Thank you for your response. However, what you presented doesn’t really respond to the question. As you indicated, very little was written about this belief during Apostolic times, either for or against. In fact, there is nothing in the written record that shows what the Apostles believed or taught about the Eucharist.
What I am asking is whether there is any contemporaneous record that shows disagreement with the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, and others who proclaim that the bread and wine do become the physical body and blood of Christ. Because if the Apostles taught that the Lord’s Supper was symbolic, these writings surely would have caused a great controversy, prompting others to strongly condemn these beliefs. The lack of any disagreement would indicate that these writings were in accord with the teachings of the Apostles.
My gracious, what a jumble! The BIBLE clearly relates Paul instructing believers on the Lord’s Table, the use of the bread and wine in remembrance, such that if they take THE BREAD AND WINE without confessing their sins to God for cleansing and trusting in JESUS then they are guiklty of the flesh and blood of Jesus! But I’m sure you have been taught some way to dismiss that passage, just as you have been or are being instructed on how to twist so mucvh more of scripture to fit your chosen religion of catholiciism. Catholicism is not Christianity. It is a fabrication over centuries, by men (and a few women) bent on empower themselves with the masses, using religion as their box of manipulation.
There is no record of this belief before 10ad. None. If this were a core truth of Christianity, one would expect to see commands and descriptions and examples. There are none. To say it happened is an argument from silence.What I am asking is whether there is any contemporaneous record that shows disagreement with the writings of ...
Nothing exists before 100 ad in the inspired Word of God. What people wrote hundreds of years later is irrelevant. Your argument attempts to make what was written much later - which is new to what appears in Scripture - equal as evidence of belief much earlier.
Because if the Apostles taught that the Lord’s Supper was symbolic, these writings surely would have caused a great controversy, prompting others to strongly condemn these beliefs. The lack of any disagreement would indicate that these writings were in accord with the teachings of the Apostles.
I disagree with your line of thought. By the time these "fathers" wrote, syncretic paganism had taken over by introducing many pagan ideas into church life - including the existence of a class of believers called "priests."The Catholic Church is expert at taking a later development and reading it back into Scripture, finding whatever hooks it can hang it on - a bit here and a bit there - to try to justify it. The authoritarian structure and mystical thinking leads to group-think.