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

He has argued that unless something is found in sacred Scripture we cannot believe it. However, this is a major disagreement between Catholics and Protestants and should have been brought up earlier in the debate if he intended it to be a deciding factor. My opponent has brought this up in the last round which I remind the audience is abuse. I will say this though, if it is not in the Bible, there is no reason to believe it. I’m not taking about science or mathematics, but in the realm of theology. The Catholic Church is guilty of adding non-Biblical beliefs to their theology. Some of it contradicts scripture (Eucharist) and some doesn’t (purgatory). The fact is that there is no indication as to why we should believe in purgatory because it is not found in the perfect Word of God, while humans are flawed and will be mistaken in their theology that is non-Biblical. Contention 1: The Last Supper My opponent has said in the previous round that we can’t really understand the Eucharist like the Trinity. Now, he has changed his mind to say that only Non-Christians can’t comprehend these things. My opponent is altering his arguments to fit his need. My opponent is putting words in my mouth. Look at round two audience, because my opponent says that Christ doesn’t say He is speaing figuratively, so there’s no way that he is. Sure. But this does not prove any of my opponent’s points since it is a unique cannibalism which would not have fallen under the restrictions intended by the authors of Jewish Law (especially God). There is no verse in scripture that tells us cannibalism in this sense is acceptable. My opponent’s argument’s are non-Biblical. Since the Bible was the standard of fact to which this debate has been held, I should win. Contention 3: 1 Corinthians 11 He is specifically emphasizing that the Eucharistic bread and wine are really flesh and blood. This point is in reference to Jesus’s words. That’s all it is. Paul never describes a process where regular bread and wine transform into bodily fluids and flesh. The teaching is still non-Biblical. Paul is using the same metaphor that Christ uses. Contention 1: Jesus Speaks of the Spirit P1:Yes, but transubstantiation is the only way to explain John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11 Saying that it is the only way to explain those verses is illogical because you cannot now all things. It is the Law of Identity that tells us this. My opponent is being illogical therefore he should lose. I have also offered a counter interpretation and my opponent has not shown why this interpretation is invalid. He has also agreed that the process of food becoming flesh and blood is never described in the Bible. Therefore this is a non-Biblical teaching. P2: My opponent’s argument here does not stand unless he can first refute my contentions 2 and 3 which argue that there is stronger Biblical evidence for Christ having spoken literally at the Last Supper. I have asked my opponent for what how he would determine if someone was speaking figuratively or not. He has changed his criteria halfway through the debate, leaving me unable to respond. We can see that because Christ speaks figuratively in other situations, He could have been speaking literally in this situation as well. P3: My opponent must have made a mistake, because in the previous round he said ‘speaking figuratively about speaking figuratively’ which was the question I tried to answer. Yes, Christ is saying literally that he meant what he said in the verse in question. My opponent doesn’t seem to understand my argument what so ever. P4: The final reference to wine was not referring to the cup of blood in his hands, but to actual wine he would be drinking in the future. No, He was referencing His cup, if Catholics interpreted the entire verse as they do about the transubstantiation, then the bread would become flesh and then bread again. This is not the teaching as Catholics understand it. I have agreed that there was a reference to the crucifixion, but the verse also says that the bread is flesh and wine is blood. This is a common arguments from Catholics in the sense that they give several examples where there needs to be sacrifice. In the Bible, Jesus is the only sacrifice needed for salvation and calling upon an additional sacrifice of wine and bread (as Catholics understand it) is a heresy. I believe that I have won this round because I have given Biblical arguments showing that Christ was not speaking figuratively at the Last Supper while my opponent’s few biblical arguments do not contradict Catholic teaching as my opponent claims. Like what? My opponent has shown no Biblical evidence to the process of transubstantiation, had said that the wine was in reference to the crucifixion, and has made several logical fallacies. There is absolutely no reason for my opponent to win this debate. If you read through this debate, you will see that I have add better arguments, my opponent has altered his arguments to fit his situation, and my opponent has abandoned our standard of truth to form non-Biblical arguments.