RCC View

Posted by jimB on 6/14/2009, 4:57 pm, in reply to "The RCC View"
68.164.10.22

Ray, The official RCC line on things is often well behind the curve. That is because they claim the silly infallibility dogma. So once a pope says something, they take a long time to acknowledge what they all know is silly. Cf. Gravity. FWIW jimB

---

Message Thread: The Law in Romans 2 by N.T. Wright - Ray Kidder 6/5/2009, 9:33 pm Further on this (cleverly moved to the left margin) - jimB 6/20/2009, 11:54 am What is the manuscript evidence? - Ray Kidder 6/22/2009, 9:20 pm Re: What is the manuscript evidence? - jimB 6/22/2009, 10:09 pm The manuscript evidence - Ray Kidder 6/23/2009, 6:20 pm OH MY!!!! - jimB 6/23/2009, 10:26 am OUCH! Incomplete citation - jimB 6/21/2009, 5:09 pm Re: The Law in Romans 2 by N.T. Wright - jimB 6/7/2009, 8:39 am Joel Garver on Romans 2:13 - Ray Kidder 6/23/2009, 7:56 pm Re: The Law in Romans 2 by N.T. Wright - Hal 6/8/2009, 8:11 pm The Law in Romans 2 by N.T. Wright - jimB 6/10/2009, 2:23 pm Chapter & verses - Ray Kidder 6/8/2009, 8:59 pm Some implications - Ray Kidder 6/8/2009, 6:21 pm Re: Some implications - jimB 6/9/2009, 10:03 am Jumping over chapter 2 - Ray Kidder 6/9/2009, 9:56 pm Woe there! - jimB 6/10/2009, 2:07 pm Epistle to the Romans by W. C. Van Manen - Ray Kidder 6/11/2009, 10:01 pm Epistle to the Romans by W. C. Van Manen - jimB 6/12/2009, 2:09 pm OOOOPPPPPPS! - jimB 6/13/2009, 12:22 pm The RCC View - Ray Kidder 6/13/2009, 4:58 pm RCC View - jimB 6/14/2009, 4:57 pm A Wikipedia web page - Ray Kidder 6/16/2009, 7:35 pm A Wikipedia web page - jimB 6/17/2009, 1:08 pm Re: A Wikipedia web page - jimB 6/17/2009, 9:52 am Re: The RCC View - jimB 6/13/2009, 6:12 pm « Back to thread

---

Post a Response