Replies

Very well, however, the only objection they raise is about the Real Presence. If their objection were invalid and there is no Real Presence than it is not cleared in the Gospel. You simply imagine that their obejction was to Jesus being the Christ. The stated objection is different.
It wasn't an objection. It was a question. They struggled to understand what he was saying. It says they strove with one another over the question. But it doesn't say that they objected to His real presence in the bread and wine. They did object about Jesus being the Christ come from heaven. They do appear to be talking to one another "this is a hard saying. Who can understand what this guy is talking about? " to which Jesus chastizes them for their unbelief. Not in the real presence, but in His Word about who He was period.

It wasn't an objection. It was a question. They struggled to understand what he was saying.

OK, I suppose it is one possible interpretation: that the totality of the discourse and especially the part about ascending to heaven where He had been before, that compelled them to leave. But you have to admit that the only thing they questioned openly was the Real Presence, which they understood as a suggestion of cannibalism, and also that Christ did nothing to explain it in symbolic terms and instead reiterated the physicality of the eating, to the point of "gnawing".