One of my children asked me at about the age of four, "What did I do that was so bad that God killed Jesus?". Despite the obvious errors in that question, that child needed to know the gospel and was relieved when they came to the conclusion that they hadn't done anything "so bad" as sin, yet. Although that child would still like to see what the Lord's Supper tastes like from curiousity(he doesn't believe its normal grape juice, for example), he doesn't feel the need to partake as he once did. I expect that someday, he will...when he feels differently about his relationship with both Christ and sin. Incidently, I didn't tell him that he couldn't partake but that he didn't need to partake at this time. He had nothing to remember, no sins, no regrets, no true appreciation of what that death means to us who have no hope without.

One other point about Passover. Although someone touched on a similar point when contrasting being born an Israel and a believer in Christ, only circumcised males along with the rest of the household could eat of the Passover. God makes that very clear. In Colossians 2, physical circumcision is contrasted with the new covenant fulfillment of spiritual circumcision which is then defined as baptism into Christ. Trying not to make too much of these shadows and types, but one conclusion would be that the fulfillment of Passover (Lord's Supper) is for those who have been spiritually circumcised (baptized). This certainly supports the practice of the brethren outlined at the end of Acts 2 previously mentioned.

As I said, not much to add...

I think you're probably right about the atmosphere of the table ceremony in the early church being more like a meal at a family gathering, and at least sometimes in some places there probably was regular food eaten during the assembly, perhaps contributing to some of the abuses Paul was writing about in 1 Cor. 11.

Josephus (a late 1st century Jewish historian) doesn't really have anything to say about church meetings in general or the Lord's supper in particular. A Roman official, Pliny the Younger, wrote to the emperor Trajan in 112 A.D. about the suppression of Christians, and mentioned that interogation had provided the fact that the church ate "ordinary harmless food" but his outsider's perspective doesn't provide any helpful details. The following is from the Didache (see link below for more on this document), and is not referenced as authoritative, just as information about the attitude of some in the early days of the church.

___________________

CHAPTER 9

9:1 But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give ye thanks.

9:2 First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.

9:3 And concerning the broken bread. We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.

9:4 As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever.

9:5 And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, f

These thoughts are loosely put together, and not thought out at any great length by me. Just thought this would be an interesting discussion on a matter I've always been curious about.