I am not confused, but I will admit that I read your post wrong. But what you qouted was not why I said that, I read something else wrong.
As far as the last several posts that I was speaking of in the last post, I was not referring to any doctrine that he said. No doctrine at all. So all of the comments you made about doctrinal disagreements are unnecessary friend.
True, but if you correct someone about a doctrinal error and they won't accept your words. Should you keep talking or leave that person alone (again, was not referring to doctrine in any of the last several posts). If you read the post, we were not talking about the topic on this thread and he presented the evidence, and I just referred to it...
Disagreements can only be reconciled if both party's are willing friend.
No, I do not think that I can be without error. Yet, God is without it. On some issues that I have talked with people about, I talk from my own studies and understanding. In these things, I am more than willing to admit being wrong if proven wrong. But other things, I have learned from God, and I don't budge on those issues.
Again, he presented the truth for me, I just pointed it out. This was not a matter of doctrine friend. Reread the posts... what is the doctrine that we are discussing. Am I not telling him, that I didn't say any of this stuff you want me to prove. That I was just telling him not to get into an endless debate. What form of doctrine is this discussion? If I tell you stop putting words in my mouth, is that a doctrinal debate? Can you admit to being wrong sometimes?