BradtheImpaler wrote:You can't tell which of your responses it refers to? People here are getting pretty tired of playing your games, I find it amusing how you avoid admitting to any of your typed out innuendos. Since you will never admit to such, especially when adding ?'s at the end of such remarks to avoid such implications.
I can't tell which of my statements this -
"Who said that it did?"
- refers to?
So is The Book of Acts SCRIPTURE?
Re-read my post:
(Omega) wrote:The Book of Acts presents an extensive picture of the early church life and history and does not teach primarily on Doctrine as in comparison to the epistles and other NT Books.
Scripture:1124{graphe}a writing, thing written. The Scripture, used to denote either the book itself, or its contents.
Scripture:[n] any writing that is regarded as sacred by a religious group.
I not only accept doctrine as Scripture but History as well. Are we clear of that?
Thank you - I could not ask for a clearer example of how you consistently misconstrue the simplest of statements, and then accuse ME of doing so -
The point is not that Acts (or any relevant scripture) isn't ALSO "history", the point is why you and Aineo believe Acts is "historical" RATHER than doctrinal.
Do you believe that ALL of the Book of Acts is -
a) scripture
yes or no?
then...
do you believe that -
b) ALL scripture is profitable for DOCTRINE?
yes or no?
(the following response will be an excerpt from Omega and Aineo's online course -
"Evasiveness 101"
...please pay attention to see how it is done
)