Well, that is a thoughtful reply and I thank you for it, but still disagree with your conclusion.
Jesus was fully human, but He was also fully divine. He had no need of the food He was offering to those who believe in Him. His point was that He lives because of the Father and we live because of Him.
“My meat is to do the will of Him who sent me and to finish His work.” Jesus’ mission is not the same as ours as only He could accomplish what God willed. And only the Father could sustain Him.
We on the other hand, are to believe in Jesus and follow His commands and one of His commands was to “Do this in remembrance of me.” As Paul wrote, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes again.”
The protestant understanding of the Eucharistic passages might be reasonable were it not for the fact that Paul speaks of eating the bread and drinking the cup not in a figurative or symbolic sense but in a very real sense. And that he would say that one who partakes of that bread and cup unworthily eats and drinks damnation on themselves is clearly in regards to the true presence of Christ in those items. What else would bring about such an eternal punishment?
And why would some of the bread be saved and taken to those who could not come to the Mass? Why not just eat the bread at their house? No, we are told that some of the bread was taken to those brothers and sisters not there.
The letters to the church from Paul, Peter, John and James etc do not spend an inordinate amount of time speaking of the Eucharist because that was the practice of the church and there was no need to speak to it constantly. Everyone comes to church and behaves, it is out in the world that people misbehave and in their every day lives that they need reminding as to how they are to live. The breaking of the bread together was something they did whenever they were together and that is mentioned several times especially in Acts which speaks to the beginnings of the church.
Though there are some exhortations in the letters regarding the Eucharist and how one should comport oneself in church, for the most part, the letters address specific theological and behavioral errors within the communities.
Finally, belief in the real/true presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the ultimate in belief in Christ. As the church says it is the source and the summit of our faith.
Thank you for your consideration but you are not following the argument as regards Jn. 6:57. , That He had no need of the Eucharistic as you describe does not correspond to the analogy, in which Jesus is saying that we live as He did, and which was not by eating physical food.
As far as 1Cor. 11, that is definitely not referring t the elements being the body of Christ, but the church. See here: http://www.peacebyjesus.net/Bible/1Cor._11.html#11 (brief)
As for your attempt to explain the lack of mention of the Lord’s supper and theology behind it in the epistles, by saying there was not need to speak to it constantly as they knew how they were to live, that will not do, as you the reason He wrote was so that they would now how to live, and thus he spend much time on both theology and application.
As for asserting that the breaking of the bread together mentioned in Acts was the Lord’s supper, this was not describing giving out wafers as an expiatory sacrifice officiated by priests, but daily meals.
Thus in regards to the communal breaking of the bread, there was a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. (Acts 6:1) To which the apostles responded, “It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables...But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. “ (Acts 6:2)
In contrast, when some members were being neglected in the “feast of charity,” then Paul chastened them for not recognizing the body of Christ, as they were not recognizing some members as being part of the body, and by so doing he says they actually were not eating the Lord’s supper, though they presumed they were.
In short, the idea that physically eating Jesus literal body is the “seed of eternal life” and “ultimate in belief in Christ” is not supported by Scripture, and actually takes the focus off what eating the Lord supper is supposed to actualize. It is not a wafer that is incarnating Christ in some way, but the church, and the Lord’s supper is supposed to remember the death of Christ for His church by exampling loving sharing towards each other, which the Corinthians were not doing.
Again, see the link and honestly allow yourself to go wherever the truth may lead. If the Scriptures taught transubstantiation i will still believe it.