Intinction

The obedience of water baptism is in response to the baptism the Holy Spirit performed when He immersed me into Christ Jesus by making me alive with Christ. (Ephesians 2:4-9)
I was not saved by being water baptized.
So doing the works, which God has ordained you to do is prescribed in Ephesians 2:10, but nowhere are any sacraments prescribed as a means of grace and therefore a means of salvation. That is a church tradition added by a false teacher far after the Apostles died. It must be tossed out as it makes salvation out to be by works, apart from grace. It is pure legalism, the very thing the Apostle Paul calls anathema in his letter to the Galatians.

 

No, you are refusing to answer the question. Was Jesus first implementation of communion not effectual since he certainly had not died for the atonement of those whom the Father had given him. Was the bread and wine not his flesh and not his blood that the disciples partook of that first supper?
It is you who made the claim that it couldn't have been until after Jesus died and rose again. Please clarify.

 

Nailed it!

 

No, what's phony is the RC "take" on Communion. And Scripture does NOT say Jesus dipped the bread into the drink. And plainly, the bread & drink REPRESENTED what was about to happen to Jesus-He'd have some flesh beaten off Him by whips & would bleed a good deal. And Jesus said, "Do this IN REMEMBRANCE of Me" so people would not only remember His personage, but also remember the ordeal He suffered on OUR behalf.

 

No, He instituted Communion BEFORE He was crucified, as Scripture plainly shows.

 

...just like the Jews remembered the Passover.
This is why the supper was a sedir meal. It was a change in the Passover remembrance so that all believers would remember Jesus as the lamb that was slain for their redemption.

 

The person of jesus is not actually present during the mass!

 

Jesus told us in John that this was spiritual truth, and the Roman Church made grave heresy of making it physical as in his presense!

 

We receive salvation by Grace alone thru faith alone!

 

We are saved by his death and resurrection, received thru faith alone, and not by mass, water baptism, and Sacraments!

 

Well...other than in the Bible...where we see communion is never tied to it being a means of salvation.
The only place we see that is in a non-biblical tradition that has replaced grace with legalistic works in order to be saved.
Thus, all person's who read the Bible and hold it as authoritative over and above denominational tradition realize that the idea of merited salvation by virtue of the sacraments is a lie from hell that must be rejected and repudiated.

 

The RCC belief that the elements, wine and wafer, represent the actual blood and body of Christ. Therefore, by ingesting them, are they engaged in cannibalism? (apologize if this was addressed earlier)

 

Is Receiving the Eucharist Cannibalism?

 

Based on RCC doctrine, yes.

What is the Catholic sacrament of Holy Eucharist? | GotQuestions.org
“…according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366, "The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit." The catechism continues in paragraph 1367:

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner . . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

The Roman Catholic Church believes that the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist become the actual body and blood of Jesus. They attempt to support their system of thought with passages such as John 6:32-58; Matthew 26:26; Luke 22:17-23; and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. In A.D. 1551, the Counsel of Trent officially stated, "By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation" (Session XIII, chapter IV; cf. canon II).

RCC hocus pocus to defend against the charge of cannibalism:
Are Catholics Cannibals?
In the Eucharist, after the priest consecrates the bread and wine and they are, in fact, transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord, our Lord is then entirely present. Neither bread nor wine remains. However, the accidents of bread and wine (size, weight, taste, texture) do remain. Hence, the essential reason why Catholics are not guilty of cannibalism is the fact that we do not receive our Lord in a cannibalistic form. We receive him in the form of bread and wine. The two are qualitatively different.

 

Is this supposed to be news to me?

I'm sorry this is a hard teaching that is difficult for you to accept. I will follow Christ's Words and teachings, and St. Paul's, and the whole of Christian tradition over your personal interpretation.