A Lutheran's unresponsive response

"UPDATE: Triablogue Responds. He basically recapitulates Calvin's critique. I will respond in another post."

http://upstatelutheran.blogspot.com/2010/02/how-jesus-body-even-before-resurrection.html

In fact, I didn't nothing of the kind. I merely responded to Edward on his own terms. In a nutshell, he used a 3-step argument:

i) In Scripture, Jesus did various things which "violate" what a human body can normally do.

ii) This was possible because Jesus has a different kind of body than ordinary human beings.

iii) And this is grounded in the hypostatic union.

I responded by pointing out that (i) isn't limited to cases of Jesus doing extraordinary things. We have analogous cases in Scripture, both human (Moses, Jonah, Lazarus, Daniel's friends) and subhuman (burning bush, axe-head).

Given i(b), then:

ii) Moses, Jonah, Lazarus, and Daniel's friends had different kinds of bodies than normal human bodies. Likewise, the axe-head and burning bush were made of different stuff.

iii) Given i(b)-ii, then Moses, Jonah, Lazarus, Daniel's friends, the axe-head, and the burning bush were all instances of God Incarnate.

My response is simply a parallel argument to Edward's argument. It doesn't employ Calvin's framework. Rather, it confines itself to Edward's own logic and presuppositions.

It's odd that Reiss suffers from such chronic inability to follow someone else's argument–especially when my argument was merely following his argument. Is Reiss an only-child whom his evil step-dad locked away in the basement? Is that why he's unable to relate to what other people tell him? He missed out on that part of his formative socialization?