>>Dr. E. doesn’t doctor documents<<
Compare post 140 that looks like this....
To: AnalogReigns; netmilsmom; Alex Murphy; Lord_Calvinus; Gamecock; OLD REGGIE; Uncle Chip; ...
Perhaps the answer is found in the RCC catechism itself...
“For the Son of man became man so that we might become God. The only begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.” (page 116, #460)
To post 387
“460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78 “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.”79 “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”80 “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.81”
Do you see something missing? The numbers.
Either the first quote was lifted from somewhere other than the second quote or it was doctored to remove the Footnote numbers.
Which is it?
And half of the text!
LOL. For the eighth time, nothing was "doctored." I removed the footnote numbers just like I remove the footnote numbers most of the times I excerpt from the Westminster Confession of Faith!
And when you complained, I inserted the footnotes. They're NUMBERS, not words. Anyone who reads the RCC catechism knows most sentences are footnoted (Not from Scripture, of course, but from men.)
Of course, I'm assuming you've read the catechism. Maybe that was the problem.
Your contention was that I excerpted from Vatican.org (rather than that being a typo) which you said must be an anti-catholic site.
Please show the world any sentence I could possible have taken, excerpted, doctored, stolen, referenced or used from Vatican.org.
Because Vatican.org DOES NOT EXIST.
Again, please tell us why you labeled the verbatim words of the RCC catechism $#460 as a "lie." With or without footnotes, the words stand as RCC teaching. The footnotes merely support the assertion made in 460.
This has been a fascinating exercise in spin, netmilsmom. I may write it up for later use.