The meaning of such words and Jn. 6 are the issue, and which require more than simply asserting what they mean. If you are actually going to try to present an argument for them, based on reason-ably contextually examining such and in the light of the rest of Scripture then i will give you a chance to do so and be responded to.
In examining this we see that Christ, in instituting the Eucharist, established a new covenant. A covenant must be clear, therefore a metaphorical sense which is difficult to understand is excluded.
And which is absurd! If anything is hard to understand, it is how "my body which is broken [crucified] for you" and blood which is "shed for many" is something that is radically unlike the body and blood of the Christ that was manifestly incarnated, as John especially emphasized. (1Jn. 1:1,2)
And instead of this manifestly incarnated Christ, we have a Christ that looks, tastes, smells and would scientifically test as mere bread and wine!
This would certainly be as hard to understand as teaching that a baked potato was actually God. That the bread and wine became the actual bloody flesh and flowing blood of Christ would be the plainly literal sense of a "this is My body and blood that is to be slain and shed" statement, versus some radically new and novel form, but then it would be very hard for these as yet kosher (Acts 10:9-14) apostles to consume literal flesh and blood. The idea the kosher and often dense and questioning disciples would blithely consume the body and blood of Christ without protest is itself absurd.
In contrast, the metaphorical sense is what is easy to understand for a OT Jew, as it is no more hard to understand that the many other examples of metaphorical uses of eating or drinking, including men being called "bread for Israel" and water being called the blood of men, (Num. 14:9), (2 Samuel 23:16-17) and many other examples that were provided for you .
Also, after His Resurrection, He never modified His words. Thus, if he only intended the metaphorical sense, many of his disciples have for years been practicing idolatry, adoring as the true body of the Lord, what was and is nothing but bread.
This is true, if in fact they do so, and of Mary also, like as Israelites ended up offering incense to the bronze serpent that God had used. (22Ki. 18:14)
Yet idolatry is making anything created your highest object of spiritual affection, or source of security, or object of allegiance, at least at the time, and thus most all Christians are sometimes idolators (esp, at dinnertime).
Beginning with John 6:51 and through 6:67:
So you are once again resorting to merely quoting the texts at issue as if that determined their meaning?! Try to comprehend this, as once again you are simply begging the question, meaning assuming what needs to be proved.
St. Paul wrote (eight years after St. Matthew wrote his Gospel) a letter to the Christian converts at Corinth: 1Cor. 10:16, “The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?”
The word you have translated as "partaking" is 1 Corinthians 10:16 and means "fellowship/communion and as the next verse explains, "For we being many are one bread, and one body : for we are all partakers of that one bread." (1 Corinthians 10:17)
The text explains that the church is "one bread" and "one body," in communion with Christ by eating the Lord's supper together, like as pagans have fellowship/communion with devils by taking part in their dedicatory feasts. Which fellowship the Corinthians would also be having if they took part in the same with them, but which fellowship was not be eating the flesh of demons:
But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:20-21)
Thus what we have here is but fellowship with Christ by a communal meal in remembrance of death by His body which He bought with His blood, and which is analogous to the fellowship pagans have with the object of their worship in their dedicatory feasts.
And which was already explained to you, yet once again you simply repost the same!
1Cor. 11:23- 29,
Which also was carefully explained to you, yet somehow you seem to imagine that simply posting the text again and again solves your problem that sound refutation results in!
All attempts to drag in other references in an attempt to disguise Christ’s real meaning in these self-evident passages are disingenuous.
Which response even further marginalizes you, if you could go any further. Insisting that this is selected portion self-evident and rejecting what contextual examination shows, as well as the light of other texts simply confirms that you are like a devoted cultist who is unfit for further attempts as reasoned debate.
Ya, that’s why I included this:
(From the nature of the words used in V 56 “true, real meat,” “true, real drink”’ “Caro enim mea vere est cibus: et sanguis meus, vere est potus:” The obvious meaning is the literal one.)
” meaning assuming what needs to be proved”
How much of Scripture do you apply this nonsense to?
1Cor. 11:23- 29,
“Which also was carefully explained to you”
You “explained” nothing.
You provided an excuse for your obstinance.