acts xi.25-26:

And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Click to expand...

Meaning "having the manner and spiritual character proper to a follower of Christ" is from 1590s (continuing a sense in the Middle English word). Christian name, that given at christening, is from 1540s (also continuing a sense from Middle English Cristen). Christian Science as the name of a religious sect is from 1863.

My Comment: The whole issue I have is that those of the RCC and the use of Catholic vs Christian is that it really creates a separation. One connotes a follower of the church, while the other of Christ Jesus. There is a difference. I realize that many Christians which I see as all encompassing, will state the denomination i.e. Baptist, Pentecostal, Lutheran, which is exactly what I see calling oneself Catholic as being. At one time it might have had that universal aspect to it, but no longer. Christian fits that more now, regardless of its origin, and to me more appropriate to one who is a disciple/follower of Christ Jesus regardless of the denomination.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC/Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><

Bill said:

Well let me go in this route. So you don't believe that Mary is the mother of Jesus? I'm just curious. You don't believe that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus?

Click to expand...

I need to apologize here. I started to type a rebuttal to all of this, but it really wasn't my intent to get into a debate here.
We can argue about this if you really want to. I doubt either of us will change our theologies. We've heard it all before.

But the point I was making. We are different. In many ways.. not just the Eucharist, but in dozens of ways.
We can disagree and fight about it, discuss who is right and who is wrong. But the point is. We don't believe the same things.

B-A-C said:

I need to apologize here. I started to type a rebuttal to all of this, but it really wasn't my intent to get into a debate here.
We can argue about this if you really want to. I doubt either of us will change our theologies. We've heard it all before.

But the point I was making. We are different. In many ways.. not just the Eucharist, but in dozens of ways.
We can disagree and fight about it, discuss who is right and who is wrong. But the point is. We don't believe the same things.

Click to expand...

This is why i bring up the points for core beliefs.

Does believing Mary is Jesus mother give us salvation, no. For myself, reading about Marys faith is an insparation to bring me closer to Jesus.

Does talking with those who have passed on, Peter, Paul, my parents. All i know who are in heaven, give me salvation. No. Anyone who dies that has Jesus living in thier hearts, are not dead but alive. I do not talk with the dead, i talk to the living.

Does belief of the pope as leader of my church give me salvation, no.

Does receiving the Eucharist give me salvation, yes.
Why, what is the Eucharist, Jesus.
Can the Eucharist come to us in other ways, yes. Through the Word of God, (Scripture) and where Two or more are gathered in His name.

To us the term Eucharist is synonymous with Jesus.

What are the core beliefs >>> Have faith in Jesus, Love God with all your heart, Love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus died on the cross for the forgiveness of sins, Jesus rose from the dead and freed us from the bonds of sin and death.

All these core beliefs are in my heart. I claim to be catholic, so what. You are baptist or something else. The title of your church or style of thinking is not what makes you a child of God. It is what is in your heart.

Where your heart is, there your treasure will be too

Bill said:

All these core beliefs are in my heart. I claim to be catholic, so what. You are baptist or something else. The title of your church or style of thinking is not what makes you a child of God.

Click to expand...

Here is but one issue which will show the last sentence above to be true or not. I start it with a question in two parts. Could you walk away from the RCC, and one still be saved, two still be faithful to Christ Jesus?

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC/Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><

Bill said:

This is why i bring up the points for core beliefs.

Does believing Mary is Jesus mother give us salvation, no. For myself, reading about Marys faith is an insparation to bring me closer to Jesus.

Does talking with those who have passed on, Peter, Paul, my parents. All i know who are in heaven, give me salvation. No. Anyone who dies that has Jesus living in thier hearts, are not dead but alive. I do not talk with the dead, i talk to the living.

Does belief of the pope as leader of my church give me salvation, no.

Does receiving the Eucharist give me salvation, yes.
Why, what is the Eucharist, Jesus.
Can the Eucharist come to us in other ways, yes. Through the Word of God, (Scripture) and where Two or more are gathered in His name.

To us the term Eucharist is synonymous with Jesus.

What are the core beliefs >>> Have faith in Jesus, Love God with all your heart, Love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus died on the cross for the forgiveness of sins, Jesus rose from the dead and freed us from the bonds of sin and death.

All these core beliefs are in my heart. I claim to be catholic, so what. You are baptist or something else. The title of your church or style of thinking is not what makes you a child of God. It is what is in your heart.

Where your heart is, there your treasure will be too

Click to expand...

Hello Bill,

You asked and answered "Does receiving the Eucharist give me salvation, yes.", so I ask you, Does receiving the Eucharist give a muslim who rejects Jesus salvation?

The sustenance of eating Christ's body and drinking Christ's Blood is a spiritual matter as established by the Word of God recorded in John 6:1-71, such as "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst" (John 6:35).

Love,
Kermos

Kermos said:

Hello Bill,

You asked and answered "Does receiving the Eucharist give me salvation, yes.", so I ask you, Does receiving the Eucharist give a muslim who rejects Jesus salvation?

The sustenance of eating Christ's body and drinking Christ's Blood is a spiritual matter as established by the Word of God recorded in John 6:1-71, such as "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst" (John 6:35).

Love,
Kermos

Click to expand...

It is the same as anyone else who accepts Jesus as Lord. The Eucharist is Jesus. "This is my body" "this is my blood". What does Paul say about recieving Jesus.

When we recieve Jesus, your heart must be open to recieving Him.

It doesn't matter whether you recieve Jesus as the blessed Bread and Wine, or receive Jesus in the reading of the word. To truly receive Jesus your heart must be open to receiving Him.

When the sower planted the seeds on Rocky ground they did not take root. So it is with the Muslims or anyone else that has a closed heart to Jesus. It doesn't matter if you're at a Christian Gathering or not. What matters is, is if your heart is open to receiving Jesus.

If you look at the scripture, see how the Pharisees were with Jesus. They knew Jesus as the person they didn't accept Him and they weren't going to accept Him. Not all of them of course as we had Nicodemus and there were others that stayed silent. But the majority of the Pharisees, their hearts were closed to receiving Jesus even though he was in their midst.