But exactly what Jesus commanded us to do is precisely the question! Did Jesus really command us to have a memorial meal with food and drink that would be an insult to any human, and that not one of us would serve in memory of anyone we loved? Or, did He command us to have a memorial meal with a much finer food and drink, the most perfect and exalted in all creation?
A memorial meal serving food and drink not fitting for the lowest human, or a memorial meal serving food and drink truly fitting for God? Which makes more sense? Protestant theology by and large says the former. Catholic and Orthodox theology unequivocally says the latter. Objectively, the latter just makes so much more sense than the former. The latter is so much more fitting to honor and memorialize God.
Hi,
Matthew 26:26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
26:27
Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.
26:28
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
26:29
I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Mark 14: 22-2614:22
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.”
14:23
Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it.
14:24
**“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. **14:25
“I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.”
14:26
When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
Luke 22: 14-2022:14
When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table.
22:15
And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.
22:16
For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”
22:17
After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you.
22:18
For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
22:19
**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.” **22:20
**In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. **
Those passages above do not talk about eating His flesh at all. The wording is different from John and that is probably because John’s passages arent talking about the Last Supper. Jesus was giving a glimpse of what is about to happen and He wants to make sure that they remember it always. I do not see any reference to Him giving the power to the Apostles to change the bread and wine. Honestly, I dont get where the idea of transubstantiation comes from
I know the word is not in the bible but the idea of the power being handed down isnt either.
Of course we know about John 6: 41-71. Interesting that John is not speaking about the passover meal or Last supper at all. If you look at verse 63-- 6:63
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.
Every catholic I have read here says that Jesus didnt give an explanation but He did in verse 63 and the disciples got it so Jesus didnt need to explain it any further.
Jesus spoke of bread and wine because us humans can understand that food and drink sustain physical life as Jesus mentioned in earlier passages. So, when He was making the comparison He was pretty much tellinh His disciples they need to believe in Him because He gives us eternal life.
Sorry that was a long post.
The process of pasteurization was not used on grape juice in this country until Prohibition, a process put on the market by the Welch family. Up until that time all Methodist Churches celebrated the Lord’s Supper with wine. That all went with the marketing of the Welch family product. It is not odd that a major bishop at the time of this ruling was a chap named Welch. Bishop Welch…same family…same market. Something underhanded has to be done to wine to prevent it from going it’s God given course 
!
Anyway, they could say anything they wanted and exaggerated.We humans are good at that
