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

Thank you, dsjpk5, for allowing me to pick a topic and debate with you. As we are both Christians, despite having opposing views on certain issues, I look forward to an engaging conversation dedicated to uncover the true roots of our religion, and to earnestly seek out the intentions of the New Testament authors.OpeningI agree with Pro as how he used an excellent analogy of the "I never said you stole my money" interpretations to show how many people can see different conclusions depending on how they view the context of the writing. 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.I suppose I should start us off with quoting one of the passages regarding the first communion (I hope that the NASB version will suffice):Luke 2214 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 He had 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 remembrance of 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 My blood.There are two things of importance that I want to address. First, the Passover was a symbol that was completed in Christ, 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.ArgumentsAct of Community vs SuperstitionMy 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 believers gathers together to honour and glorify our Lord. A community meal requires 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.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."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. At this point, the Communion was a friendly gathering on Sundays where Christians would come together to an informal yet fruitful discussion. TransmutationJustin 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."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. The First CommunionThe 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. 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.AnalogiesThere 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. No passage in any of the New Testament necessitates Jesus being literal when He said the bread and wine were His body and blood. ConclusionThe 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. 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. I look forward to my opponent's responses.References:1- http://www.studylight.org...2- http://www.studylight.org...