The Myth of Scriptural Literalism

[Jipsah]

Because we say so, and "we are right because we always say we are right" is the realm of "sola tradition" not "sola scriptura" -- I think you are barking up the wrong tree on that one.

The text shows us that it is not a sacrifice - it is a "memorial".

It makes no mention of "sacrifice", not did I. You kind of chucked that in pro gratis.

The text shows us that it does not pertain to the resurrection - but the death of Christ.

Bravo! I'm sure that's a brilliant answer to a question no one asked, at least in this thread.

Those who show disrespect for the MEMORIAL service - then show disrespect for the symbols of Christ's body and blood since it is a memorial instead of an actual sacrifice.

Does the Scripture itself enter into what you're on about here at all?

Details pointed out before... details ignored. again? Each time the case you attempt to make depends on ignoring details in the text.

You seem to be responding to what you wish I'd said rather than anything I've actually said. Sinced that essentially leaves you arguing with yourself, I'm fairly sure you'll win.

So here's my actual position on the Eucharist:

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

The words in red are those of our Lord, God Incarnate, Who commanded the universe to be, and it was. I take His words literally. If He said it's His Blood and Body, them it's His Blood and Body. Exegetical gymnastics be blowed, "clever" sophistries (or less clever sophomoric jokes) valued at the price charged, less a substantial discount.

Apart from your finding "details" in 1 Corinthians 11 that don't exist in the Scripture, you see to quite deliberately miss a few details that actually do exist, viz:

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

Hard to discern the Lord's Body when you loudly and emphatically deny it's there at all. Quick, run it through the metaphorizer! Make it mean anything but what it says!

Does that sufficiently clarify my position?

 

[Jipsah]

This is why I feel sorry for church hoppers.

They don't really have any strong roots.

Good job you didn't start out as a Jehovah's Witness/

 

[Jipsah]

BobRyan said:
That sort of "explanation" that you offer does not even make sense. I don't know of anyone else that proposes such a thing.

You can't be serious.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

How do you see the Rules of Hillel affecting the literal-historical hermeneutic of the School of Antioch and the typological-mystological-prophetic-allegorical hermeneutic of the School of Alexandria respectively?

Take a look at the link. There are various places where you can tell saint Paul is using them. This is one of my favorite ones.

1. Kal Vahomer (Light and heavy)

The Kal vahomer rule says that what applies in a less important case will certainly apply in a more important case. A kal vahomer argument is often, but not always, signaled by a phrase like "how much more..."


1 Corinthians 9
7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk? 8 Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.”[b] Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10 Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Also, would you agree with my assertion that the most important Church Fathers like Saints Athanasius, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch, etc, used both techniques in different proportions based on the text they were interpreting, and their background, whereas Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia pushed Alexandrian and Antiochian exegesis in a pure form past its relative braking point, and that contemporary Fundamentalist, Evangelical and certain Restorationist churches like the Church of Christ are making excessive use of the Antiochene technique. Young Earth Creationism could be considered a form of this, although I would note that there are ways of reconciling it with evolution, since the universe could have evolved in the mind of God for an infinite amount of time before being created.

That sounds right. I can't think of anything wrong with it and you often have a better command of much of the nitty gritty than I do. By and large I see threads like this as a kind of fun brainstorming type exercise for abstract thought and regurgitating all the stuff you learned in the past in a kind of creative way. (I am an INTJ for those that like Myers Briggs Personality Indicator)


But in general, Antiochian school favored grammatic historical method. While Alexandrians liked allegory and tended to see the Bible as one unity, basically shadows and types of Christ are the big theme or point of scripture. But both sides borrowed lifted each other's stuff if it was any good, so they were purely Grammarians or Allegorists only favored one method more.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

@The Liturgist Yes, I agree on the Antiochene part of things like young earth Creationism. I found this Blog post a few years back and adopted its position for myself as an Old Earth Creationist.

Note to Orthodox Evolutionists: Stop Trying to Shanghai / Recruit the Fathers to Your Camp!​

"..I myself do not believe in a young earth; I am an old earth creationist and have seriously entertained returning to belief in theistic evolution. I stand pretty much as far outside the patristic consensus as Orthodox evolutionists. But I don't distort the Fathers to shanghai recruit them to my position."

Official Website for CJS Hayward: An Orthodox Apologist Interested in Vibrant Human Life in Troubled Technological Times - CJS Hayward

cjshayward.com

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Trail of Blood, by J. M. Carroll

Do you believe what's in that book?

 

[The Liturgist]

@The Liturgist Yes, I agree on the Antiochene part of things like young earth Creationism. I found this Blog post a few years back and adopted its position for myself as an Old Earth Creationist.

Note to Orthodox Evolutionists: Stop Trying to Shanghai / Recruit the Fathers to Your Camp!​

"..I myself do not believe in a young earth; I am an old earth creationist and have seriously entertained returning to belief in theistic evolution. I stand pretty much as far outside the patristic consensus as Orthodox evolutionists. But I don't distort the Fathers to shanghai recruit them to my position."

Official Website for CJS Hayward: An Orthodox Apologist Interested in Vibrant Human Life in Troubled Technological Times - CJS Hayward

cjshayward.com

Indeed, I like that. I am actually at a point where having not been there, I have no idea whether the YEC position, which is reflected in the Byzantine Calendar Anno Mundi epoch, under which we are now in the Year 7531, vs. the year 2023 using Anno Domini (which was popular in the Early Church, but we now have two problems with it, first, we know it is off by a few years on the Incarnation of Christ, which most likely happened around 6 BC, based on Emperor Augustus still being alive as mentioned in Luke, and also the Atheists and non-Christians are trying to secularize it, replacing AD and BC with CE and BCE. And since we know Christ was already alive in 1 BC, calling that year the first year Before Christ is an error on our part and makes the Anno Domini epoch difficult to sustain. I myself prefer the Coptic Epoch, which is dated from the start of the Diocletian Persecution, the Year of the Martyrs, of which this is 1739, and will roll over to 1740 the start of September when the month Ⲑⲱⲟⲩⲧ “Thout”, named for the Pagan egyptian deity, begins, following the one month not named for an Egyptian deity, Ⲡⲓⲕⲟⲩϫⲓ ⲛ̀ⲁ̀ⲃⲟⲧ “the Little month” which is of variable length, being where leap years occur, this being the calendar*, but not the Epoch, that was adopted by Julius Caesar, who replaced the Egyptian months mostly named after Egyptian deities with Roman months, himself honored by July, his successor Emperor Caesar Augustus honored with the month August, and March the Ides of which ended badly for Gaius Julius Caesar named appropriately enough for the God of War, Mars.

There is also a Modern Assyrian Calendar created in the 1950s used by Assyrian nationalists in the Church of the East which I think is dated to the approximate date of the birth of Assyrian culture rather than the start of the world, with the epoch year being 4750 BC, thus making this the year 6773.

*By the way its thrilling the forum software now supports Unicode extensions, apparently allowing me to paste Coptic text, which is similiar to Koine Greek script but with some different characters, although Coptic church documents will draw Ⲑ with a cross, so perhaps this is actually Koine Greek rather than a dedicated Coptic alphabet. However the system works since I can post Classical Syriac Estrangela ( ܐܣܛܪܢܓܠܐ ) characters, ܐܠܦ ܒܝܬ ܣܘܪܝܝܐ meaning Alep Bet Suraya, meaning Syriac Alphabet obviously. Note the similarity to the Hebrew equivalent phrase Aleph Bet Ivri , written using the Imperial Aramaic block characters (which replaced Paleo Hebrew** script probably during or according to the Talmud, by St. Ezra the Priest immediately after the Babylonian captivity) as אָלֶף־בֵּית עִבְרִי.

** Regarding Paleo-Hebrew, the Rabbis quoted in the Talmud disagreed on whether Paleo-Hebrew was the writing system used by Moses during the Exodus or was introduced as a stopgap for writing the Torah during the Babylonian captivity when it was alleged that the Imperial Aramaic script was lost before being recovered by Ezra, however, this latter explanation makes no sense since Imperial Aramaic was used concurrently with the Babylonian Captivity and in the Babylonian Empire, and the archaeological evidence strongly supports the antiquity of Paleo-Hebrew.

 

[The Liturgist]

@Pavel Mosko - I agree, edifying brainstorming is where these threads become an edifying delight, vs. the repetitive polemical arguments ad nauseum which drive many people away, but some members have the patience to respond to errors repeated and deal with copy-posted polemics.

In the spirit of the latter, since I desire not to continue a polemical discussion, but rather pursue with you and the OP an edifying discussion of hermeneutics including Patristic literalism in the form of the Antiochene method, how would you compare and contrast the Seven Rules of Hillel with the Antiochene and Alexandrian exegetical techniques which you clearly understand as much and perhaps more than I do. I myself had never seriously considered using the Seven Rules of Hillel for Christian hermeneutics, preferring those methods of Christian provenance, but since you assert that the Rules of Hillel were used by the Apostolic Fathers, in what one assumes to be the early ante-Nicene era, naturally I am keen to know how they relate to those methods I am acquainted with of late ante-Nicene and post Nicene Christian exegesis, from the third century Catechetical Schools in Alexandria, Antioch and to a lesser extent Caesarea in Syria Palestina (Judea).

Edit: I see you answered this question, except the link is absent, aside from the footnote to Bible Gateway.

Take a look at the link. There are various places where you can tell saint Paul is using them. This is one of my favorite ones.

1. Kal Vahomer (Light and heavy)

The Kal vahomer rule says that what applies in a less important case will certainly apply in a more important case. A kal vahomer argument is often, but not always, signaled by a phrase like "how much more..."


1 Corinthians 9
7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk? 8 Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.”[b] Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10 Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I think that bishop Ussher's chronology would make 2023 AD be 6028 AM, Bishop Ussher was a bishop of the Church of Ireland - an autonomous province of the Anglican Communion - and 5783 by Jewish reckoning.

 

[The Liturgist]

I think that bishop Ussher's chronology would make 2023 AD be 6028 AM, Bishop Ussher was a bishop of the Church of Ireland - an autonomous province of the Anglican Communion - and 5783 by Jewish reckoning.

Well that is spectacularly shorter than the Assyrian and Byzantine epochs. I find the Byzantine epoch more compelling, since it was based on the Septuagint, which as the preferred Old Testament of the early Church and an older recension than the Masoretic text, can be regarded as more reliable.

There is also a huge archaeological problem with all of these dates, but most especially with Anno Mundi AM or 6028 Anno Mundi as the current year, since even if it were 6028, that would mean there are Egyptian and other ruins dating from 28 AM. We should not expect to find such ruins so close to the date of creation since it is implied the pre-flood civilizations were destroyed in the deluge, and the ancient Egyptians and other civilizations were descendants of Noah’s sons, hence terms like Semitic, from Shem, to refer to the languages of the Middle East like Akkadian, Aramaic, Hebrew, Amharic, Ge’ez, Arabic, and Maltese, but not Coptic, which like ancient Egyptian is Afro-Asiatic, and not Sumerian, which is not related to any other known surviving language, and which survived as a liturgical language in Babylon long after it was replaced by Akkadian in the vernacular, and likewise Akkadian persevered in the same role after being displaced by Aramaic, and lamentably, in the Maronite Catholic and to a lesser extent Chaldean Catholic and Indian Orthodox, and to a still lesser extent among the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholics, Classical Syriac Aramaic has been displaced as a vernacular language by Arabic but remains as a liturgical language (spoken with an accent reflecting the Western vernacular successors to Aramaic in the West Syriac churches, and in an Eastern Aramaic accent closer to Classical Syriac in the Chaldean and some of the Indian churches).

Only the Assyrian Church of the East (and the small offshoot Ancient Church of the East) have retained Aramaic both as a vernacular and liturgical language, albeit different dialects. However, when Assyrian priests read the Peshitta Gospel, they translate it mentally from Classical Syriac to the Neo-Assyrian vernacular Aramaic dialect.

Conversely, in the town of Maaloula, there are Antiochian Orthodox Christians who worship in Arabic or perhaps Greek, as far as I am aware, but definitely speak Aramaic, although perhaps they worship in Aramaic, but certainly using the Byzantine Rite liturgy, as the Antiochian Orthodox Church stopped using the West Syriac language in the 1200s. If any of our Eastern Orthodox members know more about this, that would be helpful.

 

[AV1611VET]

Good job you didn't start out as a Jehovah's Witness/

Amen to that!

But there are some who have, and have gotten saved later.

But your one post did give me some insight into what I think your dilemma is.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've been through so many denominations, you don't know which end is up now.

Now you can't tell a literalist from an allegorist.

An allegorist will say, "The Bible says this, BUT It means this."

Whereas a literalist will say, "The Bible says this, AND it means this."

There's a subtle ... but major ... difference.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you believe what's in that book?

100%

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

100%

Why?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It's a matter of Biblical maturity.

And only those with "Biblical maturity" can agree with you, right?

 

[BobRyan]

As for the assertion made by @BobRyan that the influence of anti-Catholicism on doctrine is not logical, while I would agree that allowing such a bias to influence doctrine is illogical, it is a fact that it has occurred

What is not true - is your allegation that the way Protestants come to understand what a given Bible text means is to first go see what the Catholic church teaches on that text and then to come up with some interpretation of it that is in opposition to what the Catholic church says.

that is absolutely a fiction

, and the spectre of it looms large over this thread.

sadly not even one example of it - not even on this thread.

I don't see how this is even a little bit confusing.

What would be objectionable about the doctrine of the Real Presence were it not for the RC embrace of transubstantiation?

Are you talking about "confecting the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ"? And asking what is objectionable about it.???

Are you asking "where ELSE" that idea comes from so that one may object or agree?

Are you talking about the "REAL Presence" of Matt 18:20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”


Or are you talking about the catholic version of what is confected in the Eucharist?
Paragraph 1374 of the CCC:
Quote:

The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."201 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.

“Only a validly ordained priest can confect the Eucharist. Because of the reality of transubstantiation, reference to the Eucharistic Species as “bread and wine” is wrong. They are properly called the Body and Blood of Christ. “
Reverend Peter M.J. Stravinskas, Ph.D., S.T.L. Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1994, Our Sunday Visitor.


The apostate priest does not lose the power to confect the Eucharist or forgive sins through the sacrament of Penance. He does, by his apostasy, lose the power to do these things licitly, without sin.”
Catholic Digest – Jan 1995, pg 126

Scripturally, if we look at all texts of Eucharistic relevance, there is more support for that doctrine than Memorialism,

So we actually HAVE a text for "do this in REMEMBRANCE of ME" in 1 Cor 11 - and not one text about confecting the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

1 Cor 11:
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In 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.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes

Remembrance is the same term that we find in Heb 10:3 "reminder"
3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year.

Not a sacrifice, but a memorial.
Not a recapitulation of sins - but a reminder.
How is this even a little bit confusing?

 

[BobRyan]

Paul engages in that same discussion in Heb 10 and it has nothing to do with "not finding real/literal flesh of Christ in the bread" etc.

Heb 10:
26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has ignored the Law of Moses is put to death without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severe punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

In any case the text details you are not quoting in 1 Cor 11 are:
27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a person must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For the one who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not properly recognize the body. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number are asleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.
33 So then, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, have him eat at home, so that you do not come together for judgment


what the text actually says is -

27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a person must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For the one who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not properly recognize the body. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number are asleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world. 33 So then, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, have him eat at home, so that you do not come together for judgment


Paul explains it 'in the details you don't post".

He says "so then"... and identifies something you don't even touch as IF he meant to write "SO Then when you eat the bread admit it is the literal body of Christ"... Instead of that Paul gives us the real details of his point and we find your insert via inference is not present there at all.

Now wait just a minute - historically you have quoted the KJV, and I was quoting the KJV

Fine - that is not my objection.

, which says: “ 27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

33Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 34And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.”

Which is the same thing we find in the NASB -

27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a person must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For the one who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not properly recognize the body. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number are asleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world. 33 So then, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, have him eat at home, so that you do not come together for judgment

The accusation that I misquoted 1 Corinthians 11:27-34 because I used the KJV

actually if you check my post - that is not my objection.

 

[BobRyan]

Paul engages in that same discussion in Heb 10 and it has nothing to do with "not finding real/literal flesh of Christ in the bread" etc.

Heb 10:
26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has ignored the Law of Moses is put to death without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severe punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

In any case the text details you are not quoting in 1 Cor 11 are:
27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a person must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For the one who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not properly recognize the body. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number are asleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.
33 So then, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, have him eat at home, so that you do not come together for judgment

The Liturgist said:

One could not get sick and die from failing to discern the body of Christ if the Body of Christ is not in the Eucharist. But you ignored that.

what the text actually says is -


27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a person must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For the one who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not properly recognize the body. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number are asleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world. 33 So then, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, have him eat at home, so that you do not come together for judgment


Paul explains it 'in the details you don't post".

He says "so then"... and identifies something you don't even touch as IF he meant to write "SO Then when you eat the bread admit it is the literal body of Christ"... Instead of that Paul gives us the real details of his point and we find your insert via inference is not present there at all.

what we don't find there is "failing to discern the body of Christ if the Body of Christ is not in the Eucharist". The bread and grade juice (on Passover) are symbols of the body and blood of Christ - and obviously Christ had not yet been sacrificed on the cross since this was Thursday evening. This is irrefutable.

It is about the unworthy manner (as both KJV and NASB point it regarding what happens when they come together and someone is hungry"

Instead of leaving it up to the reader to infer "someone did not imagine that the body blood soul and divinity of Christ was confected" --the text spells out what they were doing wrong in the connected phrase "SO THEN" - where we find the error in their practice listed in the actual text.

 

[BobRyan]

The Bible is not a manufacturer's manual. That demeans it. It is a complex and beautiful compilation of many genres of inspired literature.

hence it is the standard for doctrine

2 Tim 4:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

 

[BobRyan]

So here's my actual position on the Eucharist:

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

The words in red are those of our Lord

Ok but that is not the issue here.

The issue is that a memorial is not a sacrifice and is not a recapitulation. IT is in memory of a past event. It is NOT the past event.

If He said it's His Blood and Body, them it's His Blood and Body.

"I AM THE DOOR" John 10

John 10:
7 So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.

The words are those of our Lord... are you going to make the case for a wooden door now?

Apart from your finding "details" in 1 Corinthians 11 that don't exist in the Scripture

really? -- point to one ... Hollow false accusations you make are not that impressive

, you see to quite deliberately miss a few details that actually do exist, viz:

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

keep reading to see the author spell it out for you.

27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a person must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For the one who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not properly recognize the body. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number are asleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.
33 So then, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, have him eat at home, so that you do not come together for judgment. As to the remaining matters, I will give instructions when I come.

Nothing there about not imagining that someone had confected the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

Hard to miss.