Transubstantiation

Wow what fun! Thank you for accepting the debate and providing a reasoned response! One issue: the testimony of early Church Fathers is relevant to the topic, but not to the debate itself, as I stated, "The debate assumes that the New Testament text in Greek is enough to establish or disestablish this doctrine, irregardless of the opinions of any Church or the consensus of Church Fathers." Nonetheless, I found the quotes provided fascinating and helpful, and feel free to quote from them in the future --- however, keep in mind that emphasis on the Biblical text itself is what the debate is about. For our reader's sake, a definition of transubstatiation: "By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation." (Council of Trent) If I understand the Pro's rebuttle, it can be summarized as follows: 1. "eat" (trogon) is not the language of metaphor. 2. 1 Corinthians 10:16, 11:27-29 supports literal interpretation. 3. "remembrace" (anamnesis) does not rule out literal interpretation. 4. In the comments, the Pro brought up that "estin" can mean "is really" or "is figuratively", but the "usual meaning of estin is the former". (I apologize if bringing up a comment is bad form, but it is relevant because this is something I was going to address and we can save some time if I address it sooner than later). Refutation of these points: 1. Jesus uses the Greek term "trogo" (G5176) to translate the Hebrew word "'akal" (H398) when he quotes Psalm 41:9 in John 13:18. This means Jesus understood the word "'akal" to be synonymous with "trogo" (though not exclusively). "'Akal" is used metaphorically in Isaiah 9:12, Isiah 10:17 and Isaiah 24:6 (among other places, potentially). Therefore, while I am unable to find a metaphorical usage of "trogo" in the NT, Jesus clearly had the Hebrew word "'akal" in mind when saying "trogo", and since "'akal" can be metaphorical, there is no basis for saying it is not the language of metaphor. This does not mean that it is metaphorical, but to say "trogon" is absolutely not the language of metaphor is to say that "'akal" is not the language of metaphor, which is clearly not the case. Also, Matthew 26:26 uses the term "esthio" (G5315) which is often used metaphorically, as in James 5:3 which reads: "Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat (esthio) your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days." We must also conclude that "esthio" and "trogon" are synonymous, for it is not conceivable that a Holy-Spirit inspired author of scripture would alter the meaning of Christ's words, though he may give a different phrasing or translation (I believe Jesus spoke Aramaic, but that is besides the point), provided the original meaning is retained. Esthio, therefore, is conclusively synonymous with trogon in this context. 2. St. Paul nowhere speaks of a thing, once being bread and wine, leaving its former state and changing into the body and blood of Christ. At best, the verse is either figurative or it is saying that the eucharist is presently the body and blood of Christ --- which is untenable, considering that the bread and wine did not derive organically from the physical body of Jesus, nor was the physical body of Jesus present on earth while St. Paul wrote these remarks. You may argue for the presence of Christ, spiritually, in the eucharist on the basis of these verses, but you are not able to argue for a change of state of literal bread and wine into literal human flesh and blood. At least, not with these verses. Perhaps you have some others? 3. I agree that remembrance does not rule out a literal interpretation, but what is the significance of the word "remembrance?" To remember something is to call to mind something that IS NO LONGER PRESENT (not yelling, just ignorant of how to use italics). If Christ's literal flesh and blood are present, you do not need to remember them. You can look at them. They're right there! Therefore, the Pro must show the significance of remembrance when we are speaking of a present fact before our eyes (which transubstatiation must imply for the eucharist). The fact of remembrance IMPLIES that the presence IS NOT PRESENTLY THERE and must be RECOLLECTED MENTALLY. This is crucial, for it demonstrates the soundness of Reformed doctrine on this issue. The bread is there to aid in remembering the body of Christ which was wounded for our transgressions and the wine is there to aid in remembering the blood of Christ which was shed as a covering for our sins. 4. The Pro agrees that "esti" (G2076) can be used figuratively. If it has two usages, we must have something which decisively pushes the matter into one or the other. Point 3, I think, is the strongest in arguing for symbolism. Point 1-2 are insufficient to demonstrate transubstantiation as defined in Roman Catholicism. Thank you for your efforts and I look forward to your response, Pro.