Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 20

Author Topic: Dr. Robert Sungenis Debuts New Book: Flat Earth, Flat Wrong  (Read 9539 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Geremia

Re: Dr. Robert Sungenis Debuts New Book: Flat Earth, Flat Wrong
« Reply #35 on: July 05, 2018, 04:38:57 PM »
Quote from: Smedley Butler on July 05, 2018, 03:46:43 PM
Looks like Geremia is the first to buy the book!
Yes, I was interested in his exegesis, but Sungenis still seems to have some Protestant baggage…
Logged

Offline hismajesty

Re: Dr. Robert Sungenis Debuts New Book: Flat Earth, Flat Wrong
« Reply #36 on: July 06, 2018, 04:27:24 AM »
But Geremia is probably reading the book to confirm his own prejudices about the globe earth lie.
Logged

Offline cassini

Re: Dr. Robert Sungenis Debuts New Book: Flat Earth, Flat Wrong
« Reply #37 on: July 06, 2018, 06:59:48 AM »
Quote from: Geremia on July 05, 2018, 01:18:30 PM
I agree with Sungenis's criticism (FEFW p. 259) of Fr. Jaki's Modernist claims that "higher criticism" shows Genesis 1 is "post-exilic" (it is Catholic doctrine that Moses authored the Pentateuch), but degree with Sungenis that Fr. Jaki's criticism of "concordism" ("applying proven scientific facts to the Bible") is incorrect, on the grounds that "Geneis 1's separation of the Light of Gn 1:3 and the sun and stars of Gn 1:14-17 is a scientific 'contradiction'". St. Thomas answers Sungenis's objection (Summa Theologica I q. 70 a. 1 arg. 2):by saying (ibid. ad 2):

Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas
Quote
Objection 2: Further, the luminaries are, as it were, vessels of light. But light was made on the first day. The luminaries, therefore, should have been made on the first day, not on the fourth.

by saying (ibid. ad 2):
Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas:
Reply to Objection 1: In Augustine's opinion there is no difficulty here; for he does not hold a succession of time in these works, and so there was no need for the matter of the lights to exist under another form. Nor is there any difficulty in the opinion of those who hold the heavenly bodies to be of the nature of the four elements, for it may be said that they were formed out of matter already existing, as animals and plants were formed. For those, however, who hold the heavenly bodies to be of another nature from the elements, and naturally incorruptible, the answer must be that the lights were substantially created at the beginning, but that their substance, at first formless, is formed on this day, by receiving not its substantial form, but a determination of power. As to the fact that the lights are not mentioned as existing from the beginning, but only as made on the fourth day, Chrysostom (Hom. vi in Gen.) explains this by the need of guarding the people from the danger of idolatry: since the lights are proved not to be gods, by the fact that they were not from the beginning.

Now this may be out of context with the thread subject, but it came up here so I would like to comment. I have long pondered on the creation of light on the FIRST DAY and the sun on the FOURTH DAY. As I understand it, St Augustine based his instant creation on the fact he could not understand how there could be light on the first three days without the sun.

This order of our world, according to Moses in Genesis I, was like every other system created by God, hierarchic. First created were the heavens and Earth, heaven for His angels and then heavens around the Earth. Next God created light, the material light and ‘the intellectual or angelic light,’ a metaphor for the angels,

‘signifying the angelic nature and mystically the light of their science and grace with which they were endowed at their creation. God created the Earth conjointly with the heavens in order to call into existence hell in its centre; for, at the instant of its creation there were left in the interior of that globe spacious and wide cavities, suitable for Hell, Purgatory and Limbo.' --- The Mystical City of God,

Was St Augustine, who could not cope with light before the sun and so separated himself from the six-day creation of the majority of the Fathers, the only Father who did not hold to a six-day creation? The reason I ask this is because it was this separation that allowed the billions of years to be applied to Genesis.

Now St Augustine was not a pope making an official Church dogma. In other words St Augustine was not infallible. Did St Augustine never see lightning at night? Isn't that light without the sun? Did St Augustine never see light coming from a fire without the sun? If St Augustine were to come back today and find a church all lit up with electric bulbs at night, would he think it a miracle? Light is but one electromagnetic effect.

I am a complete believer in an electric universe based on evidence. I believe when God created light on the first day it was an effect of electromagnetism that, like an electric bulb, gave the physical light described in Genesis. St Augustine, and St Thomas would not have understood that God infused His universe with electromagnetism. Pity, because St Augustine is portrayed as the one who blocked the six-day creation and made it impossible for a six-day creation to be held as dogma.

Geremia is absolutely correct in my mind to disagree that the creation of light before the sun is not a 'scientific contradiction.'






Logged

Offline cassini

Re: Dr. Robert Sungenis Debuts New Book: Flat Earth, Flat Wrong
« Reply #38 on: July 06, 2018, 07:37:39 AM »

CORRECTION: I wrote 'is not a scientific contradiction.' Should have been 'is' in context.


Geremia is absolutely correct in my mind to disagree that the creation of light before the sun is a 'scientific contradiction.'
Logged

Offline happenby

Re: Dr. Robert Sungenis Debuts New Book: Flat Earth, Flat Wrong
« Reply #39 on: July 06, 2018, 08:38:16 AM »
I agree that the universe is electric.  The sun is not a gas ball, but some form of contained electricity.  There are explanations for the light on the first day which was a broader form of light, true light as it were, not yet contained or formed except to be distinguished from darkness.  Some consider that the first created light was a luminescence of sorts, later manipulated into use for the sun, but remaining distinct from it.  Just as the moon's light is different than the sun and the stars.  This first light is not a known thing as stated, just a working theory.    
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 20
« previous next »