Exegesis demands that we observe the obvious fact that in Genesis 6 when Jesus speaks of flesh - it is always his flesh. We have to keep that as the "context" unless something is said explicitly in the text to change the meaning to "our flesh".
Actually, I looked into Gen 6 very thoroughly and have found that every reference to flesh in this chapter is speaking of man's and animal's mortal flesh. Never does it refer to "His flesh". It speaks of only God and humans, never the embodyment of Jesus. So it seems the context to be carried over is "our flesh" as God never makes reference to God's flesh.
On the contrary, Jesus makes reference to His own flesh by putting "my" in front of it. When He says "the flesh profits nothing" he again is using the Genesis 6 context of man's flesh. Remember that Jesus' flesh was divinely different than a mere mortal's as is observed when He appears to the disciples after His resurrection.
Once again, the "dumbed-down" version of John 6:55 says this:
(Jesus talking) "My body is food in reality. My literal blood is 'to be'(third person singular) a drink in reality."
And continued in verse 56:
"The man who consumes my literal flesh and drinks my literal blood is in communion(one with) with Me, and I in communion with him."
Which only makes sense, both logically and scientifically. If you eat something it is in you. It becomes a part of you. The "Word of God" can be in you, and a part of you, but in a metaphorical sense since you can't eat words and teachings. If Jesus meant metaphorical words He wouldn't have used literal context in reference to Himself. Luke 24:39 contains the same word for flesh as does the above John verses and it is very commonly understood to mean tissue and muscle.
In John 6:27 Jesus says to not strive for the food that perishes, but the food(literal) that is forever, then makes reference to the Last Supper by saying, "Which the Son of man shall give unto you." Notice He didn't say God would give them His Word, He said that He, Jesus Himself, would give them eternal food. He can't be referring to His Words as he said 'shall give', meaning they don't yet have it. So, in actuality, Jesus DID say, "You will eat my flesh and drink my blood, beginning in the near future."
But let's go to verse 32 for a second.
"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven."
Let's focus on the last part 'but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.'
The word for "bread" means literal food. Now comes the evidence of Chrsit's real presence in the Eucharist in the word "true".
According to Strong's, the original word for 'true' is "
alethinos".
The definition is:
1) that which has not only the name and resemblance, but the real nature corresponding to the name, in every respect corresponding to the idea signified by the name, real, true genuine
a) opposite to what is fictitious, counterfeit, imaginary, simulated or pretended
b) it contrasts realities with their semblances
c) opposite to what is imperfect defective, frail, uncertain
2) true, veracious, sincere
Now, the Protestant communion is symbolic. This is in direct opposition to 'opposite to what is fictitious, counterfeit, imaginary, simulated or pretended'. It seems that if Christ meant only symbolism in "do this in remembrance of Me" he would not have used a word that denies simulation only. In this light, "do this is remembrance of Me" takes on the meaning of "continue to literally eat my literal flesh and blood so you do not forget My sacrifice and that it, also, was very real." Which is what Catholics do.
#2. No one drank Christ's blood or bit him - - though we have observed that the RCC needed to have the faithFUL disciples do so.
Saying this is a two-folded success in destruction. You are limiting God's power in that you claim that all of Jesus had to be contained in His skin. We all know this to not be true as Jesus is part of God, and God is very spiritual and intangible also. The disciples could very well have taken part in the flesh of Christ without biting Him on the leg or something. This continues over into the present day Eucharist as Jesus in not present in the flesh.
Also, we do not need the faithful disciples to bite Him on the arm to make our doctrine correct as we do not bite Him on the arm now, but are still practicing that which the very disciples did themselves.
#3. Christ did not say "some day in the future you WILL have to eat my flesh and drink My blood"
Please refer to what I said about verse 27.
By the way, it doesn't any make sense that people would leave Jesus over Him saying that He wanted them to remember Him always. On the contrary, it makes perfect sense for people to leave His following over their narrow-minded misunderstanding of an "impossible cannabalistic act". It would take heaps more faith to trust that Jesus wanted them to partake of His literal flesh, not a memorial, as a divine commandment.
