I am not saying you must agree with the Real Presence, for there is one, and only one, alternative interpretation which is compatible with the plain sense of Scripture, that being the interpretation often found among Calvinists such as the Dutch Reformed and Presbyterians, and also frequently found among Anglicans and Methodists, that our Lord is pneumatically, that is to say, spiritually present in the Eucharist, but not physically present, and therefore, that the bread and wine are spiritually His Body and spiritually His Blood. This alternate approach scrapes by, where Zwinglianism and Memorialism do not, since Scripture makes it clear that there are Spiritual realities that are invisible to us but that are an important part of our existence, for example, the Angels and other Bodiless Powers. Although that said, Martin Luther, on the basis of Scripture, concluded that the Real Presence was the more probable explanation, and so do I; also, with Sola Scriptura, properly defined, other secondary sources of doctrine such as the writings of the Early Church Fathers, ecclesiastical tradition, and so on, are admissible, and these secondary sources unanimously favor the real presence.