Just some of my thoughts about the Lord's Supper and how it was observed by first century Christians.
I'm more and more convinced that on the first day of the week (i.e. the Lord's day) the early Christians gathered first and foremost to celebrate and remember the Lord's life, death, burial and resurrection through the partaking of the Lord's Supper.
I'm also convinced that this memorial was part of a "meal within a meal". That they gathered together to break bread (i.e. eat a common meal) and that at some point in that gathering time was spent in remembering Jesus sacrifice for us with bread (representing His body) and wine (representing His blood).
If any of you have looked at the link to "Seeking the Old Paths" and clicked on some of the current writings there, you may have found an article by one of the writers who took issue with (euphemism for condemmed) a congregation in his area that planned to have a special Lord's Supper one Sunday by observing it as a "meal within a meal". He quotes extensively from I Cor. 11 to defend his position, and to attack the offenders (in his mind).
I've just started reading Radical Restoration by F. LaGard Smith, and am now in his chapter called "In An Unworthy Manner", in which he convincingly (at least to me) uses 1 Cor. 11 to show that the LS was indeed part of a "meal within a meal" and in which he asserts that Paul's criticism is not of the early Christians having this "meal within a meal", but that he is criticizing them because of their attitude and in not discerning the Lord's body.
And what does he mean by not discerning the Lord's body? Note verse 29 of the chapter - "For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself." Notice that he does not say "the body and blood of the Lord", but only refers to the body.
I don't believe that Paul is criticizing them for not recognizing that the bread represents the Lord's body - I believe he is criticizing them because they did not recognize that their fellow Christians were the Lord's body. They demonstrated this lack of discernment in this way - "each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else". They were respectors of persons (see verses 18 and 19 - "In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences amond you to show which of you have God's approval").
The Lord's Supper was the reason for their gatherings on the first day of the week. Everything else that also happened in the gathering, while still important, was secondary to that primary reason.
Contrast that to today, where many churches observe (and hardly celebrate) the Lord's Supper only occasionally throughout the year. Or in those churches were it is observed on the Lord's day, it is a small percentage of the "worship hour" with bread and grape juice (some might even use wine) passed in sterile stainless steel trays by stiff-looking men in suits and ties (some congregations might let you get away without having the suit coat, but you'd better have that tie on!).
And often, before the "implements" are passed out, a brother stands before the congregation and says (which I have been guilty of) that we should recognize the bread is the body of the Lord lest we fall under Paul's stern rebuke of 1 Cor. 11.
This seems to me to be a far cry from the intimate, celebratory participation of the LS by the early church.
To the question at start of this thread, I believe the early church could have quite probably talked about their experiences with the Lord when he was here on earth, about how He affected their lives, and about how the bread and the wine help them to remember His sacrifice, and that they recongnized each other as part of His new body, the church.
And today, I believe it would be appropriate and right to share how the Lord has affected our lives, and to express our love for each other as members of that one body.
The thoughts above are my opinion (admittedly with some influence from brother Smith), but I think they are worthy of thought and discussion.