Transubstantiation

I will now revert back to my opening statement, and defend it against Con's rebuttal in round 3.1) As I mentioned in my opening statement, at best, my opponent can only appeal to the accidents of scripture, and have no more certainty of the substance of scripture, than one could have of something being wine or blood simply by looking at it.Therefore, while both my opponent and I believe the bible to be true, it is the non-Catholic position that is consistent with an approach to appeal to what is written, since no distinction or separation of accidents and substance is presupposed. For the sake of the readers who would like to see some interaction with the materials raised by my opponent, I will entertain such appeals, but nevertheless call my opponent to consistency with substance theory that he holds to.Con is correct here. I (and all humans for that matter), being someone who senses through taste, touch, sight, hearing, and smell can have no more knowledge whether or not something's substance matches its accidents than basic guesswork. However, I can understand and comprehend God's word which, as Con has stipulated, is true as a result of Divine intervention. Thus, we are able to show that we can trust the words of Jesus, the words of the Bible, to match the substance of the words. Not only that, but substance in words is much different than substance in something like bread or wine.2) Firstly, the parameters of transubstantiation are not specified in this passage of scripture. There is no reference to accidents/appearance vs substance. Do the words substance and accidents appear in this passage? No.But the words that do appear in this passage state that those who eat and drink without discerning Jesus' body and blood are committing a sin. "For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves." (1 Corinthians 11:29) Secondly, since transubstantiation holds to the termination of bread and wine’s existence following the words of consecration, there would be no “bread” to eat, only flesh, yet the passage in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 speaks of eating bread.Con is confused here. Although Paul uses the word bread in this passage, he then calls it the body. Paul isn't contradicting himself here, he's stating that it is bread and wine, and after Jesus consecrates it, it becomes "his body" and "the blood of the new covenant."3) Interestingly, the verb attached to “body” is recognizing, while the verb attached to bread is eating. If my opponent truly wishes to be literal about this, he will concede that transubstantiation is not spoken of here, since transubstantiation teaches that there is no more bread left to eat. The exact quote here is "For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves." (1 Corinthians 11:29) The verb attached to body of Christ is eating. 4) I believe my opponent, Pro intended to say 1 Corinthians 10:16. Under the transubstantiation position, there is no fellowship. Because the bread that is broken is NOT the fellowship or communion. The bread is nothing because it no longer exists.Con is correct here, I meant to quote 1 Corinthians 10:16. However, Con's argument does not make sense. Con argues that one cannot have fellowship in, as this verse states, "the blood of Christ" and "the body of Christ." This is exactly what he calls us to do in Gospel. "And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19) 5) That negates the function and use of metaphorical devices. For example, for someone to say: The boy was a ravenous wolf at the picnic does not mean that he was a literal wolf, but uses the term for effect, just as is the case with the Lord referring to the emblems metaphorically by saying this {bread} is my body].Of course people speak metaphorically. I do it all the time. The difference is that Jesus goes far and beyond to make it clear what he means by the statement that the bread "is his body," and the wine "is his blood," by stating it in five different ways in John 6:51-56. Jn 6:51 "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."Jn 6:53 "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you."Jn 6:54 "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life."Jn 6:55 "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."Jn 6:56 "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.6) Again what is “this” referring to? It can’t be flesh because the consecration hadn’t been completed yet. It must be bread, because change had yet occurred. Yet what happens when the bread is destroyed? If would render the flesh as being equal to “nothing” since up to the completion of the words of consecration the bread is destroyed, i.e. the bread (which is nothing) is my body.Excuse me, but I am unable to give a rebuttal to this topic. I have run out of time and it is midnight. Next rebuttal, I'll make sure to include a rebuttal to this very point.7) Which blood was shed? Jesus’ pre-resurrection carnal blood or post-resurrection glorified blood? The former cannot be present in multiple places and times. The latter was not shed on the cross for the forgiveness of sins.Jesus says that this wine becomes "the blood of the new covenant." Does this answer your question, Con?8) Pro then gave a syllogism, of which I only accept the first premise. The second premise has not been established and the conclusion therefore does not follow.As I have shown, Jesus clearly intended to tell us that the bread and wine become his body and blood, as seen in both the Gospels and Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. I await Con's next argument.