Replies

1. That Jesus is God and part of the Trinity Godhead - this puts to lie the Jehovah’s witnesses, Mormons and Oneness Pentecostal concepts

Yes, that is established in the light of Scripture, comparing the texts at issue, which manifests that the Lord Jesus - whom unique Divine attributes, titles and glory are ascribed - is God by nature with the Father, and that the Holy Spirit is a person, and separable from God. 2. That baptism is part of the salvation process and key - not just symbolic

No, that the act itself of baptism effects regeneration (presuming proper intent, form and formula on the part of the baptizer) even without the Biblical requirements of wholehearted repentant faith (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) is not the gospel which the apostles preached.

What the Bible teaches is that the redeemed are those who have been spiritually born of the Spirit (Jn. 3:2-7) by effectual, penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating faith (Acts 10:43-47; Acts 15:7-9) in the Divine Son of God sent be the Father to be the Savior of the world, (1 Jn. 4:14) who saves sinners by His sinless shed blood, on His account , rendering them "accepted in the Beloved" (Eph. 1:6; Eph. 2:6-9) - not deserved by any merit of themselves or any church.

For this faith is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) rendering one to be considered positionally righteousness, “justified” in God’s sight, and (as a result) this is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27, 28) whom they shall go to be with or His return (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb. 12:22, 23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Glory and thanks be to God.

In contrast to those who were never born of the Spirit or who terminally fall away. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12; Heb. 10:25-39)

The main difference on this versus Catholicism is that the latter believes in salvation by actually becoming good enough (via the act itself of baptism, and then via sacramentally aided attainment and - for most, Purgatory) to actually be with/see God in Heaven.

3. That the Eucharist is a key part of the salvation process and that it is the true Body and blood of Christ

Wrong again. The Catholic rendering of the words of Christ at the last supper fail from being literal, in which case "this is My Body" would refer what looked, felt, tasted etc. as human flesh would, and which manifest physicality is what Scripture emphasizes regarding the true Christ in opposing a christ whose appearance does not correspond to what He physically was.

Since Catholic priests cannot confect a literal body (neither are claimed "Eucharistic miracles" not with what the Real Presence via transubstantiation means, this necessitated the contrived doctrine of transubstantiation, with its christ whose appearance, etc. also does not correspond to what He physically was in His incarnation, yet.

And which relates to another basic Catholic practice, that of mostly treating the gospels as self-interpreting in this case, rather than interpreting the gospels in the light of Acts thru Revelation, which best reveals how the NT church understood the OT and the gospels.

In which only the metaphorical understanding of the Lord's supper easily conforms to Scripture.

However, if one want to actually attempt to defend Eucharistic theology, then they face challenges such as,

1. Where in all of Scripture did Jesus Christ appear as an inanimate object0

2. Where in Scripture is the manifest physicality of Christ emphasized as establishing who the real Christ was, in contrast to one whose bodily appearance did not correspond to what He physically was? (Is. 53; Lk. 24:39; John 20:27; 1 John 4:2; 5:6,8)

3. Where in all of Scripture did the words of the Lord's supper necessarily teach that the body that "is broken" and the blood that is shed, appeared as bread and wine, rather than literally appearing as the manifestly physical flesh and blood that He would be crucified with? 0

4. Where in Scripture is actual water referred to as blood, and thus poured out unto the Lord, and bread referred to as food for the people of God, and the body of Christ as the church being bread? (2 Samuel 23:16-17; Num. 14:9; 1 Corinthians 10:17)

5. Where in all of Scripture is spiritual life obtained by literally physically consuming anything? 0

6. Where in Acts and the apostles teaching in the NT (these being interpretive of the gospels) is spiritual life obtained by hearing and effectually believing the gospel of the grace of God? Acts 10:43; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13)

7. Where from Acts onward in the NT is communion/partakers with the object of religious feasts and each other realized by literally consuming the flesh of the object of worship? 0

8. Where from Acts onward in the NT is communion/partakers with the object of religious feasts and each other realized by sharing a meal together (which effectually evidences remembrance) without literally consuming the flesh of the object of worship?? (1 Corinthians 10:20) (1 Cor. 10,11 )

9. Where are distinctive Greek words for a separate class of sacerdotal believers (hiereus; archiereus; hieráteuma) distinctively used for NT pastors? 0

10. Where is a distinctive Greek word (hieráteuma) for a separate class of sacerdotal believers used for all believers? (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).

11. Where from Acts onward in the NT are church pastors charged with or uniquely exampled conducting the Lord's supper and offering it up as a sacrifice for sins and dispensing it to the people as spiritual food? Esp. with that being a unique active function of them? 0

12. Where from Acts onward in the NT are church pastors charged with or exampled as preaching the Word and feeding the flock with the Word, which is what is called spiritual food ("milk," "meat") by which they are nourished? (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2 ;1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22; Heb. 5:12-14; 1 Timothy 4:6; Acts 20:32

The Catholic contrivance of the Lord's supper is just one of the distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).

Of course, I am quite sure you have seen reproof of such Catholic apologetical propaganda, by the grace of God, though you yet persist in parroting it.