As I was reviewing this I came across something I hadn't noticed before but thought about. I'm hoping that Agnus Dei or Matt Black would discuss it. I already know the baptist view on it but welcome comments anyway. John 6 is often the key chapter for support of a real presence in the Eucharist. But it doesn't seem like a good support and here is what I mean: Its obvious that Jesus is saying that the only reason these people are following him is that he fed them. They were impressed by the feeding of the 5,000 and wanted to see more of that type of miracle. (Plus in that day and age free food popping out of nowhere was a good deal) However, this is the starting point. Discussion of bread. Jesus indicates that bread which is temporal spoils but they need to seek food that last forever. Obvious a jump to the spiritual. From seen to unseen. Like the woman at the well with water that will never get thirsty from again. Obviously, Jesus wasn't speaking about her body but her spirit. So then they understood his point and went directly to the heart of the issue. What must we do to do the works God requires? and Jesus says believe on the one that God sent. in other words himself. So the discussion so far is this: You're looking for food but you need spiritual food not physical. Obviously you're talking about a spiritual matter so what must we do to do what God wants? Believe in the one God sent. Now the discussion goes to whom God sent: Obvioulsy Moses was sent from God and he gave us manna. What's your proof that you're sent from God? Really, Moses didn't give you anything but God. So what you must do is look for the bread (the sent item or the one sent) that comes directly from God. And they are in for that. So Jesus says: I'm the one sent (bread) using the same motif as with the woman at the well and in psalms 1. (rivers of water not actual but spiritual) Now this is the crux. The people's first question is how can this dude claim to come from God? Not about being canabals. (even fine young ones) So they get his point about being sent from God with relation to bread. And when we jump to the flesh discussion Jesus isn't only saying he's the one sent but I'm in the one in the flesh (sounds like incarnation bread from heaven to flesh) which btw I'm going to give up for you. Now they they start speaking about canabalism. They were hanging with the spiritual discussion but with I'm Sent from God or am God in the Flesh because they are still thinking about the whole manna consept as being from God they seem to think in the flesh? We need to eat you? Yes you do he seems to say. But He also wants to be drunk by the woman at the well because he's living waters. So just like the waters doesn't feed her body I'm not certain here that John is jumping to the institution of the eucharist but showing that Jesus is sent from heaven and he himself feeds us spiritually. Which makes this verse make sense: One final thought with John 6. All the gospels were not writen to necissarily be chronological but to teach doctrine. I find it strange then that John would rely on Chapter 6 for the Eucharist but say nothing about it during the passover meal. Doesn't quite jive with me. You would think that he would repeat or say something again about it being Jesus body and blood or the real presence but he passes it over focused more on other things.