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

As I predicted in round one, my.opponent has offered one of the passages I planned on using to support MY claim. Below you will find my opponent's comments in quotas, and my rebuttals preceded with "Response" "Luke 22 14 When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him. 15 And He said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." 17 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, "Take this and share it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes." 19 And when Hehad taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them,saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembranceof Me." 20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten,saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in Myblood." Response: Notice ,Jesus couldn't have been more clear: "This is my body". This is not the language of symbolism. My opponent continues: "There are two things of importance that I want to address. First, the Passover was a symbol that was completed in Christ, Response: The Passover wasn't completely symbolic. You had to literally eat.the lamb. Much like we eat the literal lamb of God in the Eucharist. . My opponent continues: "and so the Communion is a feast that completes, or replaces, the feast of the Passover. The second thing I want to address is that Jesus was eating with His disciples at a table. This was a meal that was meant to be shared in community, to build up relationships, and to create a sense of unity in family." Response: The Passover meal was eaten at a table and was a full meal. But, as my opponent said, Communion/Eucharist COMPLETES/ENDS the needfor the Passover. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Eucharist to be a full meal in the same way. My opponent's arguments are as follows: "Act of Community vs Superstition My first argument is that the Eucharist, as now practised by the Catholic Church, does not meet the standards of the initial Communion. It was meant to be an entire meal, where a community of believersgathers together to honour and glorify our Lord. A community mealrequires more than a small bite to eat; it requires that the members are engaging in conversation with each other. The Eucharist, as practised now, is treated as a dry and ritualistic experience devoid of meaningful interaction with the other members of the church." Response: Nowhere in round one did my opponent offer any evidence that first century Christians ever celebrated the Eucharist as a full meal. The passage he offered above describes the Jewish Passover feast, and as such does not meet the requirements. Because he has offered no evidence for this specific claim, we should reject his claim out of hand until such evidence is presented. And I disagree with my opponent's claim that the Eucharist today is a dry experience. That's pure opinion on my opponent's part that he has not offered evidence about. My opponent continues: "In the Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus(1), the author writes: "But as to their [The Jews'] scrupulosity concerning meats, and their superstition as respects the Sabbaths, and their boasting about circumcision, and their fancies about fasting and the new moons, which are utterly ridiculous and unworthy of notice... who would deem this a part of divine worship, and not much rather a manifestation of folly? I suppose, then, you are sufficiently convinced that the Christians properly abstain from the vanity and error common [to both Jews and Gentiles], and from the busy-body spirit and vain boasting of the Jews; but you must not hope to learn the mystery of their peculiar mode of worshipping God from any mortal. For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines." Response: Well, since the Eucharist is none of those things I don't see how this writing is even relevant to our discussion. If my opponent is arguing against religious rituals, he is going to have to explain why Jesus had no problem with them. We've already seen my opponent admit Jesus celebrated Passover (a religious ritual). We know from John 10:22-23 that Jesus celebrated Hanukkah (a religious ritual). And we know from Matthew 3:13-17 that Jesus chose to be baptized (a religious ritual). He continues: "The purpose of Christianity was to do away with the vain supersitions and pointless rituals of the pagans and the Jews. As most of the Jewish religion was centered around ritualistic symbols of what was to come, Christ, there was no need for them after He came. And this is why it was said that the early Christians could not be distinguised by the customs that they observed, because at that point they did not subscribe to any supersitious rituals." Response: I would agree that as Christians we are to do away with vain and pointless rituals, but as we have seen, not all religious rituals are vision and pointless.. I would like to ask my opponent if he has ever been married in a church? That too is a religious ritual. Does he think that a marriage ceremony is a "pointless ritual"? "At this point, the Communion was a friendly gathering on Sundays where Christians would come together to an informal yet fruitful discussion." Response: No evidence of this has been presented. He continues: "Transmutation Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, says(2), "And this food is called among us uxaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. 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." Response: I am surprised my opponent chose to offer this quote. I don't see how he thinks it helps him. I, myself was going to use this quote, so I guess I owe my opponent thanks for saving me the trouble. Now back to my opponent's claims: "Take notice that Justin says that "our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished. He is not saying that it is the bread and wine that are transformed, rather, he is saying that it is our blood and flesh that are transformed. As Christ died for our sins, so it is that the point of the eucharist is for our bodies to be transformed to be pure. But there is a major difference between our bodies being transformed, and the bread and wine being transformed." Response: With all due respect, my opponent seems to have misread the author's writing. Although it is true that the author says our souls are trasmutated and transformed, that's not ALL he says. Justin Martyr ALSO clearly says the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ. But don't take my word for it, let's read the relevant partners of the passage: "For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these... so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word,...is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." My opponent continues: "The First Communion The first communion was Jesus with his disciples. Jesus was living at this time, which shows that he meant the bread and wine to be taken symbolically. " Response: I don't see how Jesus being there with the disciples is a problem. Don't we Christians believe Jesus can be in two places at the same time? "As with the first communion, the bread and wine were not transfomed, in order for consisteny, the subsequent communions must also not be transformed, but instead represent only symbols." Response: That's not what Jesus said. He said "This is my body." He didn't say "This symbolizes my body." He went on to say "It shall be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven." At this point, I have to ask, what body did Jesus shed for our sins... His real body or Hiis symbolic body? Because if you say "His real body", well that's how Jesus describes what is in His hands at the Last Supper. Burncastle continues: "Analogies There is a difference between a literal and figurative analogy. Jesus said, "I am the door." We do not take Jesus to be saying that He is literally a door, or that He was transformed into a door, etc. So, one must be careful when saying that a person was being literal when he was only using a figure of speech. " Response: I agree that we need to be careful when dealing with a figure of speech. But that leaves my opponent with a problem, because "This is my body" has never been used as a figure of speech. Jesus being a door makes sense as a figure of speech because we go through Him, like a door, to get to Heaven. On the other hand, this is my body makes no sense as a figure of speech. Especially since Jesus used literal language (see my last response) to describe it. He continues: "No passage in any of the New Testament necessitates Jesus being literal when He said the bread and wine were His body and blood." Response: I've just shown this claim to be inaccurate. My opponent says: "Conclusion The point of the Communion was to help Christian communities come together and share in a meal and fruitful conversation together while remembering the purpose of their meetings." Response: Again, no evidence has been offered to support this claim. "The way that the Catholic Church does it now is completely against the desire of early Christians wanting to stay away from superstitions and ritualistic nonsense." Response: Again, he hasn't offered any evidence. New arguments: The idea that the early Church believed the Eucharist was more than a symbol - that it was what the Catholic Church claims (the real body of Christ) is not just what the Catholic Church claims. Renowned PROTESTANT church historian J.N.D. Kelly agrees: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior"s body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440). [1] Besides the quote my opponent offered from Justin Martyr, here are some other quotes from the early Christians that support my claims: Ignatius of Antioch: "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . 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 and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2"7:1 [A.D. 110]). [2] 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]). [3] St Paul also uses literal language when describing the Eucharist. 1 Corinthians 11:27-29: "So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves." Paul doesn't say the Corinthians are sinning against a symbol (is that even possible?). He says they are sinning against the"body and blood of the Lord." I look forward to reading my opponent's responses. Sources: 1.https://archive.org... 2.http://en.m.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.newadvent.org...