That's why it quickly turns into a non-productive discussion. If flesh doesn't mean flesh, and blood doesn't mean blood, and water doesn't mean water, and there's no "carne" in Incarnation, then Christ's words and actions can be systematically denatured and redefined.
It's easy to do. Just start with a particular human tradition (e.g. "faith alone") and then read it back into the text, no matter what the words say. Even though St. Paul says that if he has faith but not love, he is "nothing."
I suppose "nothing" don't mean nuthin'!
Oh but they do. Flesh means flesh but not always the carnal mortal flesh. Blood does mean blood and the Jews (Jesus and the apostles) were strictly forbidden to eat it. Water does mean water in that the amniotic fluid is water.
Now, if you want water to always mean water would you tell us that you have "rivers of water flowing from your belly"?
If bread always meant bread why aren't you eating bread instead of claiming to eat flesh?
John 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
Is the word of God literally both milk and meat?
Should we continue with this literalism?