All Apostles lived before 100 AD. If something was not taught before 100 AD, it is not part of the Apostle's teaching.
Dismiss them as irrelevant if you wish, but they cannot be dismissed as an argument from silence. And they certainly were not written centuries later.
These things were not written during the time of the Apostles. Nor do we know they were not tampered with - as was the Didache and other writings.By the same token, if the belief that the bread and wine are not transformed into the body and blood of Christ were a core truth of Christianity, one would expect to see evidence of this belief in the early church.
Yes. We do. It is referred to as a feast and as the Lord's Supper.One would also expect to see a contemporaneous refutation of the writings referenced above. The silence is deafening.
This is evidence of uniformity of submission to authoritarian structures. We were warned by multiple Apostles of the error that would creep into the Church. In Revelation, Christ condemns Churches that had already fallen into error and this was before 100 AD.
To restate my question, why are there no early church writings either expressing the belief that Christ’s actions at the Last Supper were merely symbolic or refuting the writings that say the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ?
There are Christian writings expressing the belief that Christ's presentation at Passover was symbolic. We call them the Bible.
Since the idea of transformation into the literal body and blood of Christ wasn't believed at that time, there was no reason to refute it.
Kind regards.
Believe what you want, but the fact is that during the first several centuries after Jesus was taken up into heaven, Christians overwhelmingly believed that the bread and wine were transformed into His the body and blood. And there is no record of anyone believing that what Christ did at the last supper was symbolic. It was not until the 9th century that the real presence was first questioned.
My question is, if the Apostles did not teach the real presence, why did it take so long for the belief to be questioned?