[CharlesWayneCT]

I said: you can't lift individual sentences out of the story and claim that the sentence is historical, while the next sentence must be just imagery.

You said: Cough, cough (Acts 1), cough.

I see nothing in Acts 1 which contradicts what I said. Maybe if you provided a specific example of a story where parts of the story are historical and others are just tales, we could discuss it.

Or better yet, since you brought it up -- why don't you tell me which part of Acts 1 you DON'T think is a historical fact?

Fulfilling prophesy is a historical act.

[papertyger]

I'm not going to spoon feed Scripture to anyone who presents themselves as an informed commentator.

Find the Old Testament Scriptures Peter is referencing in Acts 1. Consider the famous passages concerning Lucifer in Isaiah. Read the explaination of the writer's reasoning in Hebrews concerning the Scriptural witness of Melchizedek.

In short, there is NO Scriptural evidence the kind of heurmanutics advocated by Bible-only Christians is actually used by the persons IN the Bible to understand the Bible they had at the time, so why should we give it any respect NOW?