As I posted earlier this evening, why is it always "Roman Catholic" apologists, when Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, some Lutherans, and traditional Anglicans believe the same things?
The eucharistic significance of this passage [Jn 6:43-59] is indisputable. Our Lord's declaration that He is Himself the living bread that gives life reveals the Mystical Supper of the New Testament Church. John never reports the details of the Last Supper such as the "words of institution" recorded in Luke ... instead, he reveals the significance and truth of these events, events that were already known to his hearers, by reporting here Christ's own words
Here, Christ declares Himself to be the true food and drink, the true bread that has come down from heaven (John 6:48-53 reads: "I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate manna in the wilderness, and died. This One is the bread, the One coming down out of the heavens, in order that anyone might eat of it and not die. I am the bread, the living One, the One having come down out of the heavens; if anyone should eat of this bread, he shall live forever. And indeed the bread that I will give in My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." Then the Jews began quarreling with one another, saying, "How is this One able to give us His flesh to eat?" Then Jesus said to them, "Verily, verily, I say to you, unless ye should eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye are not having life in yourselves.").
In Communion, we truly eat His flesh and drink His blood, and this grants the faithful eternal life(From the Eastern Orthodox blog "Orthodox Ecclesiology and the World", here.
Your view is the minority report in Christendom, and was the non-existent report up until about AD 800; insignificant until the 16th century. Your view is a consequence of late medieval rationalism, it's not part of Christianity as it existed in the first 500 years of the church. It simply isn't.
And you were answered at least twice...Yet you are pretending you didn't get an answer...
But none of the believe in transubstantiation
What I wrote is sufficient for the readership here. In fact, much of what I wrote was originally in reply to a Catholic thread on the topic. The main point concerns what the dialogue Jesus had in John 6 was about, and that Catholic apologetics typically ignores that. Other churches close to Roman Catholicism also take the same position, including yes Lutheranism, which is still close in many respects to Catholicism. I was raised Lutheran and left it. It was ritualistic.
I would also like to ask you, then, how would you do a summary of the entire chapter of John 6? Starting from the beginning, as I have, and quoting some passages in it as well as any others from other chapters or books that you believe might aid in interpretation, what would your summary be like?
There are also these claims to consider, too:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3266838/posts
I do believe that in some way Jesus’ words were literal. As I said, that’s in the same way that He is literally the Word of God. If you actually believe the Genesis account of Creation, as I do, then it’s a most amazing thought to consider that God creates through His word. The “hows” of that, though, we know and understand almost nothing about. We know very little about God’s nature. As Paul wrote, now we see through a glass darkly. We also know so very little about the nature of Creation and ourselves, and the eternal. We know, though, that God created the things of this world with spiritual purposes in His mind, so that He didn’t look around nature and decide that a shepherd with sheep would be a good metaphor for Jesus tending to us human sinners who believe on Him for salvation, but sheep were created for the very purpose of demonstrating that model for us. God did not also decide that a dove would be a proper metaphor or emblem for the Holy Spirit, but doves were created to demonstrate something of the Holy Spirit to us. And, too, the same with bread, and eating. God created them to demonstrate something eternal to us. The eternal is spiritual, and though we will have bodies, they’ll be redeemed. There will be eating and drinking, but they will not be of the same nature as they are here. Jesus also spoke of living water, including here:
37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (John 7)
I believe that is literally true in some way also, although no earthly water flows out of the bellies of believers. It is certainly no lie. It absolute truth, but it is water of the higher world, of which the water here in that sense is but for our instruction, and that’s also how I believe He means that we eat His body and drink His blood.