The sacrament of the Eucharist is reasonable based on the scriptural and historical evidences.

Thanks Lupricona for the interesting response. Unfortunately, I regret to say I don't have only positive things to say: DROPPED ARGUMENT: My opponent, Lupricona, did not respond to my new argument concerning the historical claims of a renowned Protestant historian (J.N.D. Kelly) As such, my argument has been dropped by my opponent, and is to be presumed true for the remainder of the debate. [4] In the last round... My opponent said: "Literal Vs Metaphor One of my main problems with Pro is that he admits that it is obvious that when Jesus said, "I am the door" it is so plain that he is being metaphorical. Yet, he states that it is obvious that when Jesus says "This is my body" he is being literal. I fail to see how my opponent justifies interpreting these two statements in two different ways. He is being inconsistent, and is only doing so to save his doctrine." My response: I already explained why we shouldn't take "This is my body" as merely figurative. It makes no sense as a metaphor."I am the door" makes sense a a metaphor because.we.go.through Jesus to get to the Father. Also, after saying "this is my body", Jesus said "which will be given up for you." Jesus gave up His REAL body, not some metaphorical body. My opponent said: "Communion as a Meal My opponent argued that there is no evidence that the Communion was supposed to be a meal, and the fact that it completed the Passover means that it does not have to be a meal. However, Jesus' last supper with his disciples was the first Communion, which was a meal. Why then are we not supposed to follow suit?" My response: Because the meal was the eating of the Passover lamb. But in the New covenant, Jesus is our lamb... which we receive under the appearance of bread and wine. There's no need for anything else. My opponent said: "Epistle of Mathetes My opponent fails to see the relevance of this epistle. I apologize for the inability to have made it clear. This epistle refutes the idea that we can somehow please God with the ritualistic services that we do." My response: Again, I would assert the epistle wasn't saying that. My opponent may not approve of religious rituals, but Jesus does. As I pointed out last round, Jesus was baptized, and celebrated Passover and Hannukah. My opponent said: "Catholics think they please God with the Eucharist, but they are acting just like the Jews did. This is the comparison I am making." My response: We know we are pleasing Him because He told us to do so. He said, "Do this in remembrance of me." My opponent said: "Original Sunday Worship The discourses of the clergy were generally meant to explain the Scripture lessons which had been read. At first these discourses were very plain, and as much as possible like ordinary talk; and from this they got the name of "homilies", which properly meant nothing more than "conversations". (1)" My response: The same thing happens in the Catholic Church today, so I don't see the point Con is trying to make. My opponent said: " In the early church, the members would have fruitful discussions with each other, instead, it changed into people flocking to hear one guy preach while the Communion went from a full meal that brought together people into the stale experience that it is nowadays, where people go up and take a tiny bite of a cracker and sip a tiny bit of wine." My response: The source my opponent offered does NOT mention the above practices. Again, Con has made a claim without any evidence. My opponent said: "Justin Martyr My opponent does not prove that Justin Martyr teaches that the wine and bread transform into the body and blood." My response: I don't know how Justin Martyr could have been more plain. He clearly said that besides us being transformed, the bread and wine are ALSO transformed. But don't take my word for it, let's re-read his letter: "For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these;..." Here Justin Martyr says that what they receive is NOT common bread and drink. He goes on to say what he receives is: "the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Pretty clear. My opponent said: "Jesus in Two Places at Once My opponent argues that, during the first communion, even though Jesus was present with them, He also transformed the bread and wine into his body and blood. I ask that the readers use their own common sense with this argument." My response: Again, I have to ask my opponent why he doesn't believe Jesus could do this? Isn't Jesus able to do exactly that? My opponent said: "Other Church Fathers None of the other quotes from the church fathers says anything about the bread and wine magically transforming into Jesus' blood and wine All of these passages can be taken in a symbolic understanding." My response: That is not accurate. Ignatius of Antioch's quote is not symbolic. Let's go over it again: When speaking about unorthodox people.. "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins" So AGAIN, which flesh suffered for our sins.. real or metaphorical? Here Ignatius calls the Eucharist"the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins" My opponent continued: "These quotes do nothing to prove his point. He would need a church father specifically saying that the bread and wine are transubstantiated by the priest after he utters the magic words (which Jesus apparntely forgot to say during the Last Supper.)" My response: I'd be happy to oblige my opponent with a quote from Ireneas: ""If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33"32 [A.D. 189]). "He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life"flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2). [5] Here we see an early Church Father saying the wine and bread becomes the body of Christ. Just as my opponent asked. And I would like my opponent to explain what he means by "magic words" Jesus forgot before I can fully respond to it. I contend Jesus said those words. NEW ARGUMENT: In John 6 Jesus said me must truly eat His flesh and drink His blood. His audience didn't believe He was being metaphorical, and thousands of them left Him. He didn't stop them. If He was speaking metaphorically, wouldn't He have stopped them from leaving? Every other time Jesus was using a parable, He explained to His followers what the parable meant. He didn't do that here. That's pretty strong evidence He actually meant what He said. I look forward to Con's response. Sources: 4. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...(policy_debate) 5. http://www.catholic.com...