“LOL! So just grovel and accept the fallible dictates of an anonymous poster?”
Your use of the words “grovel” and “dictates” show that you have some kind of emotional issue that is clouding your judgment. Too much work for me to take on. (And yes, I am qualified to say that.)
“Transubstantiation is sophistry on steroids, a late development unheard of in the apostolic age.”
Nonsense.
“No physical miracle of God was ever beyond sensory verification.”
Nor is transubstantiation. It must be noted, though, that many miracles were—and are—widely disbelieved.
“But no, rather than acquiesce to the blaziingly clear use of metaphor in John 6 to describe faith in the crucified Christ”
I specifically asked you to spare me whatever mental gymnastics you used to square your denial of scripture with your desire to be a Christian.
And that's the very grovelling I have no intention of doing. Where God opens up an opportunity to share the Gospel, that's worth doing, even if it irritates those who don't like to hear it. Besides, you crashed my conversation, not the other way around. And even that could have led to further adult conversation, but your "arguments" consist of "shut up" and "grrrr." Is that all you've got? I think it is. I am sorry for you. If you had some killer argument that established transubstantiation as truth, that card would have been played by now. Instead, its all about psyops. And I'm pretty sure making it personal, even if used as an avoidance tactic, is contra forum rules. There's a good reason for that. Do you feel you are beyond such limitations? Just curious.
Peace,
SR