Indeed. And as said, if literal they would have believed that "my body which is broken for you," "blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.." meant they would be consuming the actual manifestly bloody flesh of Christ, not a crucified body of Christ which looked, tasted, smelled, and would scientifically test as a mere inanimate object. That would be no more real than that of some Gnostics versus the Christ whom "we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life." (1 John 1:1)
The transubstatiationist overlays this entire passage, and particularly verses 53 through 58, with a pseudo-Aristotilian theory that would not appear until over 800 years later in the teaching of Radbertus.
But while it can and is argued that a basic belief in transubstantiation is evidenced much earlier, yet Rome requires such precise belief in her theory than it makes professors of theories heretics. Such was the case with John of Paris
This was a Dominican theological whom the Catholic Encyclopedia says was "endowed with great ability, was the most subtle dialectician of the age, possessed great literary and linguistic attainments, and was considered one of the best theologians of the university." However, in treatise on the Blessed Sacrament, in which he tentatively advanced the propositions that "the Body of Christ is, or might be, present by assumption (I. e. by the body of Christ assuming the bread and wine), and that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not of faith." resulted in him being "deprived him of the offices of lecturing, preaching, and hearing confessions." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08475b.htm; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08475b.htm
That the original hearers of the words at issue on the "real presence" would not have naturally assumed that, if literal, the Lord was speaking of giving them some of His actual manifestly bloody flesh to eat, but that they instead held to orthodox transubstantiation theology is absurd.
And of course, the Elephant in the Room is that the record and teachings of NT church in Scripture simply does not evidence that it held the Lord's supper as the central exalted formal liturgical priestly sacrifice for sins, which is consumed in order to obtain spiritual life and nourishment, as the Catholic Eucharist. But instead, the word of God is presented as this, and the preaching of it being the primary active function of pastors.
Quoting vast blocks of Scripture and proclaiming Aha! doesn't constitute an argument.
Indeed, but which question-begging arguments by assertion is typical of many Catholics.
The combination of these two is effectively an argument from silence, according to the following syllogism: : Premise 1: If the Jews misunderstood Jesus, he had a duty to correct them. Premise 2: They understood him in the Catholic way of understanding, and He did not correct them, Conclusion: Therefore the Catholic way of understanding this passage must be correct.
And yet what the Lord did explain that they flesh profits nothing, as indeed nowhere does Scripture teach that literally physically eating anything provides spiritual nourishment, which the word of God does. And that He would not even be around soon in the flesh, which corrected basic misunderstanding that the Lord was going to give them some of His body to eat, as in endocannibalism, which people consumed some of the deceased body of a beloved person in order to obtain spiritual properties.
Ah, but elephants are such quiet creatures, and if you look the other way, you can imagine they are not there at all. I understand it is very easy with some practice.
And that He would not even be around soon in the flesh
Which point I often forget, and very helpful to seeing the flow of the argument. It is unfortunate in these debates that we retread the same ground so often that we do not occasionally step back and appreciate the wonderful richness of everything going on in this amazing passage. Tanks, bro. :)
Peace,
SR