So now God has taken on all the outward appearances of... bread.
I don't think so. Jesus did not merely come and make an outward appearance as a man, he became a man. The Word became Flesh and dwelt among us. Your analogy is somewhat akin to Gnosticism which claimed that Jesus really didn't have a body of flesh, he just took on the appearance of having a body of flesh. I think you may wish to reconsider your comments.
Yes, the language is sloppy to say Jesus took on the "appearances" of man. I grant you that.
But you know we know what the Incarnation is all about and our Christology is solid. So address the issue I outlined in my last post.
If you can grant that things may not be what they appear, then you can grant that transubstantiation is a possiblity. The substance of Jesus was not what the accidents (better word than appearance for this argument)would have you believe.
SD
This is exactly what He has done. He is the manna come down from heaven. The miracle from heaven demanded of by the Pharisees which they would never partake in.
You are reacting to this teaching just as the disciples who walked away from Jesus. "This is a hard thing, and who can consider it?"
As I pointed out in my previous post, Jesus made it clear when He was speaking in parables and when He spoke plainly. As much as you don't believe there is evidence Jesus was being literal, there's not one iota of evidence that He was speaking in riddles.
It never ceases to amaze me that Protestants will subject themselves to a bloody fight that the entire Bible is to be taken literally except -- EXCEPT -- John chapter 6. Everything else MUST BE TAKEN LITERALLY -- except John 6.
But this just conforms with Martin Luther's M-O that if you don't agree with it, deny it came from God.