Minutes then if not seconds. The host begins to dissolve in the mouth. It's not going to last long in the stomach.
This is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture where Jesus says that He will not abandon us or leave us.
John 10:27-29 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
John 14:23-24 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
Hebrews 13:5-6 Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, "I will never leave you nor forsake you." So we can confidently say, "The Lord is my helper; I will not fear; what can man do to me?"
This is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture
I thought that everyone agrees here that teaching of the Scripture, clear, or otherwise is nice, but not necessary for Rome.
All of the arguments you have provided are good, particularly those concerning the consumption of blood. The clean/unclean struggle that Peter "Kill and Eat" had was icing on the cake. Since Scriptures and doctrine don't matter to those enslaved to Rome, will reason work?
When Luther challenged Rome and Rome blinked, thus began the Protestant Reformation. If the Reformation was about taking people away from Christ as the sycophant cultists of Rome sincerely believe, then why did Luther keep the critical doctrines like Christ's divinity, the virgin birth, the death and resurrection and the forgiveness of sins? One would think that those would all have been perverted from the start in the same manner as all cultists and alternative religions do.
Without going through all permutations of the doctrines surrounding the Eucharist, from Rome's to the Evangelical's Zwinglian, we have the common elements, we recite the same Scripture, we observe the same LORD and same Last Supper, we largely retain the same exhortations given by Paul in how that sacrament is taken. So what is the practical difference from the standpoint of the casual observer?
The Roman version requires Rome. IOW, Rome acts as if they copyrighted and trademarked the Eucharist as if it was some movie or song, and they jealously protect their property rights with the same ferocity as ASCAP. When the Eucharist is performed anywhere outside their approved venue where they can receive their proper royalties, then the "crime" is similar to illegally downloading and burning your own copy. Once you understand their position using this template, it because quite easy to comprehend their lunacy on the topic.
To nearly everyone concerned, its crackers and fruit of the vine, this transubstantiation mumbo-jumbo is the mental gyrations that one goes through in order to brand the Eucharist into an exclusive Roman product. You can't conjure up Christ like some modern witch of Endor and make Him enter into the elements, neither can anyone who is not underneath the royalty obligations with Rome. You want a genuine, holographed and legal Eucharist, you must buy it from Rome.
Everyone understand what it really is all about now?
The presence under the appearance of bread and wine begins when the priest asks God to enter the species, and naturally ends when bread and wine dissolve, but Christ is present in all we do at all times.