Good questions @ILOVECHRIST, even @Johann asked similar questions, but im pleased to see you taking the arguments seriously, cross-referencing it by yourself, and learning from it…amazing…
1.Trōgein in John 6, Ruling Out Pure Metaphor
The verb trōgein (to gnaw, chew, munch) in John 6:54. 56-58 indeed carries a multifaceted semantic range in Koine Greek, but its deployment here resists a purely metaphorical or non-physical interpretation without overstating its literal force. To contextualise: John’s shift from phagein (general, “to eat” in vv 49-53) to Trōgein escalates the discourse’s intensity, evoking visceral physicality. The LSJ Greek-English Lexicon (9th ed Oxford 1940) defines trōgein primarily as literal mastication, especially of raw of fibrous substances, with rare metaphorical extensions in Hellenistic texts (eg gnawing on idea in Philo, Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat 48, but even there tied to consumption). In classical sources like Homer’s Iliad (24.642), it describes animals crunching bones, underscoring a somatic realism; Aristophanes’ Frogs (962) uses it for audible munching, emphasizing sensory engagement.
John audience, steeped in Jewish-Hellenistic culture, would recognize this as scandalous literalism, not mere symbolism. The pericope’s structure mirrors Capernaum’s synagogue debate where murmurs and departures is similar to Exodus 16’s grumblings over manna, implying a tangible provision. Scholarly consensus, even Protestant exegetes like Joachim Jeremias (The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, SCM Press, 1966) views trōgein as eucharistic foreshadowing, liking to institution narratives. Catholic scholar Raymond Brown in The Gospel According to John (I-XII), Yale, 1966, argues the verb’s graphic nature precludes metaphor, as John’s incarnational theology (“the Word became flesh”) demands somatic reality for eternal life. Theodore Stylianopoulos (The New Testament: An Orthodox Perspective, Holy Cross Press, 1997) adds that trōgein facilitates theosis (deification), a mystical yet physical union, not abstract faith.
To rule out pure metahpor, John’s lack of allegorical qualifiers (like no hōs or eikōn, unlike parables) and the crowd’s literal offense (sarxophagy implied) demand realism. A spiritually real, but non-physical “eating” (like Zwinglian) dilutes this, as trōgein’s etymology (from trōgō, to bite) in papyri like P.Oxy. 1088 (2nd AD) denotes empirical acts. Mystically, Orthodox (eg. St. John Damascene, Exact Exposition 4.13) and Catholic (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae III, q.75, a.1) frameworks integrate this as trans-elemental: spiritual efficacy through physical means, fulfilling Isa 55:1-2’s invitation to “eat what is good.”
2. Anamnesis in 1 Cor 11: Ontological Presence via Jewish Typology
An amazing question that you have raised 
Paul’s anamnesis (“remembrance,” 1 Cor 11:24-25) does not merely recall but actualises Christ’s sacrifice, effecting ontological presence rooted in Jewish cultic typology. In LXX usage, anamnesis is performative:
Leviticus 24:7’s memorial frankincense ascends to God, invoking covenantal response; Numbers 10:10’s trumpets “remind” God, eliciting favor. This is no passive memory but a ritual re-presentation, as in Sirach 50:16 (LXX), where high priestly acts make atonement present.
Paul, a Pharisee, adapts this: The Eucharist proclaims Christ’s death “until He comes”, bridging past, present and eschaton. Jeremias traces anamnesis to the Passover haggadah, where participants enter Exodus events ontologically. Orthodox exegesis (Alexander Schmemann, The Eucharist, SVS Press, 1988) views it as epiclesis-driven metabole making Christ present without re-crucifixion. Catholic theology sees it as an anamnetic sacrifice, fulfilling Malachi 1:11’s “pure offering”.
Jewish typology does not “automatically” equate to transformation but logically infers it: Passover’s literal lamb-eating (Exod 12:8) typifies Christ’s somatic gift (1 Cor 5:7). Non-ontological views reduce anamnesis to mnemonic, ignoring its covenantal dynamism (e.g., berith in LXX as binding presence). Evidence: Paul’s sequence—thanksgiving (eucharistēsas), breaking, declaration—mirrors Mishnaic rituals (Pesahim 10), effecting presence.
3.1 Cor 11:27-30: Judgement as Evidence of Real Presence Amid Ethical Dimensions
Paul’s judgment for “not discerning the body” (mē diakrinōn to sōma, v. 29) integrates sacramental realism with ethics, but the former grounds the latter. Diakrinō implies ontological distinction not mere respect. Unworthy partaking incurs guilt against Christ’s Body and Blood, paralleling Leviticus 22:9’s priestly sanctions for profaning holy things.
Ethical irrelevance and communal disunity exacerbate this, but judgment’s physicality ,like weakness, sickness, and death, presupposes a desecrated sacred object, not symbolism. Protestant scholar Gordon Fee (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Eerdmans, 1987) notes sōma refers dually to Christ’s Eucharistic Body and the Church, but the former enables the latter’s unity.
Orthodox (Cabasilas, Commentary) and CCC 1393 ciews entwine:
profaning the real presence wounds exxlesial koinonia.
Disentangling:
ethics flow from realism a symbolic meal warrants no divine judgement beyond conscience (refer to Uzzah, 2 Sam 6:7)
4.Patristic Evidence: Consensus on Realism with Complementary Symbolism
St. Cyril and St. John Chrysostom represent a broad patristic consensus, generalizable to East and West, as early witnesses affirm realism without philosophical speculation. St. Ignatius of Antioch (Eph 20.2) calls the Eucharist as “the flesh of our Saviour” demanding unity; Justin Martyr (First Apology 66) describes it as “not common bread” but Christ’s Body via prayer.
, thank you for the time and depth you put into this response. I read through every section carefully, and I must say, your appeal to both the Greek grammar (estin, trōgein) and the patristic witnesses (especially St. Cyril and Chrysostom) has given me a lot to think about. I always leaned toward the symbolic view, but I see now that Scripture itself — 1 Corinthians 10–11, John 6, and the institution narratives — carries far more weight in favor of a Real Presence than I had realized.