Not superficial at all.
The OT is not the NT and what happened in the OT is but a foretaste of what was to come in Jesus.
The Word did indeed exist from all eternity, but the flesh of Jesus did not exist until His conception.
Also, Jesus never says He eats of the Father’s flesh. That would be impossible as the Father has no flesh. What He said was that He had meat you know not of. Or in the KJV version, food to eat that you know not of.
Further, there is nothing in Catholic teaching that says that souls are dead until they consume the body of Christ. The soul is immortal, the life of which Christ speaks is life in the Kingdom of God.
Literalism is not an all or nothing concept concerning Scripture. Both extremes, rejecting all literalism or taking every passage literally has been used to divide Christ’s church.
That it was impossible is my point, but Jesus said,
"As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. " (John 6:57)
So we "live" as Jesus did, and which was by believing and doing the word of God, as that was His "bread and butter."
"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. " (Matthew 4:4)
"Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. " (John 4:34)
Further, there is nothing in Catholic teaching that says that souls are dead until they consume the body of Christ. The soul is immortal, the life of which Christ speaks is life in the Kingdom of God.
Rome teaches that it is the seed of eternal life and often RCs argue for their wafer on the basis of Jn. 6:53, that it is necessary to have life in you, making no qualifications as you cannot, for it means it is necessity to "eat" the bread Jesus gives in order to have life and to live for Him.
However, we do not see souls being born again or constantly exhorted to live by consuming the Lord physically, but they were born again when they heard and believed the gospel message, (Eph. 1:13) and the word of God effectually worked in those who believed, (1Ths. 2:13) effecting obedience. Thus the priority of the apostles in preaching, so that it was "not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables." (Acts 6:2)
If the Eucharist was what Rome says it is, and critical to have life in you and to receive grace, it would often be mentioned at least in the letters to the churches. However, despite the paramount priority Rome places on The Lord's supper, it not a manifest subject in any of the epistles to the church, except the description of it as "feasts of charity' in Jude 1:12, and in 1Cor. 11, and which definitely does not teach that the elements are the Lord's body .
This conspicuous absence is set in contrast to the many exhortations to live by believing the gospel and live by the word as in acting it out in service to others. And which corresponds to how Jesus lived and died, and which believers commemorated in their "feasts of charity," which was not that of focus on a wafer, but a communal meal of sharing. Literalism is not an all or nothing concept concerning Scripture. Both extremes, rejecting all literalism or taking every passage literally has been used to divide Christ’s church
Indeed, literalism is not an all or nothing concept concerning Scripture, but that it must be taken literally here is the RC argument, but which is overall contrary to what Scripture says, and John's method of teaching.