What are the Biblical arguments against Transubstantiation? Catholics believe that the bread and wine in the communion change into the body and blood (and divinity) of the Lord Jesus Christ. They taught that the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine despite of the fact that it appears bread and wine. Rather, both are now 100% body and blood (and the divinity) of Jesus Christ himself. This change is specifically defined by Catholicism as a change of substance ( i.e. "Transubstantiation"). 

So, what are the Biblical arguments against Transubstantiation?
So, what are the Biblical arguments against Transubstantiation?


  Matthew 26:26-28  And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and
  blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said,
  Take, eat; this is my body.   And he took the cup, and gave thanks,
  and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;   For this is my
  blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission
  of sins.


There are two possibilities


Jesus changed the bread and wine actually into his own flesh and blood.
Jesus was using metaphor to describe his death as the means of life for us.


The second possibility gains strength as Jesus used his flesh as a metaphor for life giving sustenance previously. 


  John 6:33  For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven,
  and giveth life unto the world.


That Jesus was not talking about physical eating was further strengthened by his contrast with the bread Moses provided.

That this illustration was not easily understood is seen by the reaction of Peter;


  John 6:67-68  Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
  Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast
  the words of eternal life.


Earlier Jesus emphasized the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood;


  John 6:53-54  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto
  you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood,
  ye have no life in you.   Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my
  blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.


Here it would seem to bolster the argument for a literal eating and drinking of the body of Christ. However, the statement that if they did not eat and drink they would have “no life” in them shows a different kind of life than what most understood, eternal life.


  John 6:58  This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your
  fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread
  shall live for ever.


The literal view loses some support as Jesus emphasizes that it is the spirit that gives life.


  John 6:63  It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth
  nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they
  are life.


The best support for the metaphor view comes from the practice of communion in Corinth.


  1 Corinthians 11:21  For in eating every one taketh before other his
  own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.


Apparently some were getting drunk at communion which would indicate it was not physical blood.


  1 Corinthians 11:29  For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily,
  eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's
  body.   For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many
  sleep.


However the best evidence would not be Biblical but forensic. If a sample of blood and wine were examined after transubstantiation, it could easily be proven to be real flesh and blood or not.