"I point to Luther's 'This is my Body' over and over and over again. This is not a 'Roman Catholic' view, but the view of the vast majority of Christians throughout the entire age of the Church. Heck, there is even a 1st century catechism teaching the Lord's Supper. "
Again, this begs the question, every christian group thinks that their version is what the early Christians used. To say Luther's view does this is no different than Catholics who say their view was always in practice though not formalized. It's probably an anachronism in either case.
"This is ignoring the Greek in 1 John,"
Ignoring? you've never answered to tell what verse you were talking about though I've asked twice!
"ignoring John 6... this is ignoring 1st Corinthians"
I was quoting John 6 and 1st Corinthians and going through it to show how you are wrong. In fact, I was the one who brought up John 6.
"this is ignoring Jude"
hey, I've got that book memorized, I'm not ignoring it, but I'm not seeing the connection you make.
"Ignoring the Passion narratives, this is ignoring Revelation where there is an anti-Lord's Supper for those who are unbelievers, and clearly presents the marriage feast of the Lamb. Ignoring all of that,"
I don't see your point in those.
"This IS my body becomes This 'sort of is', 'kind of is', 'in a way is', 'feast up in Heaven is', an so on. Give me one scriptural passage where you 'feast up in heaven'? I bet you cannot. God is real, He comes to you on the Sacrament of the Alter, he will come again."
I already went through the text to show my point. you sound like a jehovah witness asking to show where the word trinity is in the Bible.
"Calvinists believe in limited atonement. I believe in unlimited atonement for 'God so loved the World'. God came to erase the sins of unbelievers as well. This does not mean everyone gets into Heaven, but their debts are already paid. This was a fact that Calvin disagreed with."
Then you believe Jesus tried and failed to save some. I don't think God is a failure, I could quote john 10:28 again, but I'll let you look it up. If their debts are paid then what are they punished for?
"These along with other realities is why Lutheranism's 'letterism' makes it so different than the other Protestants. We are a separate branch because we are truly 'Sola Scriptura'. I also hear that Lutherans read the Bibles too much from other Protestants as well. I guess that 'letterism' is what you mean by that and I take that proudly."
Here's a definition for you:
"While often ignoring context, historical and cultural setting, and even grammatical structure, letterism takes each word as an isolated truth. A problem with this method is that it fails to take into account the different literary genre, or types, in the Bible. The Hebrew poetry of the Psalms is not to be interpreted in the same way as is the logical discourse of Romans. Letterism tends to lead to legalism because of its inability to distinguish between literary types. All passages tend to become equally binding on current believers."
if you take a class on hermeneutics you will learn more about the error of letterism.
I think you are misunderstanding sola scriptura also.
BTW, I know we disagree on a lot of doctrine and history, but I'd like to mention that I have no animosity towards you personally and think we'd probably get along if we knew each other. I like a lot of what I've seen you say elsewhere. I can see Luther's stubbornness in you which is entertaining in a way.