Thank you for your consideration but you are not following the argument as regards Jn. 6:57. , That He had no need of the Eucharistic as you describe does not correspond to the analogy, in which Jesus is saying that we live as He did, and which was not by eating physical food.
As far as 1Cor. 11, that is definitely not referring t the elements being the body of Christ, but the church. See here: http://www.peacebyjesus.net/Bible/1Cor._11.html#11 (brief)
As for your attempt to explain the lack of mention of the Lord’s supper and theology behind it in the epistles, by saying there was not need to speak to it constantly as they knew how they were to live, that will not do, as you the reason He wrote was so that they would now how to live, and thus he spend much time on both theology and application.
As for asserting that the breaking of the bread together mentioned in Acts was the Lord’s supper, this was not describing giving out wafers as an expiatory sacrifice officiated by priests, but daily meals.
Thus in regards to the communal breaking of the bread, there was a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. (Acts 6:1) To which the apostles responded, “It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables...But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. “ (Acts 6:2)
In contrast, when some members were being neglected in the “feast of charity,” then Paul chastened them for not recognizing the body of Christ, as they were not recognizing some members as being part of the body, and by so doing he says they actually were not eating the Lord’s supper, though they presumed they were.
In short, the idea that physically eating Jesus literal body is the “seed of eternal life” and “ultimate in belief in Christ” is not supported by Scripture, and actually takes the focus off what eating the Lord supper is supposed to actualize. It is not a wafer that is incarnating Christ in some way, but the church, and the Lord’s supper is supposed to remember the death of Christ for His church by exampling loving sharing towards each other, which the Corinthians were not doing.
Again, see the link and honestly allow yourself to go wherever the truth may lead. If the Scriptures taught transubstantiation i will still believe it.
<<<>>> Still I disagree with your understanding of that passage. Jesus here is saying that He lives because of the Father and to do the Father's will and we live through Him because of that. The will of the Father for us is to believe in Jesus and accept that His death and resurrection is our salvation. We are not Jesus though He was like us. Jesus however already had divine nature, which we now have because of Him. When we partake in the Eucharist, we are receiving Jesus' divine nature. Unlike regular food which becomes a part of us, we become a part of Jesus when we eat His body and drink His blood. I read your link and I disagree wholeheartedly with its premise. I could accept it if at the Last Supper, Jesus had not held up the bread and the wine and declared them to be His body and the cup of His blood. Jesus, and none of the NT writers ever connect the bread and wine with the body of believers, though Paul does say that the believers are the body of Christ. Note that he does so only after he speaks about the bread and cup which WE BLESS as a sharing in the body and blood of Christ. Paul says after laying this groundwork, NOW you are the body of Christ. It is only after he writes of the partaking of the ONE BREAD and the ONE CUP that we become a part of the body of Christ. So, again I have to disagree with your understanding of these verses. And, I disagree that there is a lace of theological explanation of the Lord's Supper. The times that it is mentioned Paul corrects any misunderstanding and there is no further need to repeat it. You specifically mention Paul's admonition in Corinthians chapter 11 regarding the believers' actions and behaviors at the Lord's supper. What does he say there? He admonishes them because they are bringing food and drink from home and feasting while others have nothing. He says it is not the Lord's supper for they are eating and drinking privately and not as a community. He then reiterates the words of Christ at the Last Supper and tells them they should eat at home if they are hungry. And then he tells them they should be eating together. So we have here Paul describing what the real Lord's Supper should look like. It is not for physical hunger and it should be eaten together with everyone partaking of the same bread and drinking of the same cup. Paul ties it all together and makes it clear that the gathering for the Lord's supper is not just any gathering and the elements of that supper are not just the ordinary food of a meal. In Acts, the complaint of the Grecians against the Jews was not that their widows were being neglected at the breaking of the bread, but in the distribution of food to those in need. We read in Acts how everyone gave what they had to share with others. The Apostles here are not speaking of waiting tables in regards to the Lord's Supper, but rather in the administration of the charitable gifts to the members of the church. That is why they chose deacons to do this work so that they may concentrate on the preaching the Word. Now, I must admit I had never heard the phrase "feasts of charity" and only find it in one passage in Jude, and only then in only a couple translations. Most say love feasts and some say banquets, but feasts of charity is not the most common used here. The letter from Jude is a rather odd one and I don't find the same connection you do to the Lord's Supper. What I see is a warning from St. Jude regarding those who would blaspheme the Lord and not be true partakers of the Lord's Supper but are mockers of the Lord's divinity and majesty and sacrifice. They glory in their own sinfulness as they reject the salvation of the Lord. I don't see where there is any mention of neglect at all. <<>>> I did see the link and again, the truth of Scriptures leads me right back to the Church and belief in the real and true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Scripture absolutely supports the Catholic belief. The elements are all there even if the bread is now a Host or "wafer" as some like to call it. I will have to look for any response in the new year as I have to get ready to celebrate with my husband. I wish you and your family all the best in this coming year. May every blessing of Christ be yours and may you all have peace and good health, and may the love of Christ be with you always.