Hi spockrates,
There does seem to be a degree of ambiguity, yes. I believe that if one is a believer in Christ, one would take the bread and wine and remember Christ in doing so. To have eternal life we must accept that Jesus was who he said he was and that he gave his life - his flesh and blood - for us. It is obvious to me that Jesus defines the ‘eating of the flesh of the Son of Man and drinking of his blood’ in the earlier verses as I have already outlined. In John 4, ‘The woman at the well’, a similar metaphor is used by Jesus (verses 10-14):
Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.” “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?” Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
John 8:12; 10:9; 15:1:
When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved
“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.
The words of Jesus at John 6:63 can be taken to mean that his preceding words were not meant literally:
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.
Speaking plainly, I find the idea of transubstantiation repugnant. I don’t believe for one moment that Jesus ever taught it.
Jan