The bread and wine are symbolic of His flesh and blood. There isn't any biblical support for any other interpretation.
23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
This is crazy fundamentalism. Not only is there Biblical support for this belief, then was the tradition of the early Church. Reaffirmed by the early Church fathers, and the saints and martyrs.
Again and Again Jesus confirmed this view.
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: “‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (John 6:51–52).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56).
Christ made No effort to correct any misunderstanding or doubt about this,
Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct “misunderstandings,” for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?
On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.
In John 6:60 we read: “Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’” These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).
But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) “After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66).
This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.
But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have “to eat my flesh and drink my blood.” John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. This is why there is Catholicism and 35,000 errant brands of Christianity from Jim Jones to David Koresh and Billy Graham to Rev. Wright. Of course with varying degrees of error.
**The bread and wine are symbolic **
Sorry, but it seems you do not understand transubstantiation.
trans — transfer
substantiation — substance
The substance of bread and wine are changed into the substances of Christ’s Body and Blood, by Christ’s words, repeated by the priest.....one of the ordination movements is the Bishop blessing their hands to do this.
Why don’t you believe the words of Christ? “This is my Body.” “This is my Blood.”?
Are you then, an unbeliever of Christ?
You claim there is no support for the Real Presence, and then post scripture in which Christ says "This is MY BODY."
And anyway, I thought to Protestants The Holy Spirit guides personal, private interpretation of scripture, no authority needed. So via the Protestant mindset, there is support for whatever interpretation I or anybody else decides there is.
How can someone be "guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord" if it's only a symbol?
BTW, what was Jesus doing running around implementing more *symbols* anyway? The Old Covenant was full of *symbols*; the New Covenant was promised to be better.
Finally, please note that God was especially present in the Temple in Jerusalem, according to Jewish belief. Are you telling me that Jesus took away the Temple, and replaced it with a mere symbol?
You ought to expect better from God. He loves you more than that.