>>16493974>>I literally can not stay or talk about the book of MatthewLiterally was never talking about them to begin with.
So here is the first post you made where we really started having our back and fourth (technically it the first post I responded to was here
>>16493899)
And in it you typed
>had to be interpreted allegorically and not literallyobviously referancing this post
>>16493904who was debating me on the bibles need to be interpreted allegorically or not.
Which I literally pointed out in my last post to you.
See HERE
>>16493965So not only did I never mention the book of matthew, but you are clearly trying to shift the focus because I proved you wrong twice over now.
Once here
>>16493943and again here
>>16493965 by giving you the "SHOW and PROVE how this is out of context" you wanted so badly.
So.
Stop trying to shift the discussion to matthew.
I have proved myself correct using the logic.
I have proved myself correct using the Biblical examples/comparison you requested.
And I have proved that we aren't and never were discussing the book of Matthew by retracing from the discussions start.
Anon, I....... its over.
Just be a man and admit.
You were wrong.