Hello Invincibly Ignorant.
"There's no proof for this that I've ever seen in NT writings.'
It appears pretty clear to me that this was the case. Just to make the conversation a little clearer, however, are you questioning that the New Testament teaches that Jesus' Body and Blood are truly present in the Eucharist?
That Jesus Christ is physically present in the Eucharist is what the NT literally says, and it was what the authors of the NT literally meant to convey. It's something on a par with the Physical resurrection of Jesus as an historical event, and his virgin birth. You yourself may not believe it, but it is what the New Testament intends to convey, and it unambiguously belongs to the Apostolic deposit of the Faith. Does that sound reasonable to you? If it does, I think I can make a very argument that the Apostles understood Christ to be physically present long before the New Testament was written.
If, on the other hand, you don't accept that the New Testament teaches that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist, I think I should be able to demonstrate that to you pretty clearly as well. From there it pretty well follows that the Apostles understood the doctrine before the Canon was even written. In fact, that argument becomes almost superfluous.
It appears pretty clear to me that this was the case. Just to make the conversation a little clearer, however, are you questioning that the New Testament teaches that Jesus' Body and Blood are truly present in the Eucharist?I'm saying the NT doesn't. But I understand Catholic "tradition" does.
That Jesus Christ is physically present in the Eucharist is what the NT literally says, and it was what the authors of the NT literally meant to convey.
Sorry. I don't do Sola Scriptura. :-)
It's something on a par with the Physical resurrection of Jesus as an historical event, and his virgin birth. You yourself may not believe it, but it is what the New Testament intends to convey, and it unambiguously belongs to the Apostolic deposit of the Faith. Does that sound reasonable to you?
Yes belonging to the deposit of Catholic faith which contains your traditon sounds reasonable. More reasonable than your original statement that transubstantiation is obvious in NT writings. However, your analogy of virgin birth and resurrection to be "on par", as written in the NT, with transubstantiation doesn't seem realistic.
If it does, I think I can make a very argument that the Apostles understood Christ to be physically present long before the New Testament was written.
Claiming tradition you can make that statement but only with selective interpretation can you make that argument from scripture.