"You are the one who ignores historical context as the very early Church was accused of cannibalism. I mean really that is laughable. Calvin was the chief advocate of legalism."
Those anti-christians who accused christians of cannibalism would probably accuse calvin and zwingli of the same thing if they lived during the reformation. Look at anti-christians today who accuse christians of all sorts of nonsense. I'm not ignoring historical context, I just don't acknowledge your anachronistic view of history. But you seem to ignore the context of John 6 and 1st Corinthians.
"The church has always taught that the body and blood of Christ are truly received in and under the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper."
Again, how about showing some references to early church fathers who use the phrase 'in and through' that Luther does instead of begging the question. Catholicism teaches that the bread itself is the flesh of Jesus under the full appearance or 'accidental' (if you want the technical term) of bread, which would explain sciences inability to see a change in the bread. But Luther says it is 'in and through' but not the bread itself.. what does in and through mean in contrast to the catholic view, and is it subject to scientific inquiry? and why focus on 'is' when you are not really saying that the bread 'is' the body, but rather that it is 'in and through' it? I don't believe in the Catholic view, I just want to know how you contrast your view from theirs without begging the question on history. I've shown that the bible explicitly teaches that the communion is a memorial, but your view doesn't even agree with the phrase you use to support it.