Spiritual meat isn't literal meat! If it were literal bread and wine, people could eat it once and never experience literal, physical hunger or thirst. The very fact that He said people would never hunger or thirst again if they "ate" Him proves that He was not being literal. Sorry, but when the Jews gazed upon Jesus they didn't see literal manna, the white stuff all over the ground. That would be literal. Yes, Jesus was literally speaking words, but the meaning of those words clearly wasn't literal. Besides, the original manna, the stuff harvested and eaten by the Israelites, wasn't literally Jesus; that manna was only a type of the promised Messiah. You would have the Israelites taking Eucharist in the desert! If Jesus were the literal manna in the desert, then why didn't they all receive eternal life (in accordance with v. 49) instead of being condemned to wander in the desert until they died, too disobedient to enter into the reward of the Promised Land? But look, if you believe that Jesus was speaking literally all through the John 6 discourse, then He also must have been speaking entirely literally when He said that we must literally eat His literal flesh and drink His literal blood (literal flesh and blood are physical flesh and blood) like the Romans say, and moreover He must have said that if we fail to do this we will not receive eternal life: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. That is the literal statement of Jesus, taken completely literally. And it's why Romans believe that salvation is thus conditioned upon and received by the work or physical act of taking Eucharist rather than faith in Christ only. We can't have it both ways. Talk of chewing on flesh can't be partly literally figurative and partly literally literal. Either it's entirely literal or it's entirely figurative.