MY dogma!
I'm talking Bible here, and you haven't brought a single verse to justify your denial of the clear, plain, meaning of Christ's own words which have been interpreted by other scriptures...you don't even bring credible alternative verses to explain eating his flesh and blood.
Yes, your dogma. Considering you refuse to acknowledge the clear explanation of bieng “born again” that Christ gave - just a verse after your cherry-pick - there is no way you will ever accept any Biblical explanation of why the Last Supper is symbolic, not literal.
Those with an open mind will accept that both interpretations are valid; both traditions - transubstantiation and symbolism - lay equal claim. Meaning both positions are positions of dogma.
And those with an open mind will understand that it is a relatively minor point since Christ does not make communion a requirement to salvation.