Communion, or the Lord's Supper, or The Eucharist

[Paidion]

Paidion, I don't have a problem believing anything you said, but I see no scriptural basis for it -- All Christ indicated was that it should be in "remembrance" of Him, presumably in the same way that the Passover meal had been in remembrance of the exodus, etc. This is contrasted with the statements about baptism, which clearly have sacramental leanings.

Jesus did indeed indicate that eating the bread and drinking the wine was to be done in remembrance of Him. But is that all that was going on when they did it?

I think the early Christians considered the following saying of Jesus as a unit, and came to the conclusion that they were actually receiving Him in a special way as the ate the bread and drank the wine.

I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
John 6:49-56 RSV

Now while they were eating, Jesus took bread, and praising, broke it, and giving it to the disciples said, "Take eat this; it is my body, and taking a cup and giving thanks, He gave it to them saying, "Drink from it all of you, for this is my covenant blood which is being poured out for the benefit of many, for the purpose of forsaking of sins. Matthew 26:26-28 PT

[darinhouston]

Jesus did indeed indicate that eating the bread and drinking the wine was to be done in remembrance of Him. But is that all that was going on when they did it?

I think the early Christians considered the following saying of Jesus as a unit, and came to the conclusion that they were actually receiving Him in a special way as the ate the bread and drank the wine.

My point is that we can't know if that was all that was going on because we have no scriptural basis to suggest that this is true or that the apostles (later) understood this to be the case. Certainly, they misunderstood Jesus to be referring to munching and jewing on his bones and blood, but He corrected them in the oblique way He so commonly did on such questions -- his oblique response seems to indicate He was referring to something more spiritual and using the table as an opportunity to point to that spiritual reality. If there was something supernatural or sacramental (or atoning) about it, don't you think we'd have had more discussions in the Epistles beyond the mere morality andn practicality of "don't fight over food" at the gatherings ? I know I'm making an argument from silence to some degree, but I'm not the one who makes the truth claim about the Eucharist. I'm merely questioning how such can be established from silence.