My reading of and
indicates that the disciples knew that the bread and wine were not actually the body and blood since Jesus was the one handing them the bread and the wine. Luke 19 says, "do this in remembrance of Me." This indicates to me that Jesus was saying that every time they ate bread or drank wine they should remember Him. Since bread and wine was part of almost every meal at that time, He was saying remember me often or all the time.
I do not negate the miraculous and believe that God can actually turn the bread and wine into flesh and blood. But, in general, I don't think this happens often. I think that it is that experiential difference that turns some away. The wafer does not become flesh and the wine does not become blood when they partake and the perception is someone lied. The belief in Transubstantiation was one of the reasons for the Reformation. When the bread and wine are given as remembrances of Jesus and what He has done for us, then there is no misunderstanding; bread stays bread and wine stays wine.
Apparently libby, Radient1, and other Catholics believe that the wafer and wine actually become body and blood. Good. It is certainly Catholic doctrine and was notably so in 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council. The belief had been around for a while by then and was spoken of in 1079 at the Roman Council. I have never found evidence in the Bible that that was believed by the first century and other early churches in Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, or others written to or about in the New Testament. Many, including me, don't believe that the wafer and wine actually become body and blood. Still good. That is not what makes us Christians. We are Christians because we believe that Jesus is God, dead and resurrected Savior, and Lord.
Christians too often concentrate on what separates us rather than Jesus who unites us.
I'm not sure if you participated an an earlier thread about the Eucharist, so I'm going to, very briefly, make a couple of points.
~At the Passover, which was cited by Dondi, the blood of the lamb had to be sprinkled on the doors, but the Jews also had to eat the lamb to be protected from the Angel of Death. I think we all recognize that "passover" to be the "type" for the true passover, which is that we will not die as a result of the Lamb of God.
~The manna from Heaven was miraculous food that fed the Israelites during their sojourn in the desert. Jesus is the true bread from Heaven, and it was the "bread" He picked up from the Passover table, not the lamb. This life is our "sojourn", and He is the Lamb and the Bread that nourishes us.
~The OT Passover and manna, while miraculous, prophesied the greater miracle which was to come. Certainly a prophecy cannot be more miraculous than it's fulfillment, so the new passover Christ instituted at the Last Supper cannot be lesser than what came before. Christ's resurrection was one of those miracles, obviously. But, it is not an either/or proposition, it is both.
To that in bold (emphasis mine), Jesus re-iterates 4 times in John 6 that the "bread" is His Body. If it had been symbolic, as you suggest,
no disciples would have left on account of the "hard" teaching. The misunderstanding would have been cleared up.
2A, you say you've not seen evidence of early Christians believing in the True Presence, yet I've given you three (and there are more). Can you find me writings that say clearly it is a symbol?
