Consider how Christianity has viewed the Eucharist over time:
Ignatius of Antioch, who died approximately 105 AD, was the third bishop of Antioch. He wrote that those who do not accept the real presence of the Eucharist were heretics. He also indicated the Eucharist must be administered by the bishop.
Acts 11 indicates the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.
Justin Martyr also wrote about the real presence in the 2nd century.
Fast forward to Luther in the 16th century who modified the real presence view (present with or beside rather than transubstantiation) as compared to the Catholic view. Meanwhile, Zwingli popularized the view that it is a mere symbol while Calvin was somewhere in the middle.
So, either the original Christians had it right (e.g. those who learned directly from the apostles of Christ) or Jesus didn’t reveal the truth until 1,500 years after His ascension.
Even if we went with the 1,500 year approach, it would be impossible to discern which of the three received the “truth”.
Clement copied from within an argument:
onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/
“But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.” (ibid)
Clement continues his instruction that Christ is food with the metaphorical explanation.
“’I,’ says the Lord, ‘have meat to eat that ye know not of. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me.’ You see another kind of food which, similarly with milk, represents figuratively the will of God. Besides, also, the completion of His own passion He called catachrestically “a cup,” when He alone had to drink and drain it. Thus to Christ the fulfilling of His Father’s will was food; and to us infants, who drink the milk of the word of the heavens, Christ Himself is food. Hence seeking is called sucking; for to those babes that seek the Word, the Father’s breasts of love supply milk.” (ibid)
And Clement concludes the chapter with this:
“Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.” (ibid)
