Mike's use of that scripture sounds like something Alexander Campbell said one time. Think he called that instance the Lord's Supper too. Think Campbell was wrong on that one.<quoted text>
It is ridiculous how you tie an event to you doctrine. The breaking of bread did not reveal Jesus. Jesus revealed it to them by his spoken words. What did they believe? it was not that the bread and wine was to become the body and blood of Christ.
The subject at hand was that as a result of Christs resurrection they finally truly believed that he was indeed the Christ-then they remembered what Jesus had said at the last supper that he would die and become the passover lamb. The passover lambs were never raised from the dead but Jesus was. It is all about Jesus being the lamb of God whose blood is shed for the forgiveness of sin. It is our sins that is responsible for the death of Jesus-it is for our forgiveness that he died. His death and shed blood would mean nothing without his Resurrection.
Nothing new though-Campbell wouldn't even be allowed in a coc if he was alive today.