BradtheImpaler wrote:(Omega) wrote:BradtheImpaler wrote:BradtheImpaler wrote:"Saith"? Does one have to speak "KJ - eese" when one is a "spiritual man"?
Who said that it did?
Just goes to show how well you know my character and judge it.
I cannot tell which of my remarks this response refers to? ("Who said that it did"?)
And yes I had to speak, why? Hows about taking 99% of the rest of the Scriptures and see if it is PROFITABLE FOR DOCTRINE! 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.
So you do NOT believe that ALL scripture is "profitable for DOCTRINE..." (fill in rest of verse)
or...
you do not believe that Acts is SCRIPTURE?
Just want to get clear on that.
{quote]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.
Let's see, I said...
"Does one have to speak KJ-eese when one is a spiritual man?"
to which you replied...
"Who said that it did?"
Why do you find it hard to believe I don't understand your response?
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?
Here folks, is our first example from "Evasiveness 101". Let's review what just happened here -
I asked did Omega believe that ALL scripture is profitable for doctrine, as the verse says...OR....does he believe Acts is not scripture?
Very simple point - ALL scripture is profitable for doctrine, therefore, if Acts is scripture, then ALL of it is profitable for doctrine, whether it is (also) history or not.
To which Omega replies -
"I not only accept doctrine as scripture but history as well"
Notice how this response totally avoids the entire point of my question?
Let's review again in case anyone missed it....
a) ALL scripture is profitable for doctrine
b) Acts is scripture
therefore...
Is ALL of Acts profitable for doctrine, yes or no?
Omega: "I not only accept doctrine as scripture but history as well"
Yet I am the one who is "playing games"?