Actually, this all started when the_doc tried to claim that early Christians interpreted John 6:52-68 metaphorically, not literally.
When I posted irrefutable proof that the early Christians DID interpret John 6: 52-58 literally, the_doc said that he didn't give a fig what the early Christians all said. He also stated that the reformers corrected 1500 years of the early Christians' errors.
When he saw this was an untenable position, and that he was clearly losing (as usual) the debate, he resorted to ad hominem attack, invective, insult and slur.
However, if it excuses you from examining the Truth to think that his insults are nothing more nor less than an attempt to save my immortal soul, so be it.
I'm not called to be successful, I'm only called to be faithful.
Your citations of early church fathers' use of Biblical terminology (flesh, blood, body...) hardly prooves their literal definition of such.
I am ~very~ reformed and have attended a ~reformed~ church my entire life. At every 'Communion' our pastor uses those very same words -even better- he requotes the exact phrasing from the scriptures! Does that mean he beleives the bread and wine (grape juice in our church) to be the literal body and blood of Christ who is physically reigning and sitting at the right hand of the father as Stephen himself testified? That would be rather silly!
"I'm not called to be successful, I'm only called to be faithful."
Are you called to be faithful to your 'tradition'? Or the Bible?
If the former, then you are doing a pretty good job, if the latter -you fail miserably!
Jean
Dogs are faithful..you are called to know the truth..even if you do not like it
Jhn 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.