Replies

So when did the bread and wine magically turn into the body and blood? Because they did not look at it that way in the 1st century. Who brought up acts? You did, I did not say that acts was taking communion as you said I did. But in first Corinthians the two are tied together in Lk Jesus said Luke 22:19 19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." (NKJ)

The 1st century church did not look at in the way that it has been perverted today. They did not see it turn into a host.

PS as far as acts is concerned they were doing a Jesus said do this in remembrance of Me. They were meeting daily celebrating and breaking bread remembering what Jesus had done for them.

Some time between 1 Thessalonians (c. 49 AD) and the end of the century, the Church started to regard the "breaking of the bread" as separate from the agape meal. I guess someone realized that Christ said "this is my body....and this is my blood..." and took him on his word.

If you believe in the mystery of Incarnation and Resurrection, you should have no problems believing that the Eucharistic bread and wine are truly his body and blood for no other reason than because the Bible says he said so.

You have to understand that the 1st century Church did not have sophisticated theology but rather took things at their face value. It believed what was said. Do you believe that Jesus ascended into heaven (wherever that may be?) straight up, and through the clouds? Do you believe that man can live in a belly of a fish for three days and live to tell about it?

If you do, then you should have no problems believing in the bread and wine dedicated to his memory is his body and his blood. But, if you read the New Testament carefully, you will realize that it has to be done by those who succeeded the apostles directly, because only they have been given the ability to loosen and bind on earth and what will be loosened and bound in heaven.