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.
That Rome cannot be wrong is illustrated by how you cannot point to any plausible reason, from the text alone, why Jesus would cause some disciples to leave by insisting that we should eat His flesh “indeed”, and then repeated the same thing at the Last Supper, and then St. Paul taught that we must “discern” His body in the Eucharist.
You believe in the scripture alone, — read it every once in a while. It is not a slur, — it is a logical conclusion, that you don’t do that with attention at least on this important topic.