That doesn't answer the question. The lamb was eaten by way of symbolism - the rememberance is not a feast of flesh and blood but a rememberance of the Lord's sacrifice of both. The question stands. Why the need to make it seem that Jesus is present in communion when he is supposed to be present in all Christians? If he is present in you, there is no need for him to be present in the communion - none. One need not take communion to experience his presence. One is supposed to experience him every moment they are alive after salvation. If you kill an actual lamb, it's spirit is gone and it is no longer in the body. So your comparison to sacrifice of the lamb is bogus. Jesus is still present in his body and in heaven. There is no body to break - for it has already been broken and rebuilt. That merely leaves the bread and wine for rememberance of the deed. So, again. If Jesus is present in each of us, why the teaching that one must attend mass and take communion to experience the 'real presence'?
You deserve a longer answer, but there isn't time tonight. I'll leave it at this:
If you didn't eat the lamb... your first-born son was dead. Call that symbolic if you like, but it's a symbolism I'm willing to call reality.
Re-read my previous post in light of that understanding and the point may make sense. Christ was completing the sacrifice and taking the place of the Lamb (it's also interesting to see the progression from each family having a lamb, through all of Israel sharing the sacrifice, to finally... Christ becoming one sacrifice for all - but that's a different discussion).
I don't disagree with much of your continued post - Christ IS in each of us (those in the body anyway), but probably would waste your time trying to pick at the nuances of our disagreement and then drop you for bed (a man must have priorities).
'Night.
As usual Havoc. Right on.