No. Stop the bibliolotry. Jesus insists that we take His Words seriously. Very seriously. Life and Spirit seriously. That means that we determine what He meant by the words.
And it is clear by His repeated insistence that He meant that His Flesh was True Food. That unless we ate His Flesh we would have no life.
SD
Nah, not eat his flesh. This is a forshadowing of His death, Dave. That is where your logic fails. The command to eat his flesh is present tense - meaning if the command were to be taken literally, they should then sit and cannibalize him. No, it is intended to say that Jesus must be consumed in a different way, that his shell be broken and the spirit released. For if this failed to happen, we would not have salvation. Jesus wasn't sacrificed so that we could have wine and wafers. He was sacrificed so that we could have eternal life. That sacrifice gave us forgiveness of sin. See, your logic fails you here again. Note the paradox about which I've spoken before.. that one must be free of sin to partake in Communion yet you guys have this notion that communion forgives sin. If it were through bread and wine as you teach, your own teaching says you are without hope because the mere fact that partaking of it in Sin damns you and it is your hope of being saved from the same sin. As intelligent as you are this should be screaming at you that something is wrong. Wake up, please. As interesting as you can be to talk to, I'd hate to not have you around for eternity.