Why blatant bombast! Once again all you have is mere assertions but which the evidence - and utter lack on your part - is against! You have not and can not and never will be able to show in the record of life of the NT church that partaking of the Eucharist is essential for, or otherwise the means obtaining spiritual life, or spiritual nourishment, thus all you can do is make mere assertions of no incompatibility btwn the literal meaning of Jn. 6:53 and what the rest of the Scripture after that show.
2 & 3- To pretend that 6:55 is referring to His word alone is preposterous. (55) He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood, hath everlasting life; and I will raise him up in the last day.
Another mere assertion, while NOWHERE does Scripture teach that obtaining everlasting life is by partaking of the Cath Eucharist, not even the actual Lord supper accounts (which Jn. 6 is not). And as shown, a plainly literal reading of those would mean that the same manifestly physical bloody flesh was being eaten, not some Aristotelian metaphysical nonsense!
except in one epistle, and perhaps as breaking of bread in Acts and simple reference to the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12 How about these? Matt. 26:26‑28; Mark 14:22‑24; Luke 22: 19- 30 and I Corinthians 11: 23‑25 & 1 Cor 10:16 5.- Is incoherent rambling.
What part of "Show in the life of the church" "Acts onward, which writings are interpretive of the gospels" do you not understand?! For the last time, using the words which are actually the subject of disputation as your argument is simply circular nonsense.
In addition, your blindness or refusal to actually read what refutes you is evident in you invoking I Corinthians 10 and 11, which is that "one epistle" mentioned, and the attempted arguments for them by you were clearly refuted at length to you already !
Such irrational robotic recitation for Rome makes you sound like a brainwashed cultist and thus is actually an argument against being a Catholic, which is the only argument you have. No wonder even your own brethren must have left you alone here.
Just give it up lest a worse think come up thee.
You have NOT “refuted” anything.
You twist words and assign meaning to suit your purpose.
You ignore clear responses to your challenge “What part of “Show in the life of the church” “Acts onward, “
When I present you with Paul, so who is obstinate to see the truth?