Which is only manifestly mentioned once among the other instructions in Acts and the epistles, in contrast to the exalted centrality Catholicism places it in, as "the source and summit of the Christian life," in which "is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church."
And in which the as explained here , presents the body of Christ as the churchwhich declares the Lord's death by how they kept the Lord's supper as a communal meal of sharing, not by focusing on the nature of the elements.
And instead of the Lord's supper being preached as "the source and summit of the Christian life," in which "is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church," the gospel is what is preached as giving life," and edification by seeing yourself in Christ, and letting the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." (Colossians 3:16)
All of which is interpretive of the gospel accounts of the Lord's supper, which, as in 1Cor. 11 , was a communal meal, a "feast of charity," (Jude 1:12) and inn which it is not taught that the pastors must be the ones who give thanks for the elements and distribute them, and are never show doing.
Which is more evidence the Bible was not written to support its beliefs, for if it had then there surely would be a chapter instructing pastors on the absolute primacy of this ritual and how to properly change them into the purported human body and blood, and frequent mention of this as doing so, not just breaking bread.
You are correct. The Bible wasn't written to support beliefs. The Gospels were written that you would believe and know Christ. The Epistles were primarily written by the early Church for correction and encouragement.
Have you ever seen the Roman Catacombs? From the earliest of Christian times, there are etchings and depictions dedicated to the Eucharist. In fact, one of the charges against Christians in the first century was that we were cannibals because we claimed to be eating our savior. And yet... there is no Epistle directed to putting down this practice or belief. Why? Simply put, the Epistles corrected what was flagging or explained what was hard to understand. That there is no direct Epistle dedicated to the Eucharist shows its centrality and importance... it was not a scandal to the early Church and was too basic to need explanation. The only place you see it is when St Paul corrects the Corinthians for their flippancy toward it (Chapter 11). "For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep." As he said, it isn't just a meal, "If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment."