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

I appreciate the fact that he took the time to debate this issue. Now on to my final round: On the subject of Dropped Arguments, Con said: "My opponent cites wikipedia as a source that states that a dropped argument is a concession. However, this is not the case. " My response: Actually it is the case. Notice how my opponent, as he I prone to do, has AGAIN made a claim without providing any evidence or source. He just says it's so. While on the other hand, as he points out, I DID give an unbiased source to support my claim. And this source says you must rebut an argument the very first time you have a chance. Otherwise, if you don't, the argument is presumed true for the remainder of the debate. And don't just take my word for it. Debate. org says the very same thing: "Drop - An argument is dropped when it is not responded to. Arguments that are dropped are usually considered true for the remainder of the debate. You must respond to an argument once it is made, you cannot wait until the next round. "[8] So ,as we can clearly see, Con's claim that he can respond whenever he wants is simply false. All the arguments I made that he dropped are presumed true. Con continued: "First, I deemed this particular argument irrelevant, as my opponent cited a protestant historian. " My response: With all due respect, that makes no sense. The very fact that the it's a protestant historian shows that it's not only Catholics who claim the first Christians believed as Catholics do today. This fact lends much credence why belief in the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is reasonable given the historical evidence. On The Point of the Debate, Con said:: "It is true that we must look to the early Christians to see how they interpreted Scripture. But the resolution states two purposes- the scriputral and historical. So just because there are evidences of early Christians practicing something, it does not mean that it is based on Scripture. Many early christians did many things that were not scriptural. So, this debate focuses on both, not just one aspect. " My response: And that's why I have also been offering scripture passages that also show the teaching on the Eucharist is reasonable. On the subject of Literal Vs. Metaphor, Con said: "It is simple how this can be viewed metaphorically. Jesus is the door, and this metaphorically means that he is the way to God. It does not literally mean that he transforms into a door and we must open him. So also is it that Jesus is the bread and wine, and this metaphorically means that these two substances represent his body and blood and the price that he paid for us. My opponent cannot make the argument that the Eucharist is real without also arguing that Jesus is a literal door, lest he remain inconsistent. " My response: Again, simply saying something doesn't make it so. I challenge my opponent to explain how bread compares to a person's body. On the subject of Communion as a Meal, Con said: "In order for Jesus to be two places at once, it would have to be noticed by people. " My response: Says who? Based on what? We already know from Luke 24:16 that sometimes His disciples didn't recognize Him. So this is nothing new. They actually did record Jesus being in two places at once when they recorded Him saying "This is my body. " On the subject of Original Sunday Worship, Con said: "Not only was there a true discussion in the early church, but we must also realize that they did not all go up to sip a tiny sip of wine or eat a piece of a little cracker. The early christians truly broke full loaves of bread, had wine, and shared meals together while they had discussions. This is nothing like how the Catholic church worships today. This is the point that I am making- the orignal christians worship nothing at all like the Catholics nowadays do. This is important because Catholocism has taken simple and wonderful things and turned them into superstitious rituals devoid of real human interaction. " My response: Unfortunately, my opponent has again made a claim without offering any evidence whatsoever. As such, his arguments should be rejected, and regarded as baseless claims. Even IF he could somehow prove that this is how early Christians used to worship, it would be an irrelevant issue based upon my second contention in round one (one that my opponent dropped). We should expect worship to develop over time. An acorn becomes an oak tree, and mustard seeds become mustard plants. Nothing stays the same. Maybe in the early days, a discussion could've been a reasonable undertaking, but it's not now. My church is not the biggest one in town, but every service is attended by hundreds of people. A discussion that included everyone would take a ridiculous amount of time. On the subject of Clement of Alexandria and other Church Fathers, Con said: "My opponent seems convinced that because the church fathers say that the body and bread is the blood and wine, then they believed it was literally true. But if we go back to Jesus saying he is the door (and Jesus doesn't use the word figuratively, we just must use our common sense to realize that he is talking figuratively), we know that people can say things that are only meant to be taken metaphorically, even if they don't use the word literally. So even though my opponent continually shows church fathers saying they believed it was the body and blood, it is because they did, but only figuratively. " My response: In that last paragraph, my opponent admits that I have shown "church fathers saying they believed it was the body and blood [of Jesus]. " I rest my case. The early Christians believed what they said it was- Jesus. Con continues: "Clement of Alexandria is a big deal. He specifically uses the word figuratively. Something cannot be both literal and phsyical. " My response: Yes it can. My body is a physical body, and it is literally my body. Con continues: "It is either one or the other. A literal thing can have philosophical implications, like Adam and Eve sinning, but that is different than metaphor. " My response: How is that different? Con continues: " And, as Clement was a teacher of Christians, that is, he taught doctrines to the children, and his writings were passed around for many to read, it is major that this Christian who specifically teaches a figurative interpretation is definitely somebody who reflects the whole of belief at his time. If he believed it was metaphorical, yet everyone else believed it literal, as you claim, why did nobody challenge Clement? Why wasn't there an uproar in the Church about this? It's because all the Church fathers understood it to be metaphorical, even if they didn't specificially use the word "figuratively" or "metaphorically" just as Jesus did when he claimed to be the door. Jesus expected mankind to have common sense. " My response: No one challenged him because they knew he believed the Eucharist was BOTH the real body of Christ, and ALSO had symbolic elements. I showed this in the previous round with the additional quotes I offered from him. On John 6 and parables, Con said: "This is not the only time where Jesus doesn't explain something. He does this multiple times throughout the Gospels. He does this to weed out those who are not strong enough in their faith. John 10 is an example of this. Jesus says he is the door, and the good shepherd, and the Pharisees think he is crazy, and Jesus lets him leave. Because Jesus didn't explain himself to them, does this mean that Jesus is literally a shepherd, and literally a door? No, Jesus expects people to have common sense. " My response: To say that Jesus didn't explain that parable to them is absolutely false. He did so here: "7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. " Like I said, EVERY time Jesus used parables, he explained them eventually. My opponent has not given any evidence to counter this. It is because Jesus always explained the parables that we should know that he wasn't using a parable when in John 6 He said we needed to eat His flesh and drink His blood. He wasn't being symbolic. On New Arguments/ More of the Same Early Church Father Quotes, Con said: "Hippolytus calls the Communion a memorial, this is symbolic language. " My response: A memorial isn't always symbolic. Jesus uses the phrase "in memory of me" with sacrificial overtones: "His statement, "Do this in remembrance of me," may also be translated, "Offer this as my memorial sacrifice" " a fact Protestant preachers never mention when they talk about this passage. But it has a most important bearing on our discussion, because by telling the apostles to offer his memorial sacrifice, Jesus clearly ordained them as his priests. In Greek, these words are Totou poiete eis tan emen anamnesin. They are usually translated into English as "Do this in remembrance of me," but this does not do full justice to the words. First of all, the word poiein or "do" has sacrificial overtones. This can be seen by examining the way it is used in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament. As Protestant theologian D. M. Baillie says in his book The Theology of the Sacraments, "There is no doubt that this verb is used frequently in the LXX in a cult or sacrificial sense. Gore says there are from 60 to 80 instances. " He then goes on to give examples. For instance, Exodus 29:38: "This is that which you shall offer (poieseis) upon the altar: two lambs . . . " Here the verb poiein should clearly be translated as "offer," as all the Protestant translations of this passage have it. The King James, the Revised Standard, and the New International Version all render it as "offer. " Jesus" word anamnesis, usually translated "remembrance," also has sacrificial overtones. For example, in the NIV of Hebrews 10:3 we read, "But those sacrifices are an annual reminder [anamnesis] of sins. " The word for "reminder" in this passage is anamnesis. The passage thus tells us that these sacrifices are an annual anamnesis, an annual memorial offering, on behalf of the sins of the people. In fact, all of the occurrences of this word in the Protestant Bible, both in New Testament and the Greek Old Testament, occur in a sacrificial context. An anamnesis of a memorial offering which one brings before God to prompt his remembrance. The thought is the same as when the Psalmist urges God to remember him, or the congregation, or Mount Zion, or how the enemy scoffs, or how God"s servant has been mistreated. The idea of a memorial offering is to present the gift to God and prompt him to take action. For example, in the NIV of Numbers 10:10 we read, "Also at your times of rejoicing . . . you are to sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, and they will be a memorial [LXX, anamnesis] for you before your God. " [9] Con continues: "Origen is comparing Old Testament baptism and manna with New testamen baptism and manna (communion). In order to compare them, they must both be symbolic. Origen is only saying that we understand these two concepts better. " My response: Not true. They don't have to both be symbolic. The Old Testament baptism and manna were. physical realities, while New Testament baptism are spiritual realities. Summary of the debate: 1. I refuted every one of Con's arguments, while he dropped several of mine. So, arguments should go to me. 2. He relied heavily on one source, while I had a diverse group of sources. I even quoted from a protestant historian So sources should go to me. Please vote Pro! Sources: 8. . http://www.debate.org... 9. . http://jimmyakin.com...