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

Lupricona said: "Dropped Argument" I agree that of course there were Christians that believed in the Eucharist being literal. There are Catholics that believe this nowadays. The point of this debate is not to prove that some of the earlier Christians did this, but it is to prove that it is the correct teaching. There were Christians teaching false doctrines even in the first century, so we must be careful to believe a doctrine just because that a couple of early Christians believed it." My response: As my opponent acknowledges, he is now responding to an argument he dropped in the previous round. Well, the fact that it is a dropped argument means it's too late to respond to it. Once my opponent dropped my argument, my argument is presumed true for the rest of the debate. The source I provided concerning dropped arguments says as much. THE POINT OF THE DEBATE: It appears by Con's comments above that he has forgotten what we are debating. The resolution HE CHOSE is "The sacrament of the Eucharistis reasonable based on the scriptural and historical evidences."Notice the part that says "historical evidences". Therefore, quoting what early Christians believed is an important piece of.this debate. And to quote Con from round one, "And as we are far removed from the New Testament authors, we must look to the early Christians to see how they understood the passages regarding the Eucharist/Communion." With this in mind, it seems Con is singing a different tune now when he says, "The point of this debate is not to prove that some of the earlier Christians did this, but it is to prove that it is the correct teaching." No sir, that's not what we're debating. You can't change the resolution of the debate in the middle of the debate. Con said: "Literal Vs Metaphor My opponent says that "this is my body" makes no sense as a metaphor. This is completely false. Of course it can be taken metaphorically, and it can make sense, even more sense, when done this way. If my opponent wants to argue that Jesus meant it literally, that is one thing, but to say that it isn't even possible to interpret it metaphorically is just dishonest. And my opponent does not justify is inconsistency with the door vs body analogy." My response: Notice how AGAIN my opponent has made a claim without offering any evidence whatsoever. If Con thinks it can be understood metaphorically let him explain how. Until then, we should reject his claim automatically since it is without support. Con said: "Communion as a Meal Jesus is the Lamb, but the bread and wine are taken symbolically to represent what He did for us. This is proven by Jesus being physically present during the first Communion. No part of His body was changed, and His disciples would have noticed some kind of transformation, or would have written something special like that in the Gospels." My response: I've already refuted this argument a number of times, but I'd be happy to do it again: Jesus, since He is God, can be in two places at the same time. It wasn't Jesus that was changed; it was the bread and wine that were changed. So of course the disciples didn't notice any change in Jesus. Con said: "Original Sunday Worship In the book that I quoted, it did explain how the early church had "homilies" which originally meant discussions, as in, the Christians would have discussions to learn about the religion. Over time, "homilies" changed into one guy preaching. This is a difference. A major difference. It changed from a more social and meaningful dynamic to a 'go to a ritualistic service and listen to one guy give a message.'" My response: I don't see what this has to do with the Eucharist. What difference does it make if more than one person speaks or not? Regardless if it originally included discussion doesn't mean they didn't receive the Eucharist. We already know from Acts 20:7 that original Sunday worship included receiving the Eucharist. Con said: "Justin Martyr My opponent is being dishonest when he claim that Justin Martyr teaches the bread and wine are also transformed. He does not say this. He only claims that our blood and body are transformed. Justin states that they do not take the bread and wine as common, because the symbolism helps them to see it in a different light." My response: I find it rather curious that my opponent doesn't quote Justin Martyr here. And I am NOT being dishonest. Justin Martyr specifically says what he receives is the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. But don't take my word for it,; let's read the quote from Justin Martyr again: " For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." So, he says the food which is blessed by the prayer "is the flesh and blood of Jesus..." Case closed. Con said: "Other Church Fathers Clement of Alexandria says, "Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk." (1) Clement specificially describes the blood and flesh as figurative. One must realize that this is probably the view of the other church fathers. Clement was a a teacher at the Catechetical school of Alexandria, so it's definitely true that many people were taught this doctrine growing up." My response: To begin with, this is the first time Con has offered a quote that uses the word "figuratively", so I find it rather odd that by this one quote, my opponent expects us to believe this was the majority view. Having said that, I have no problem with this quote from Clement of Alexandria, because as I am about to show, Clement didn't believe the Eucharist was only a symbol. He also believed it was truly the body of Christ. The Bible is full of teachings that involve BOTH symbol and reality. For example, I would assert that Adam and Eve really existed, and they really sinned, but that we don't exactly know what it was. Eating from the tree in the garden may have been symbolic of something else. Now, as promised, here are quotes from Clement of Alexandria showing he didn't only think the Eucharist has symbolic elements: "The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.", -"The Instructor of the Children". [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D. [6] Here we have Clement of Alexandria saying the cup contains BOTH "drink and the Word". The Word, as we know from John 1 is Jesus Christ. Con said: "John 6 There were many times where the Pharisees didn't understand Jesus' parables, so they left, and only when the weak were weeded out, Jesus would then explain the true meaning afterwards. There is no reason to believe that just because Pharisees misunderstood what Jesus was saying (just like how later gentiles would misunderstand the doctrine of Communion) does not mean that this is the correct interpretation." My response: But that's my point; Jesus DIDN'T explain what he meant to his disciples here. In every parable the Bible records, Jesus either explains His parable immediately, or later on to his disciples privately. He DIDN'T do that here. After thousands of people left because they understood Him to be serious, Jesus looks at the Apostles and asks them if they're going to leave too. He didn't say It was parable. That's pretty good evidence that Jesus meant what He said when He said "You must eat my flesh and drink my blood". New arguments: Here's more quotes from early Christians who believed the Eucharist is exactly what the Catholic Church says it is: Hippolytus ""And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table" [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ"s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]). [7] Origen "Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: "My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink" [John 6:55]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]). [7] Sources: 6.http://www.therealpresence.org... 7.http://www.catholic.com...