How the Eucharist refutes Islam.

When studying Islam, I was quite taken back as it claims for itself that Mohammad was prophesied in the books of the New Testament.

Those who follow the Messenger, The unlettered Prophet, Whom they find mentioned In their own (Scriptures)—In the Law and the Gospel, It is they who will prosper. (Qur’an 7:157)

So, looking at that verse, you would think that Mohammad would be all over the place, or by passing, right? Wrong! There is no mention of him anywhere. Muslim apologists scramble around the bible trying desperately to find anything that remotely resemble mohammad.
They use (John 14:16) and say, Mohammad is the comforter in that verse! Mohammad a comforter? If you've ever read anything from Islamic sources you will find the opposite. Anyway, St John's gospel is refuting the gnostics, what do you think they are denying? Divinity of christ!! Go to John 6, what else are they denying? The real presents in the Eucharist!!!! 

So, what other examples in the new testament does the Eucharist refute this? In the books of the New Testament we read:

1 Corinthians 11:23

"For I have received from the Lord what I have also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the same night that he was handed over, took bread,"

1 Corinthians 11:24

"and giving thanks, he broke it, and said: "Take and eat. This is my body, which shall be given up for you. (Do) this in remembrance of me.""

1 Corinthians 11:25

"Similarly also, the cup, after he had eaten supper, saying: "This cup is the (New Testament) in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.

See how St Paul is quoting Jesus in the last supper. The only time Jesus mentions New Testament is when he is implementing the Eucharist! He says, do this in memory of me, not read or write this but do. So what is the New Testament? The Eucharist! The New Testament was a sacrament, long before it ever became a document, according to the document. That's why the early Christians used to call the New Testament, the books of the new testament, because of its litergical proximity to what jesus called the new testament, which is the Eucharist. So can you see how there is no possible way that  Mohammad was prophesied in the New Testament?!

God bless. 

Understanding Ephesians 2.

Every time I get in any sort of debate or see a discussion about salvation/justification Protestants always seem to bring up (Ephesians 2  8-9) to say that works has nothing to do with salvation.

Ephesians 2:8
"For by grace, you have been saved through faith. And this is not of yourselves, for it is a gift of God."
Ephesians 2:9
"And this is not of works, so that no one may glory."

Do you see? It's very clear in verse 9 that's it's not of works. But what does it mean that it's not of works?
Christ died on the cross, we didn't. We done nothing to merit that. He is talking about your first initial grace that you get through baptism.
I know what you're saying, he don't mention baptism there?! But you have to bring in the parallels. Colossians 2 and Ephesians 2 are parallel text.
Anti Catholic and Protestant Apologist James White even agrees that they are. He mentioned it on the dividing line in 2015.
Colossians 2:12 and Ephesians 2:8-9 talk about the same thing, you're first initial grace you get, and Colossians 2:12 tells us that it is baptism.

Colossians 2:12
"You have been buried with him in (baptism.) In him also, you have risen again (through faith,) by the work of God, who raised him up from the dead."

Ephesians 2:8
"For by grace, you have been saved (through faith.) And this is not of yourselves, for it is a gift of God."

Galatians 3:26
"For you are all sons of God, (through the faith) which is in Christ Jesus."
Galatians 3:27
"For as many of you as have been (baptized in Christ) have become clothed with Christ."

As you can see, another parallel is Galatians 3:26-27 where it uses the same phase, through the faith, or through faith, and tells us its by our baptism.
Through the faith means believing in Jesus Christ and being baptised. That's why in ancient times the baptised was called the faithful, and was called the sacrament of faith, and that's why all the church fathers believed in baptismal regeneration. All the Fathers of the church that commented on (John 3:5) said Jesus was referring to baptism. To deny baptismal regeneration is not only going by the clear teaching of Scripture, but to go up against all the fathers on it. Could all the fathers be wrong? I don't think so