Comment: This is not a magisterial essay, it's informal communication.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Right we eat it continually (see in situ)

This is not a magisterial essay, it's informal communication.

"Christ has come, Christ continue to comes, Christ will come again."

ok... now about answering the question which might establish that... which verse were you talking about where the tense you speak of exists? And why should that supposed verse be viewed exegetically in reference to communion rather than incarnation?

"There is a difference between Christ's flesh and human flesh unless you are calling Jesus a mere human."

I wouldn't call him a 'mere' human, but you run the risk of saying he is not fully human if you say his flesh is not fully or not really human flesh.

"But we have the main: This IS my body. This IS my Blood. Which, like Luther, I will hammer and hammer because you have no scriptural basis to reject it. I like how much you have cited scripture in your magisterial essay to me."

You miss the point, I don't reject the phrase, I just think you misunderstand it by applying the error of letterism to it.

"I would also point to John 6"

Right, but the reason I pointed out verse 63 is because it is in the section often quoted in reference to communion , note that it follows your quotation, and then re-frames the words that were spoken so they could be better understood. You should also consider what precedes your quotation:

John 6:35 "Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst." Notice that when Jesus calls himself the bread of life, Instead of eating and drinking here, the verbs are 'coming' and 'believing', and those verbs are coupled with the concepts of satisfying hunger and satisfying thirst. It seems clear, that if you come to him you are eating so that you will not hunger, and believing is tantamount to drinking if it quenches thirst. There's some kind of food imagery applied to coming and believing shown here. Then he continues with the imagery and afterwards says that those words he spoke are spirit and that the flesh doesn't profit. To isolate the imagery of eating his flesh from the preceding and following context is bad hermeneutics. Now go back even further:

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
John 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
John 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
John 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
John 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
John 6:34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Notice that in 29, Jesus says that the work of God is to believe, and this whole picture of food is introduced to explain to questioners how Jesus is the sign they seek, the proof that they ought to believe in. So the whole point of food imagery in John 6 has to do with believing in Jesus.

Now consider the following:

Corinthians 1
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.
33 So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. 34 Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. And when I come I will give further directions.

It seems that if I was as Lutheran as you I could leave my explanation on corinthians 11 at that, merely quoting a passage saying that my point is proven, and to disagree with me would be to disagree with scripture, and maybe I would just carve the verses into your wall or something and say that my scripture quote is more authoritative than your logic.

But What I'd like to point out is the phrase "do this in remembrance of me." and "whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes." The Bible is explicit that the communion is to be viewed as a memorial, do this "in remembrance", in remembrance of what? in remembrance of the death of Jesus as it goes on to say. And it says it's done for the purpose of proclamation. If John 6 already equates coming with eating and believing with drinking, in order to help people see they need to believe in Jesus, it would make sense that the communion would be a memorial of what Jesus did, as a proclamation of what he did, to promote his glory and belief in him.

Also consider the discerning of the body in verse 29. Elsewhere, the body of Christ refers to the church:

Colossians 1:18 "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."

But then in 1 corinthians 11:31, when talking about the judgement from not discerning the body, it says "if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment." Ourselves being the church, the body of Christ. You you would say to discern the human flesh in the communion, but it seems here rather to say to discern the body of christ, the church, ourselves. And Look at the context of corinthians as well.. just before it mentions communion it says this:
1Co 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
1Co 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

It points out problems with the church, and if you go back further, you can see a lot of this letter to the church at corinth had to do with being discerning in the church, explicitly with regard to eating with people in chapter 5:

1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
1Co 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
1Co 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

So it seems that the lutheran letterism emphasizing eating human flesh misses the point of the over arching context and teaching of scripture about belief in Jesus and discerning the body, the church.

Slightly notable but irrelevant fact: I read through 1st Corinthians when I was in Corinth.