What?! He used water as representing what He would give (eternal life), as blood was used in Jn. 6, while this is only one of my comparisons. In addition to which Christ said He was a door, (Jn. 10:7) and said rivers of living water would flow from the belly of believers who drank of Him. (Jn. 7:36,37) .
This use of figurative language, using the material for the spiritual is clear and consistent with John, while making the obtainment of spiritual life by literally eating something physical is not, or with all of Scripture. Thus who must are desperately try to disallow it in Jn. 6 by demanding the exact same language
Even in the OT, to be consistent with your plain meaning literalism you should hold that David engaged in transubstantiation, as he plainly stated that precious water was the blood of the men who obtained it at the risk of their lives was their blood. Therefore he would not drink it. but poured it out to the Lord as an offering, as was done with blood. (2Sam. 23:15-17; cf. Lv. 9:9)
The misunderstanding of the woman was that there was another kind of water Jesus was offering her, not that He was claiming to be water. So He did correct her in that false belief by showing her sin to her, he convinced her He is the Messiah.
That was far certainly implied (though read in isolation Catholics could contend He would give transubstantiated water), and but which He did in Jn. 6, quite obviously if one reads it in context of Scripture, but this you refuse to see, and resort to argumentation that not even official teaching uses.
Similarly with the Temple, Jesus never said My body is the Temple which will be destroyed in 3 days. Indeed the Temple itself was destroyed in AD 70 so there was nothing to correct there. (When He was on trial).
This also is non-sense, as He clearly referred to a physical temple an an allegory to His death and resurrection, and left the Jews to figure it out, while He corrected the absurd idea in Jn. 6:62-64 that flesh itself gave spiritual life, and which is NOWHERE taught. It is believing on Christ as the Divine Son of God that one passes from death to life, (Jn. 5:24), believing the gospel by which one receives the Spirit, as seen and taught elsewhere!
Supposing one gains spiritual life by literally eating human flesh and blood is endocannibalism, not the Scriptural gospel.
Alpers and Lindenbaums research conclusively demonstrated that kuru [neurological disorder] spread easily and rapidly in the Fore people due to their endocannibalistic funeral practices, in which relatives consumed the bodies of the deceased to return the life force of the deceased to the hamlet, a Fore societal subunit. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%...9#Transmission
he custom of eating bread sacramentally as the body of a god was practised by the Aztecs before the discovery and conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards."
The May ceremony is thus described by the historian Acosta: The Mexicans in the month of May made their principal feast to their god Vitzilipuztli, and two days before this feast, the virgins whereof I have spoken (the which were shut up and secluded in the same temple and were as it were religious women) did mingle a quantity of the seed of beets with roasted maize, and then they did mould it with honey, making an idol...all the virgins came out of their convent, bringing pieces of paste compounded of beets and roasted maize, which was of the same paste whereof their idol was made and compounded, and they were of the fashion of great bones. They delivered them to the young men, who carried them up and laid them at the idols feet, wherewith they filled the whole place that it could receive no more. They called these morsels of paste the flesh and bones of Vitzilipuztli.
...then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god....then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god...
And this should be eaten at the point of day, and they should drink no water nor any other thing till after noon: they held it for an ill sign, yea, for sacrilege to do the contrary:...and then they gave them to the people in manner of a communion, beginning with the greater, and continuing unto the rest, both men, women, and little children, who received it with such tears, fear, and reverence as it was an admirable thing, saying that they did eat the flesh and bones of God, where-with they were grieved. Such as had any sick folks demanded thereof for them, and carried it with great reverence and veneration.
...They believed that by consecrating bread their priests could turn it into the very body of their god, so that all who thereupon partook of the consecrated bread entered into a mystic communion with the deity by receiving a portion of his divine substance into themselves.
The doctrine of transubstantiation, or the magical conversion of bread into flesh, was also familiar to the Aryans of ancient India long before the spread and even the rise of Christianity. The Brahmans taught that the rice-cakes offered in sacrifice were substitutes for human beings, and that they were actually converted into the real bodies of men by the manipulation of the priest.
...At the festival of the winter solstice in December the Aztecs killed their god Huitzilopochtli in effigy first and ate him afterwards. - http://www.bartleby.com/196/121.html
There may be some differences, but these have far more in common with the Cath idea of the Eucharist than anything seen in Scripture interpretive of the words of the last supper.
Similarly with Nicodemus, he thought Jesus meant to return to the womb. This was a mistake on Nicodemus part that Jesus then corrected.
Imprecisely, saying the birth was of the Spirit, by believing, not eating, and likewise Christ did explain Himself in Jn. 6, by teaching we live by Him as He did in believing and thus obeying the Father, and that He would soon no longer be with them, but It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. (John 6:63,64)
So for those three passages where mistake/confusion was, the audience was either corrected or there was no actual mistake made on anyones part.
Indeed, as in Jn. 6, and as seen in the rest of Scripture, in which nowhere is spiritual life obtained by consuming the Lord's Supper, which is what you literal interpretation of Jn. 6:53,54 has to mean, versus being born of the Spirit by believing the gospel. The actual mistake is on your part, following Rome!
To conclude, the rest of the passages you cited again do not show the type of confusion that reigned in John 6, specifically, no one said How can this man claim to be a bronze statue or how can this man claim to be a lamb?
Actually, souls were yet assuming the Lord was referring to the physical temple in His trial and crucifixion, and the confusion seen in Jn. 6 is akin to that of Nicodemus supposing Christ was speaking literally, and the women at the well, while the spiritual explanation in such is also given in Jn. 6, and is the only one that is consistent with them !
Your refusal to see it is not God's fault, and the only one your vain argumentation is convincing to is yourself and those of like obstinacy, or the ignorant.
Im certainly not too concerned about your personal opinion of Scripture (because whether you claim its just Scripture youre offering, youre still wrong. Its really only your *opinion* of what Scripture says).
As is some of your argumentation in support of Rome, but whose presumption determines what you must argue for and against, and thus dismiss reproof as just being an opinion, rather than going wherever the Truth leads.
But as you resort to this "only your *opinion*" solution, then you must again defend the premise behind it, which is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
If you cannot establish this as the indisputable Truth then all you are doing in giving your opinion of the opinion of one church among others. So go ahead or try to disagree with other RCs.