I mean the New Testament. It was not written before the Pentecost, you know. The inspired writers of the New Testament expressed nothing that would not be Catholic, and which work to canonize and which not to canonize was a decision not of theirs but of the Holy Catholic Church.
your interpretation of Scripture is driven by the premise that the Latin church (Rome) is infallible
I argued nothing but the plain text in front of us. You don't have any evidence for allegorical usage in either case.
I don't see the rest worth much, sorry. You just list your opinions; I am not interested in them. We discussed the scripture. There is no allegory there in these passages. That is the salient point.
However...
Catholic writers express all kinds of things that are not New Testement.
In your eyes thru Rome's, versus the many and critical differences referenced and gone over her.
and which work to canonize and which not to canonize was a decision not of theirs but of the Holy Catholic Church.
Which final indisputable decree over 1400 years after the last book was penned made writings no more the Word of God than they were before.
I argued nothing but the plain text in front of us. You don't have any evidence for allegorical usage in either case.
You argued based upon the premise that Rome could not be wrong, and thus Scripture can only support her, and thus force texts to do so, as was shown. Thus despite the evidence for allegorical usage being clear and abundant and consistent with Scripture, you see none thru your Roman eyes. While you effectively interpret her as damning most every Prot who does not believe in the Catholic Real Presence.
I don't see the rest worth much, sorry. You just list your opinions; I am not interested in them.
I don't see the rest worth more reproof, sorry. You must just support Rome's opinions - which sometimes is more as you interpret her - while I substantiated mine based on objective examination. That is the salient point. I am not interested now in more Roman propaganda.