Nonsense, as instead it is the testimony of Scripture which rejects the literalistic understanding of Catholicism, which requires Neoplatonic thought and Aristotelian metaphysics to justify, while:
Scripture abounds with metaphorical language, including regarding eating, with David even clearly saying that drinking water was the blood of those who obtained, it, and thus He poured it out unto the Lord, and would not drink it.
John itself characteristically uses metaphorical language in contrasting the physical with the spiritual, from the lamb of God (Jn. 1) to the temple of God (Jn. 2) to birth, (Jn. 3) to water, (Jn. 4) to a fountain of water, with spiritual life always being by believing the word, and all of which Jn. 6 is consistent with
The Lord explained therein that "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me, (John 6:57) and what the Son "lived" by was every word of God, (It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. - Matthew 4:4) and thus doing the Father's will was His "meat," (Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.- John 4:34) and was not by physically consuming the Father. Thus the Lord explained that He would not be around physically, but that His words "are spirit, they are life." (Jn. 6:63)
The Lord's supper was nowhere preached as the means of of obtaining spiritual life, nor is it manifest as being the central supreme sacrament around which all else revolved, with the only description in the life of the NT church other than breaking of bread (Acts) and a "feast of charity," (Jude 1:12) being 1 Corinthians, which does not teach the Catholic Real Presence as being what they lacked discernment of. Nor is the Lord's supper anywhere manifest as a sacrifice for sin by the hands of a distinctive priesthood, which itself i utterly absent in the NT church.
No one ever obtained spiritual life by really physically eating anything. See post 55 and 73 and 117 here by the grace of God before you try to respond.
And for the Lord's supper becoming the Catholic corruption, see here by the grace of God.
The Lord's Supper: solemn symbolism or real flesh and blood?
(Note: allow scripts for pop up Bible verses
Nonsense! I don’t know your background, but your posts seem to exhibit all the earmarks and drawbacks of the autodidact, and it’s too hot here to try untangling them.