Let’s look at the Greek
Estin- is 3rd person singular active indicative
Mat 3:17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."
Mat 3:17 kai idou fwnh ek twn ouranwn legousa outov estin o uiov mou o agaphtov en w eudokhsa
So, is Jesus the Son of God, or does he represent the son of God?
Mat 17:5 While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"
Mat 17:5 eti autou lalountov idou nefelh fwteinh epeskiasen autouv kai idou fwnh ek thv nefelhv legousa outov estin o uiov mou o agaphtov en w eudokhsa tsbautou akouete aautou
Again, is Jesus the Son of God, or does he represent the son of God?
Mat 26:26 And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." Mat 26:26 esqiontwn de autwn labwn o ihsouv ton arton kai euxaristhsav euloghsav eklasen kai douv edidou toiv maqhtaiv tsbkai eipen labete fagete touto estin to swma mou
This is the same estin. By what logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? There is no logic to support your tradition.
Mat 26:28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. Mat 26:28 touto gar estin to aima mou to thv kainhv diaqhkhv to peri pollwn ekxunnomenon ekxunomenon eiv afesin amartiwn
This is the same estin. By what logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? There is no logic to support your tradition.
Mar 14:22 And while they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it; and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is My body." Mar 14:22 kai esqiontwn autwn labwn o ihsouv arton euloghsav eklasen kai edwken autoiv kai eipen labete fagete touto estin to swma mou
This is the same estin. By what logic do you change the estin here to mean ‘represents’? There is no logic to support your tradition.
With all due respect, nonsense. Eimi is simply the Greek verb of being. Estin is merely the third person singular form (”he/she/it is”), but eimi is first person singular (”I am”) of the same root (”see “I am the door” in John 10:7). It has no special Aristotelian meaning regarding the bread and wine, but any additional meaning must be found by inspecting the entire context of the term’s usage, and in this case no meaning even approximating transubstantiation can reasonably be extracted from the text.
I apologize for being tardy in responding to this question.
In one response I explained the two kinds of literal interpretation, one being literal language and the other which is figurative-literal language. In this example you have equated the two. the logic here is not on the verb "to be"; rather, it is on the predicate. In the first case, The God is using literal language, of the Son of His Love, not a symbol of the Son. Jesus not only exists, but His relationship to The God exists, for He is the only Begotten-in-the-flesh-by-the-Holy-Ghost-placed-in-the-womb-of-Mary and having the title "Son." His relationship to the God is more than conceptual. It is also carnal, as was/is Adam's initially.
On the other hand, Jesus in talking of the bread-loaf is using figurative-literal language. The bread-loaf is a symbol, physical characteristics of which can figuratively illustrate the spiritual relationship of Jesus to those who have a spiritual identity, having been spiritually born through the action of the generative seed, which is Christ's Words--His regenerated believer-disciples.
Again, in speaking of the connection between Himself and the unleavened fluid pressed from a grape-cluster, He is using figurative-literal language, in which the wine has physical characteristics which can be used symbolically to point to the spiritual relationship existing between Jesus and His regenerated disciple-followers.
To confuse these two modes of language usage, as you apparently have done, is to introduce a logical flaw fatal to your doctrine, for which transubstantiation was devised to keep your construct alive.
Jesus, of course expected this child-like concreteness, and dealt with it summarily, on one occasion recorded in John 6:58-64, esp. v. 63.
Actually, in this passage Jesus reversed the semantics, making His flesh and his blood the physical symbols of spiritual realities.
First, Jesus asserts the claims:
Coming to him, a spiritual response, eases ones spiritual hunger, spiritually feeds. (From the temptation in the wilderness that the (hu)man lives physically by bread and spiritually by imbibing the words from The God.)
Persistently committing ones trust in Him, a continual spiritual process, assuages ones spiritual thirst. (From Jn. 4:14 we learn that Jesus gives spiritual water, and from Eph. 5:26 we learn that spiritual water is the Spoken Word, and it cleanses as well. So does His Blood, as in 1 Jn. 1:7) Thus, coming to Him is food, and believing on Him is drink.
But then in John 6:53 He makes His physical flesh a spiritual symbol for the very real spiritual food, the sayings of The God; and He makes His physical Blood a spiritual symbol for both satiating spiritual thirst, and cleansing one of sin and its inner stains.
Thus, in these sayings, He communicates to Old Testament believers of their need for an understanding of abstract ideas. This begins to accustom them, in their spiritual growth, of being able to accept His ordinance of the Remembrance Supper, where in the physical dimension, the leavened bread-loaf is a symbol of the spiritual reality of His heavenly-resident body, which is also to be a symbol of His spiritual Church; and His physical Blood, from which all life principle proceeds, is a symbol for the water of the sayings of The God that assuage spiritual thirst, cleanse of sin, and produce spiritual life.
Trouble is, that the natural (psuchikos) (hu)man cannot discern the deep things of the Spirit of The God, and has to make do with the artifice of transubstantiation to rationalize participation in a spiritual exercise from which one cannot benefit until The God's righteous demands of coming to His Anointed One (when drawn by The God and The Holy Ghost), and continuously persistently trusting in Him Son, Who is The Personification of His Written and Spoken Word, the Logos.
Is this too much? What part of the logic does a natural man not understand? Spiritual babes must also be taught of this, eh?