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

Contention 1: The Last Spper Looking back, I realize that I did not explain my point well at all. According to Catholic teaching, every time the Eucharist is offered, through a miracle of God who transcends time, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross at Calvary is also being offered. Just like the Trinity, this is a mystery which the human mind cannot fully grasp, but it makes sense since God is able to step back from time and perceive every Eucharist as being offered simultaneously as it were with the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. This view is the only way to make sense of Christ’s words at the Last Supper. My opponent has gone on to tell us about the teachings of Catholicism which don’t seem to be found anywhere in the Bible. He then says that we can’t understand the Trinity, and that we can never understand the Eucharist. Well I say why would you believe something that is not found in scripture and you don’t even understand? I believe and understand the nature of the Trinity, but I also believe in gravity because it can be explained and demonstrated. However, the process of this miracle is not found in the Bible or in the scientific spectrum. There are more than one ways to make sense of Christ word’s at the Last Supper. (Luke 14:26) - "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. " According to my opponent’s logic as presented in round two, if Christ did not say that He is speaking figuratively then He’s not. Well Christ doesn’t say that He is speaking figuratively, so my opponent must believe this verse is telling us to hate our family. The fact that Christ said ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ elsewhere in the gospels tells us that he was speaking figuratively here. The fact that the Old Testament says not to consume flesh tells us that he was speaking figuratively here. Contention 2: John 6 Sure, I suppose that you can call it cannibalism under the appearances of bread and wine. My opponent has agreed to the claim that consumption of the Eucharist is cannibalism. To the contrary, there are other Biblical examples of this. …These ‘graven images’ were ok since they were being used directly for God. Just so, the blood of Christ under the appearance of wine is ok to drink since it not only is used for God but IS God. My opponent uses an example that does not pertain to the original question. He has admitted that if the wine and bread is turned into flesh and blood then it is cannibalism. However, he gives us no Biblical evidence why cannibalism would be acceptable. My opponent is now forming non-Biblical theology to support his side. It is impossible that Jesus Christ the Son of God could make such a simple yet serious mistake. Who says it’s a mistake? It is my opponent’s opinion that Jesus could have never said something in a way that would cause people to be misled. If you look at the life of Jesus, He constantly speaks in parables so that the Pharisees would not understand Him. Contention 3: 1 Corinthians:11 His third verse that my opponent quotes is in reference to the Last Supper, so we should examine the verses concerning the Last Supper. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contention 1: Jesus Speaks of the Spirit P1:Christ didn’t explain a lot of things in full while on earth. My opponent has agreed that the actual process of transubstantiation is not Biblically described. P2: I agree that if the Last Supper Statement were standing on its own, then it would be likely that it were figurative just like “I am the true vine” My opponent admits that Jesus us speaking figuratively in this case. The whole point my contention was making was that Jesus does speak in a figurative sense. Then my opponent goes on to talk about an entirely different qualification about Christ speaking literally or figuratively. He has changed his terms for acceptance of evidence for figurative literature. We can see that because we Christ speaks figuratively in this case, He could have been speaking in a figurative way during the Last Supper as well. P3: For the third point I questioned my opponent on his interpretation of a verse, because if we follow his interpretation, then Christ was speaking literally about speaking literally. I thought this was rather peculiar and my opponent did not respond to my original question. P4: When one takes John 6 and Paul into account, however, we see that Christ meant it when he said ‘this is the cup of my blood’. If the wine really is His blood, then it fits the verse since it is the very blood “which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”. Yes, however what was poured out to forgive sins, the wine or Jesus’ blood on the day of His crucifixion. Also, See my attack on your Third Contention for a reason why we shouldn’t debate this verse. Jesus refers to the contents as wine, then as His blood, then as wine again. This is a major indicator that the contents of the cup were in fact wine. This debate will ultimately boil down to whether or not Christ was speaking literally during the Last Supper and such. I say that he was referring to His crucifixion that was about to occur, and my opponent has agreed with me to that fact. Therefore I say that I should win this debate. My opponent has made several statements in this debate, which he has later retracted. He has also made statements that were illogical (such as saying that Jesus was referring specifically to the crucifixion and then saying the the wine was His literal blood). My opponent has admitted to many of claims throughout the course of this debate. I look forward to my opponent’s next round.