If the early church did not believe Jesus was God or treat him as such until John wrote the Gospel around 90 A.D. then what were they celebrating in the bread and wine during communion? As Jews they were forbidden to eat or drink anything with blood and that was confirmed in the early church in Acts 15. If they did not believe Jesus was God why would they break the commandment and disobey the Elders in Jerusalem?
Good point, bd. That's why I like your posts. :) I am glad you mentioned Acts 15, because it is indicative that the Church was not a unified camp. Those in Jerusalem, most of whom eventually became Ebionites, denied Jesus' divnity, but instead looked at Him as the Jewish Messiah (i.e. human only). The people around James the Just were also practicing (observant) Jews, who followed the Law.
The other camp were the Gentiles who basically did not follow the Law and who might have considered Jesus divine for a number of reasons, such as biblical terminology, used out of context and understaning in Judaism (i.e. "Son of Man," "Son of God," "Lord," etc.), but also very possibly because it suited the mindset of the Greek pagan religion.
Ancient Greek gods were basically superhumans, and seeing Christ as a "superhuman" would not at all be alien to the Greek mindset to consider him divine or even a demigod (like Achilles, a son of a human and a goddess mother).
If there is any evidence of Christ's divinity that early, I would be willing to bet it was of Greek and not of Jewish origin.
As the Church became more and more Greek and Roman, that belief only became mor pronounced. Many a scholar would not consider St. John's Gospel to have been written by an illiterate Jewish fiherman. The Greek of the author is too sophisticated and so is his theology. He could just as easily have been someone who knew St. John personally, one of his Greek disciples, who then decided to write this on John's behalf.
Now, you will also notice in Acts 15 that they sent a note to the Gentiles advising them to stay away from anything sacrificed to the idols, strangeled, or with blood. The fact is that they didn't follow that advice as they were expected to (being treated as Noahide Gentiles).
Your point about the eating the flesh and drinking the blood as part of the Eucharist is an excellent point. Even the Bible mentions that many of Christ's disciples left Him when He said the bread was His Body and that they are to eat it.
Did Christ teach something contrary to the Law? But you will notice that Luke doesn't say outright to eat the body and drink the blood. He says "share it among you" for the rbead, and for the wine He says, according to Luke (22:20) "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.
But Mark and Matthew definitely say eat and drink, and in fact Matthew quotes form Mark, a is frequently the case, verbatim. Also Mark and Matthew do not say "new" covenant, just covenant.
As Acts 15 reminds us, (the Jews believe) Moses wrote the Law dictated by God Himself that prohibits anything sacrificed to idols, strangeled or with blood as food. How do we reconcile this?
The Protestants would say that the Eucharist is only symbolic of memory. But the Bible is too explicit in too many places about it being the flesh and blood of Jesus. And the early Church treated it as such in substance, as a mystery (sacrament) of God, even if it is not felsh and blood in appearance and taste.