Which, as already shown, is a blatant fallacy. The absence of which is more proof that Rome did not write or change Scripture. Imagine how easy it would have been to provide just one note of a priest offering the Eucharist as a sacrifice for sin, to be consumed to obtain spiritual life.
"Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine," (1 Timothy 4:13) "and to your priestly duty of feeding the flock with that sacrificial bread, the body and blood of the Lord, whereby sins may be expiated and the spiritual life obtained."
Instead of anything even resembling the first part of that addition, in the life of the church pastors are never even shown or charged with feeding the flock by officiating at the Lord's supper, nor are they ever called "priests," let alone that this was a sacrifice for sins. Nor is there any manifestation of the Lord's supper being the supreme exalted sacrament (as in Catholicism) by which the flock obtains spiritual life in them. At best the Lord's supper is only described as breaking of bread (Acts), and a "feast of charity," (Jude) while in the solitary epistle in which there is some actual description besides those, it is not the nature of the elements nor any pastoral function that is the focus, nor consuming such in order to obtain spiritual life, but the nature of the body of Christ as the church, showing the Lord's death for the body by unselfishly, lovingly taking part in that communal feast of charity (versus me and my wafer-god).
And rather than feeding the flock via the Lord's supper, the constant charge to pastors is that of preaching the word of God, which is what is said to "nourish" souls, (1Tim. 4:6) and build them up, (Acts 20:32) feeding the flock thereby.
None of which should need to be repeated, except that RCs here continue to provocatively post such bombast that Paul in his epistles (plural no less) taught that ‘the Real Presence’ was in the Holy Eucharist (as per Catholic understanding).
I believe it is accurate to say most Christians today, including non-Catholics, believe in the Real Presence.
Nonsense. Close to half of Catholics do not believe in the Catholic RP according to some surveys. If you want to define the RP contrary to that of Catholicism, then you may have a case, esp. since "Real Presence" appears to originally been an Anglican term (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/what-do-we-mean-by-the-real-presence), and is critically different then that of Catholicism.
When did you or your denomination decide against the Real Presence? Does it go back to Zwingli or is it a latter offshoot?
Rather, when did you or your denomination decide that "breaking of bread," and "fest of charity" the only manifest description of the Lord's supper in the life of the church was that of NT "priests" transubstantiating bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, and offering it as a sacrifice for sins as their primary active function, and to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual life, with this being the central supreme priestly sacrament of the church around which all else revolved?
Which is only one of many things not found in the life of the NT church. Truly the church of Rome was the original "invisible" church.
The Church doesn’t decide teaching on the basis of surveys.
The Real Presence couldn’t be more obvious in Holy Scripture, nor in the history of Christianity - up until the 16th century.
You disagree, and have your own opinion. That’s fine for you, I don’t put much credence in your authority; nothing personal.