Replies

"...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. "

FACTS:
There is no evidence from before 100 AD that any Apostle taught the "real presence".
No Extra-Biblical sources taught it before 100 AD.
No Biblical books taught it.
No secular sources wrote about it before 100 AD
If it were important at all to Christianity, it would appear in God's Inspired Word. It does not.
Why??

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.

Nowhere in Scripture is transubstantiation taught. You will have to deal with that. If it were important at all to Christianity, it would be there. Apostles would have taught it. It is not. Why??

My question is, if the Apostles did not teach the real presence, why did it take so long for the belief to be questioned?

That is an interesting question, but it is not the important question.
The Apostles warned that error would creep into the Church. By 95 AD, it had already infected 7 churches mentioned in Revelation.
A better question, which you have not dealt with FRiend, is why isn't it taught, commanded, examples put forth, etc. in the Inspired Words of God.
That it was questioned during the Reformation is not unusual at all. For the first time in centuries, people had freedom to examine the Word of God and did not find it. The game was up.

In case you missed this upthread:

"There is not even one instance in the life of the NT church of an apostle or pastor being distinctively called a priest, or engaging in a unique sacerdotal function, let alone even officiating at the Lord's supper and offering up the elements as a sacrifice for sins, nor are they ever charged with doing so in the life of the NT church. For instead the primary charge and active function of pastors is that of preaching the word. (Acts 6:4; 2Tim. 4:2; Col. 1:28) And which, unlike the Lord's supper, we are told in Acts and onward (which is interpretive of the gospels), is said to be spiritual "milk," (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12-14) and to nourish souls, (1Tim. 4:6) and build them up. (Acts 20:32)

Nor is there is any theological discourse on what Catholicism erroneously believes the gospels teach, that of transubstantiation, which certainly Paul (for one) would have majored on as a salvific doctrine. Instead Paul only reiterates the simply words of Christ, "take eat.." which Catholicism construes into a form of endocannibalism, but Paul explains this meal by which they remember/"show/proclaim" the Lord's death for the church by their charitable inclusive sharing of food in this communal meal, treating each other as blood-bought members of the body of Christ, which some were hypocritically not doing by eating independently, even to the full, while ignoring others. (1Co. 11:17-34)

Moreover, rather than being the "source and summit of the Christian faith," "in which our redemption is accomplished," as the central sacrament around which all else in church life revolved, the Lord's supper is only manifestly described in just one epistle to the church (besides the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12), that of 1 Corinthians. And in which it is the church as the body of Christ that is the focus, not the nature of the elements, and thus they are censored for not actually coming together to eat the Lord's supper, as they failed to effectually recognize other believers as members of the blood-bought body of Christ, by eating independently in what was to be a communal feast and ignoring others, even to the full and to the shame of them that have not. As explained here by the grace of God.

Nowhere is the Lord's supper set forth as a supreme source of spiritual nourishment versus simply communal fellowship with Christ and each others, like as pagans do with their dedicatory feast have fellowship with devils, but which was not by consuming their flesh and blood. (1Co. 10:15-21)

If the mere mention of breaking of bread in Acts is speaking about the Lord's supper then it is simply "breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart," (Acts 2:46) with no priests or even focus on pastoral ritual. Of course, this is only one aspect of Catholicism that is not seen in the life of the NT church in Scripture.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3444900/posts?page=55#55 - post by daniel1212

Catholic apologists are fond of conflating things as their means of twist the Bible to support the paganism dripping from their Cathedrals.

Catholic apologists conflate the body of believers, the TRUE CGURCH / EKKLESIA of Jesus The Christ, with the manufactured over centuries institution of catholiciism. Mother church indeed! May God have mercy upon those so thoroughly deluded by catholiciism.

Another example of this specious conflating is the use of 'the real Presence' -which JESUS spoke of as Him in the midst of ANY two or more gathered in His name, with the demonic claim that the catholic priest can command 'the real presence of Jesus' to come to the sacrificial Mass where it is claimed His body, blood, soul and divinity are served up in a wafer for Catholics to eat so they can feed on the jesus of Catholiciism, that 'other religion' Paul alluded to.

This blasohemous claim that the priests of Catholicism can command the real presence of Jesus at their paganized altars is just another of the specious conflatings which mock The Lord CHRIST. When two or more faithers in Him are gathered in His name, by HIS will of HIS SPIRIT He is in the midst of them. Never by the blasphemous command of a catholic priesthood.

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? Actually there are those who contend with evidence that a symbolic was held by some, yet it is estimated that we have available only a relatively small amount of what so-called church "fathers" are estimated to have written. Nor is the Catholic Eucharist manifest as universally held, and neither is is wholly literally, for Catholics does not believe it actually becomes the bloody flesh of Christ, and would scientifically test as such (aside from claimed miracles). Regardless, it is clear that the post-apostlic church progressively adopted traditions of men such as praying to created beings in Heaven (zero examples) and many others, and thus this is simply another one.

Yet souls of a broken heart and contrite spirit who cast all their faith upon the risen Lord Jesus to save them on His merits (and thus overall follow Him) can be said, though they hold to certain errors, though for most the Catholic corruption of the Lord supper is effectually damnable.