I didn’t write 356 to you. DrEckleburg did.
You responded to her #352 in #353 in which you called her a liar. She responded to the accusation by pulling from her 352 in 356.
It’s easy to see you trying to confuse the issue, but the record is clear and is still online. Try at least to be a bit creative in being tricksey.
You wrote: “I didn’t write 356 to you. DrEckleburg did.”
You’re right on that.
“You responded to her #352 in #353 in which you called her a liar.”
I may have responded to her, but that doesn’t mean I responded to her post #352.
“She responded to the accusation by pulling from her 352 in 356.”
In any case, as I just proved the article was posted at Jesus-is-Lord.com even if she didn’t use that as her source. I don’t think I ever even saw 352 until this current argument started. Apparently using Jesus-is-Lord.com is banned here, but I had no idea that that was the case. Using all anti-Catholic sources is the same to me. #356 was addressed to me. #352 was not.
“It’s easy to see you trying to confuse the issue, but the record is clear and is still online. Try at least to be a bit creative in being tricksey.”
I used no trickery. So far everything I said was absolutely true except for one point which was only partially true.
1) The Catholic Church doesn’t teach salvation by works.
2) The quoutes posted to prove such were in fact bogus. Texts were significantly distorted for instance.
3) The quotes appeared at Jesus-is-Lord.com but I was wrong in believing that was the ultimate source. Had I seen #352, then I might have followed the link, but #326 was directly addressed to me so I went there and never even saw #352 until much later.
So, my only error was in believing the info ORIGINATED at Jesus-is-Lord.com when in reality they are just posted there.