At the Last Supper Christ instituted the Eucharist as Catholics understand it

Well thank you once again for offering me with this debate. It’s an interesting debate and I’m well acquainted with it because I spent most of my life in a Catholic school. Contention 1: The Last Supper Matthew 26:26-28 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." 27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the[b] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. http://www.biblegateway.com...... When we examine verse 28, I see two possible meanings. Either Jesus is referring to His crucifixion which is about to take place, or the contents of the cup. Remember that in the Old Testament that one of the main ways to atone for sins was a blood sacrifice. So did the contents of the cup forgive many sins, or did the blood sacrifice that Jesus took on the cross forgive many people? With this aside, I will examine the rest of these passages in my case. In these accounts of the Last Supper, we see that Christ said that "this is my body" concerning the bread, and "this is my blood" concerning the wine. Neither before nor after does Christ say that He is merely talking symbolically. If Christ doesn't tell us that He is speaking symbolically or give us any context to cause us to believe otherwise, then we must take Him at His word and believe that the bread really is His body and the wine really is His blood. My opponent’s logic supposes that if Jesus does not say that He is speaking symbolically, then we can’t take him as such. Well if that’s true then we must take the following verse quite literally. Contention 2: John 6 In this passage, Christ says several times that the people must eat His body and drink His blood. Since nowhere else in the bible does Christ condone cannibalism, He is obviously foreshadowing what He would do at the Last Supper. By turning bread and wine into His body and blood, He would indeed make it possible for these people to consume His body and blood. Well if we are to interpret these passages literally then there are several verses in which Christ condones cannibalism of His body. So the Roman Catholic view is a violation of Levitical law The Roman Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist requires the participant to eat human flesh and drink human blood. Remember, Roman Catholicism teaches that the bread and the wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. Essentially, this amounts to cannibalism. What does the Scripture say concerning this? "For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off," (Lev. 17:14). Notice that the scripture says that you are not to eat the blood of any flesh. It would certainly appear that the Roman Catholic view is in contradiction to the Old Testament scripture since it advocates the eating of the blood of Christ. To the RCC it is not just symbolic, it is the actual eating and drinking of the body of Christ. Contention 3: 1 Corinthians 11 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 27(AB) Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord(AC) in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning(AD) the body and blood of the Lord. 28(AE) Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. http://www.biblegateway.com...... This verse is echoing the words of Christ by Paul, so in order to compensate for time I will cross-apply arguments from my case that I’m about to present to this argument. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now on to my Case. Just so you know I may refer to the Eucharist as the Lord’s Supper. Contention 1: Jesus speaks of the spirit, not the flesh. Some of the verses used to substantiate transubstantiation are the following: Matt. 26:28, "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." John 6:52-53, "The Jews therefore began to argue with one another, saying, How can this man give us His flesh to eat? 53 Jesus therefore said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.'" 1 Cor. 11:27,”Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord." Can we conclude from the above verses that the Communion Supper actually involves the change of the elements into the mystical Body and Blood of Christ? Let's take a look. First - there is no indication that the words were meant to be literal. Nowhere in scripture do we find this teaching. We see scriptures refer to the elements as the body and blood, but we also see Jesus clearly stating that the words He was speaking were spiritual words: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life," (John 6:63). He did not say they were literal words; that is, He did not say that they were His actual body and blood. But, a Catholic might object and say that Jesus clearly said, "This is My blood..." and "This is my body..." This is true, but Jesus frequently spoke in spiritual terms: "I am the bread of life," (John 6:48); "I am the resurrection and the life," (John 11:25); "I am the true vine," (John 15:1), etc. Jesus often spoke in figurative terms and in the context of Jesus telling His disciples that they must eat His body and blood, He clearly says He was speaking in spiritual terms, "...the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life," (John 6:63). After Jesus said, "This is my blood," (Matt. 26:28), He said, "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Fathers kingdom," (Matt. 26:29). Why would Jesus speak figuratively of His blood as "the fruit of the vine" if it was His literal blood? We can clearly see that Jesus was speaking figuratively. This argument is taken from Carm.org and the source is listed below. Sources: http://carm.org... http://carm.org... http://www.biblegateway.com... That is my case and I look forward to my opponent’s response!