Let's take a look at Roman Catholic theology . and what the RCC declares is Apostolic Truth. I
Ireanaeus writing around 180 believed happened during Communion:
"For as the bread, which is produced from thee earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity." (Against Heresies, 4:18:5)
Theodoret, 400s:
"For even after the consecration the mystic symbols [of the eucharist] are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before." - Theodoret (Dialogues, 2)
What we see is actually Lutheran like Theology, namely that the bread "takes up" the body of Christ, it still remains bread, kinda like a sponge taking up water but remaining a sponge.
What about Tertullian ?
"Indeed, up to the present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made wherewith he washes his people; nor the oil with which he anoints them; nor that union of honey and milk wherewithal he gives them the nourishment of children; nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the 'beggarly elements' of the Creator." (Against Marcion, 1:14)
And...
"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, 'This is my body,' that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body.” (Against Marcion 4:40)
Tertullian believed what most Protestants believe believe, that the bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Jesu
If transubstantiation was taught by the apostles and passed down orally to bishops, are these guys rebelling against that tradition?Were they perhaps ignorant of this truth that Roman Catholicism says that Christians believed from the beginning?
Justin Martyr said of it in 150 AD: "Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him…Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind, whose name the high priests of your nation and your teachers have caused to be profaned and blasphemed over all the earth.” (Dialogue with Trypho Ch 117) And Augustine:
It may be also understood in this way: 'The poor ye will have always with you, but me ye will not have always.' The good may take it also as addressed to themselves, but not so as to be any source of anxiety; for He was speaking of His bodily presence. For in respect of His majesty, His providence, His ineffable and invisible grace, His own words are fulfilled, 'Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world.' But in respect of the flesh He assumed as the Word, in respect of that which He was as the son of the Virgin, of that wherein He was seized by the Jews, nailed to the tree, let down from the cross, enveloped in a shroud, laid in the sepulchre, and manifested in His resurrection, 'ye will not have Him always.' And why? Because in respect of His bodily presence He associated for forty days with His disciples, and then, having brought them forth for the purpose of beholding and not of following Him, He ascended into heaven and is no longer here. He is there, indeed, sitting at the right hand of the Father; and He is here also, having never withdrawn the presence of His glory. In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, 'Me ye will not have always.' In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes." (Augustine, Lectures on the Gospel of John, 50:13)
There was no doctrine of transubstantiation until 1215..Before that catholics were free to believe as they chose on this matter
Wag when reading scripture it is important to read it in context.. time, place, audience, situation ,and surrounding verses..
The Catholic church cherry picked scripture out of context to justify their doctrine, they did not develop the doctrine from scripture
Yet nothing else was ever taught. The ONLY ones who ever believed that John Chapter 6 was a metaphor were the heretical gnostics.
Truth be told, Protestantism has embraced a great deal of the gnostic heresies which is not surprising when one considers that many Protestants proudly embrace a synthesis of Arianism and Nestorianism.
We are making progress, at least you admit that the referenced test was actually contained within Scripture, you just disagree with the context and meaning. Won't be long until we have you doing push-ups every time Notre Dame scores a touchdown.