Why do you find my response unusual? Do you not agree that Scripture is the final authority for our faith? Should this not be an agreed upon point rather than turned into something it was not intended to be?That is an unusual response considering that it is common knowledge among those with an interest in church history that Luther caused quite a hubbub when he said and wrote that Scripture alone is lord and master over all other writings on earth.
You spend much time trying to turn my responses into "unusual" and "like an illogical response". A type of response I expect from Roman Catholics or Mormons but not from a fellow follower of the way.Based on the context of your question which follows, what you wrote above seems like an illogical response rather than a affirmation of what was written.
These Scriptural references, with attendant interpretations, does not provide the Scripture that states Jesus is in, with and under the bread and wine. There is no Scripture that states this philosophy and that is what I am trying to get you to the point of agreement. That said, with all due respect to my brothers and sisters in the Lutheran denomination, constubstantiation seems more like Roman Catholic transubstantiation lite, and as you stated given as a response to past claims of cannibalism, rather than taking communion for what it is, taken in remembrance of what Jesus did upon the cross, as He commanded.Is it that you find a difference between the use of a definite article in the identification of one category in a context which only had one category, Luther's basis of assertion and response from the text of Scripture at the colloquy, and the use of a redundant "only" in the identification of that one category?
That has already been done more than once in this thread,. but perhaps you missed it or overlooked what was written so here it is again. It is from one literal quote which is selected from multiple options followed by associated questions and answers for explicit clarification. The quote and question answer format will also work out in a similar manner with regard to the wine and blood of the LORD.
“¶And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.” (Mat 26:26, KJVA)
Question: Who took the bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to the disciples?
Answer: It was the LORD GOD incarnate, Jesus.
Question: What did the LORD GOD incarnate say about the bread which He took, blessed, broke, and gave to the disciples to eat?
Answer: The LORD GOD incarnate said, "Take and eat. This is my body."
Question: To the person who believes Jesus is the LORD GOD incarnate what is the bread?
Answer: It is bread and the body of the LORD GOD incarnate, just as He said.
Question: What then did the disciples receive orally?
Answer: They received the bread which is the body of the LORD GOD incarnate, Jesus.
Question: What are some consistent with the Scriptural witness responses or answers to the unbeliever who after hearing the words of institution then stares at the bread like a cow stares at a gate and says, "I see the bread, but where is the body of the LORD GOD incarnate?
Answer: Some consistent with Scripture responses or answers to the unbeliever are to physically point at the bread to indicate the location of where is the body of the LORD, or to point or indicate verbally through the use of a preposition, or a combination of prepositions, for example, in, with, and under, the location of where is the body of the LORD.
Question: Is there an analogous Scriptural example of a preposition being used to express an aspect of the LORD GOD in a particular physical location for you?
Answer: Yes. “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col 2:9, KJV)
Bless you BJ,