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

I don't see why Jesus would take exception here, especially when there is no indication the essences changed at all. Actually, to the contrary there is a very good reason that Christ initiated transubstantiation. In conversion and at the wedding feast of Canna the original person or substance was lacking. Thus, the transformation needed to change the water into real wine for it to be of any use, and conversion needs to change the person outwardly for it to be genuine. On the other hand, in the Eucharist the outward appearances, far from having to change, actually need to remain the appearances of bread and wine. Christ wants to have a deep personal relationship with each of us, which is why he instituted the Eucharist. In my experience, there is nothing more personal or profound than receiving God into my very self. Had Christ changed the appearances of the bread and wine into real flesh and blood, then we would have been unable to receive them in the way that we receive Christ in Holy Communion. Now, I hope to show through my case that Christ did indeed institute this beautiful sacrament of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. Contention 1: The Last Supper Christisking 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. What does it mean to remember something? It means not to forget it. Christ is telling the apostles to do as he did so that they and all of their disciples will not forget about Christ and his death on the cross (which is what the Eucharist is, a sort of reenactment of Christ’s death on Calvary). This doesn’t change the fact that He said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood”. By changing bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood we are given a powerful way not to forget who our savior is. Regarding Jesus speaking metaphorically, He did this often: "I am the vine" (John 15:5), "I am the door" (John 10:7, 9), etc. I agree that this phrase alone, “This is my body” sounds similar to Christ’s other phrases like “I am the vine”. However, there is a huge difference. When Christ said “I am the vine” he did then go into detail to try and persuade people that he was, or give this new teaching a preview earlier on in his ministry. However, the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper was previewed in a dramatic way in John 6. In John 6, Christ not only tries to persuade his listeners that he will give them His genuine body and blood, but succeeds. Contention 2: John 6 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). I would like to point out that my opponent has not addressed Christ’s stunning words here, but merely said that it is impossible for us to believe them literally. However, there really is no serious barrier to accepting these words as literal. God had a purpose for every law he put on the Jewish people. They had to respect the Sabbath so they didn’t forget about God, honor their parents to keep strong families and not intermarry with other races so that God’s people could remain pure of paganism. However, God allowed exceptions to these rules if they did not violate the laws original purpose, especially if it was in circumstances including the worship of God Himself. Exodus 20:4 says ““You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. ” But then a few chapters later God commands in Exodus 25:18 “And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. ” God did not want the Israelites making statues which could become idols, but it was ok if they made ‘graven images’ when it was to worship God. Eating the Eucharist, since it still maintains the appearances of bread and wine, is so different from normal cannibalism or drinking of blood that it does not contradict this Jewish law. If there is no serious contradiction with Jewish law, then Christ must not have been joking when he said, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. ” The way he says this and the fact he says it multiple times shows that he is not speaking symbolically. We are assured of this when we see that many of the Jews stop following Christ because they could not accept a teaching which sounded identical to cannibalism to them. Contention 3: 1 Corinthians 11 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. To the contrary, it makes perfect sense for Paul to say ‘bread and cup’ the first time as opposed to ‘body and blood’. In this passage, Paul is chastising those who have not been taking Christ’s presence in the Eucharist seriously. Paul would thus want to refer to the Eucharist first by its appearances so that these doubters know what he is talking about, then tell them bluntly that they are now “guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord”. I anticipate KeytarHero’s next response with great curiosity and interest.