Since His body was holding the bread and holding the cup, it would seem obvious that bread and cup were symbols of the Body and blood. This is of course my personal view and the view of most Protestant faith.
Even the Roman Catholic faith seems have less than a simple Is means Is view.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm
1333
At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord’s command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: “He took bread. . . .” “He took the cup filled with wine. . . .” The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,154 fruit of the “work of human hands,” but above all as “fruit of the earth” and “of the vine” - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who “brought out bread and wine,” a prefiguring of her own offering.155
“The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ”
“Is” and “in a way” are not equals it would seem that the result is a symbol or representation at least to any identifiable means to mortals.
As with all discussions of the Bible it is my hope to have done well and not to have misapplied teachings therein.
Do you understand transubstantiation?
Christ turned the bread into his Body. He turned the wine into his Blood by transferring the substance of his Body and Blood but not the appearance of his Body and Blood.
tran=transfer
substantiation=substance.
Are you saying that Christ does not have power and authority over the Bread and the wine?
You do remember that he is Jesus Christ, God with us, don’t you?