And you hold the Apocryphals or Deuterocanonicals to be scripture. No difference. A book is a book is a book. If it isn't scripture, it isn't scripture. You're begging a difference that doesn't exist. Both of you use antiscriptural books and antiscriptural doctrines. The only thing seperating you is the names you use. The excuses are all the same.
So... This *appears* to claim Deutercanonicals are "antiscriptural"?
Again, some citations for folks to learn and understand are requested. I am doubtful they will be forthcoming. One wonders if souls and truth really are the goal of some, as opposed to bashing folks over the head what they believe Scripture says and the ability to say "I'm right - and you're wrong".