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

Again, I thank Christisking for his very thought-provoking response."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...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."But why would you not be able to receive them in the way that you receive Christ in Holy Communion if they actually change into flesh and blood? Why do the elements need to remain bread and wine? It seems like you're having to explain why you can consume human flesh and blood when there are Biblical commands against it. It just seems a little convenient to me to claim that they change into real body and blood when they still feel and taste like bread and wine."What does it mean to remember something? It means not to forget it."Exactly. We take Communion to constantly remember Christ's sacrifice on the cross. The bread and wine do not need to change for this to happen.Contention 1: The Last Supper"By changing bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood we are given a powerful way not to forget who our savior is."What I don't understand is why is this a powerful way not to forget? I have never forgotten and yet I believe the bread and wine stays bread and wine. In fact, you won't even know they change unless a Catholic teaches you about Transubstantiation. How is it any more powerful than simply consuming literal bread and wine?"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."You seem to be contradicting yourself here, but I'm assuming when you say "did" you mean "didn't"? The thing is, though, that Christ did explain what He meant by "I am the vine" (that we, as the branches, must remain connected to the vine in order to prosper and flourish).Contention 2: John 6"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."I did address them. In the way that we shouldn't take Christ literally with His other metaphorical statements (e.g. "I am the vine," "I am the door"), there is no reason to take Him literally here. I have no problem with Jesus foreshadowing the Last Supper here, but just because He's foreshadowing it doesn't mean the bread and wine literally become His body and blood."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."I understand where you're coming from here. However, what was the reason for forbidding the consumption of blood? "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement" (Lev. 17:11). We are not allowed to consume blood because it is the life of flesh, and it has been given on the altar to make atonement for your souls. Blood was the life of Jesus while He was here on Earth, and He gave it on the cross for the atonement of our sins. By consuming His blood in the Communion, this would have violated the law's original purpose."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."Just because they misunderstood Christ doesn't mean that they understood what He was really saying. And just because Jesus didn't bother to correct them doesn't mean anything either, because Jesus never explained His parables to the people, saying instead that they have not been given to understand the mysteries of the kingdom of God (Mark 4:11).Contention 3: 1 Corinthians 11If we read the passage in context, we see that taking the Communion in an unworthy manner means taking it with unconfessed sin in their life, and for not taking it seriously (they wouldn't eat beforehand, and treated it like an actual supper; they didn't take it seriously).I look forward to our next round.