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

I would like to point out before I begin this round, that my opponent’s contentions are all one contention. He offers three different set of verses to show that transubstantiation occurs, however for the sake of time and space I will attack all of his evidence as one contention. My opponent may divide them into three contentions if he would like, but I will attack them as one. I will address a few things my opponent has stated, though. Contention 1: The Last Supper My opponent is correct to point out that Jesus seems to be referring to his crucifixion which is about to take place. After all, it was Christ's death which brought about the forgiveness of sins mentioned in verse 28. My opponent affirms my position and then goes on to contradict himself. He has agreed with me that the wine and bread were in reference to the crucifixion that was about to take place. Because of this, I should win this debate. Yes, I am saying that we should believe what the bible says. If there is no compelling other reason why Christ would have said ‘this is my body', then we have to assume he meant exactly what he said. (Luke 14:26) - "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. " According to my opponent’s logic as presented in round two, if Christ did not say that He is speaking figuratively then He’s not. Well Christ doesn’t say that He is speaking figuratively, so my opponent must believe this verse is telling us to hate our family. Contention 2: John 6 Firstly, I would like to point out that the ‘cannibalism' of the Eucharist as you have phrased it is far different from normal cannibalism. If we are to take the verses in question 100% literally then the Catholic Church encourages the consumption of flesh and blood. Don’t you claim that the food turns into actual blood and flesh? If this is true then this is cannibalism. As for the Old Testament law that Jews were not to eat flesh, the Old Testament passage was obviously intended to apply to normal flesh with normal blood. Something as unique and miraculous as bread which is God would not fall under this ban. Why is this exempt from the rule? Where are you getting this information from and from where does it say in scripture that if something that is considered sinful happens miraculously that it makes it ok? My opponent is now forming non-Biblical theology to support his side. Finally, the fact that Jews were forbidden to have anything to do with eating blood goes to show that Christ was speaking literally. John 6:66 says, "From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. " I ask the question ‘why did his followers suddenly turn back? ' Just because some followers turned away does not change the sense in which Jesus was speaking. Just because people misunderstood what Jesus was communicating does not change what Jesus has actually stated. Contention 3: 1 Corinthians 11 My opponent did not really address this point for the sake of time, but I would appreciate it if he would devote at least a few sentences to it. No, I did not address this contention, because it is specifically in reference to the Last Supper so it would be irrelevant to attack this because it would be making the same attack twice. Which is why I said I would cross-apply my arguments to this contention. Now I’m going to defend my case. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contention 1: Jesus speaks of the Spirit I believe that there are four main points being made and I will break it up as such P1: To the contrary, all three of my Contentions point to the fact that Scripture does preach in numerous places to the fact that it is Christ's real body and blood. "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. " (John 6:55) No, I was saying that nowhere is the transformation of the bread and wine into flesh and blood is it described. My opponent has misunderstood the claim I was making. P2: The third was obviously meant to be figurative, "I am the true vine," (John 15:1), since he didn't start sprouting branches or provide a supernatural way for it to happen. Thus, we can see that Christ does not always speak figuratively in this manner, and that when he does it is quite obvious. Well how do we know that he didn’t sprout branches? Maybe he appeared normal but he was being transformed into a vine. My opponent does not take this verse literally for the same reasons that I have not taken the Lord’s Supper literally. There is no indication of the process occurring in scripture, just like there is no process that describes Jesus becoming a vine. Also, because we can see that Christ speaks figuratively in this case, He could have been speaking in a figurative way during the Last Supper as well. P3: Let us take a look at this passage again, ". .. the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life," (John 6:63). You will notice first of all that the words are ‘spirit' not ‘spiritual'. Other translations read "…they are full of the Spirit[e] and life". Christ is certainly not trying to say that his very strong and literal language was merely figurative in this verse. If you were to take this particular verse literally then Christ is saying that he speaks of the spirit, not of the flesh. So Christ is speaking figuratively about speaking figuratively? My opponent’s logic does not follow suit in this example. P4: Not drink ‘wine' again: Since Christ's blood in the Eucharist is still to all appearances wine, it isn't too strange for him to still refer to it as wine. Well it also would not be strange to call it wine because it really is wine. After He has finished His wine, Christ calls it wine once again. This is another indication that He is referring to the crucifixion and not to the dinner. This debate will ultimately boil down to whether or not Christ was speaking literally during the Last Supper and such. I say that he was referring to His crucifixion that was about to occur, and my opponent has agreed with me to that fact. Therefore I say that I should win this debate.