The Communion bread and wine becomes Christ's literal body and blood

"Most Protestant Christians on the other hand believe that what Christ did was merely give men a symbol of His body and blood and sacrifice on the cross. "This is correct. Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, which is similar to transubstantiation, but I take the "memorial view," which is that the bread and wine used by Christ at the Last Supper was merely symbolic of His sacrifice on the cross. Jesus was doing more than dying on the cross, He was saving His people from their sins. Christ's death was more than death, His blood symbolized the New Covenant between God and man, to where we can approach God directly and seek forgiveness from our sins, from the shedding of His blood on the cross. As such, the "bread and wine" used in Communion is symbolic of Christ's body and blood. I don't see anywhere in Scripture that God instituted a change that wasn't outwardly recognizable. For instance, when Christ saves a person, they become changed. They are no longer subject to their sins. There is a noticeable change in that person's life that they are now subject to God, and not subject to sin. Also, when Jesus changed the water into wine, it wasn't merely an "essence" change. He literally changed it to wine, so much that the headwaiter praised the bridegroom for keeping the best wine until last (John 2:1-10). I don't see why Jesus would take exception here, especially when there is no indication the essences changed at all. "Since both sides agree on the legitimacy of the bible as God's word, both of us being Christians, I hope that we can both use strong Biblical arguments to support our points. "Agreed. Now for Christisking's contentions. Contention 1: The Last SupperChristisking pointed to Luke 22:19-20, but even in those verses we see Christ saying: "do this in remembrance of me. " Communion was instituted so that we may remember the Lord as often as we partake of it. Regarding Jesus speaking metaphorically, He did this often: "I am the vine" (John 15:5), "I am the door" (John 10:7, 9), etc. Jesus never indicated that He was speaking in metaphorical language. Should we also believe that Jesus was literally a door or literally a vine? Of course not. He was a man, and so logically we can infer that He was not a door or a vine. Jesus did not cut His flesh off or pour His blood into a chalice. If I were to hold up a piece of bread and say "this is my body," no one would take that literally. As such, there is no reason to take the Lord literally here. I would say it is more reasonable to assume He was speaking figuratively since there's no reason to believe otherwise. Contention 2: John 6"Since nowhere else in the bible does Christ condone cannibalism. .. "I think this is the key here. Consumption of blood was forbidden under Jewish law (Leviticus 7:26-27), as was cannibalism (Genesis 9:1-6; John 6:52). Jesus would not have condoned eating His own flesh and blood, because under Jewish law absolutely no blood was allowed to be consumed (and no exceptions were made), and the Jews were allowed to eat certain types of meat, humans not being among them. Contention 3: 1 Corinthians 11Actually, I do see that there is a suggestion from Paul that he is speaking symbolically. He says whoever "eats the bread or drinks the cup. .. will be guilty concerning the body and blood. .. " He doesn't say whoever eats the body and drinks the blood in an unworthy manner. He says whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup. There is no reason to suspect he is speaking literally. He says if we take it in an unworthy manner, we will be guilty concerning the body and blood of Christ. This is because of what the bread and wine represent, the body and blood. I look forward to Christisking's response.