I don’t know if you’re arguing in favor of the Catholic idea of transubstantiation here.
But most of your verses make good points regarding the Lord’s Supper being Jesus’ true body and blood.
I would personally focus on 1 Corinthians most though.
But I don’t think Scripture supports transubstantiation, though. Since verses refer to both bread and body, and transubstantiation says that there is no bread left, iirc.
Hence the Lutheran view that in with and under the bread and wine is the true Body and Blood of Christ. Interestingly I have several nondenominational friends who share the same view. What that does not say however is that the bread and wine cease to exist or that the elements should be worshipped and adored. And certainly it dies not agree with the Roman view that Christ is sacrificed over and over again on the altar every time communion is celebrated.
I was supplying passages about Jesus’ assertions that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life, as requested.
I believe in Transubstantiation, but it is hard to argue against at least Consubstantiation from these passages.
In the long run, those 2 aren’t that far apart. I don’t think when we get to the pearly gates St. Peter is going to say, “there was bread in there too(or not), so you can’t come in!”.
Love,
O2