![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png)
Originally Posted by
RGS
Once again, it is irrelevant where the quote came from. If it came from Athanasius, fine, if it came from Elvis Presley, so what? The simple fact is that the RCC uses this information and quite clearly states the following in their catechism:
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 3, Paragraph 1, I. Why Did the Word Become Flesh?, #460
For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.
The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, ***umed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.
Two times in the same paragraph, the RCC catechism very plainly states that men can become either God or a god. Now, if that is not what was meant, then why is it written as such? Those who write and then later claim that what I wrote is not what I meant, have no leg to stand upon. Duh, let's see, how does the jingle go: I know you believe you understood what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. RCC double talk.
But, Vlad, this brings up a very interesting comparison. You claim I am taking these plain statements out of context, therefore, these statements do not mean what they plainly say. If this is so, then why do you take two statements out of context and claim they mean exacting what they say in the physical, when in context they do not mean a eucharist at all? Namely John 6:55-56
"For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."