The author is obviously not Catholic and has conveniently left out the Church's role in shutting down heliocentrism in the 1600's. Doubtful that the infiltration to destroy the Church started in Constantine's time, that's Protestant gibberish. 'Rome' never attempted to replace the worship of God with the worship of the sun...until recently of course. It's obvious that the enemies of the Church (Jєωs/Freemasons) desperately needed to infiltrate the Church in order to broadcast their errors. Heliocentrism was a necessary tool for their virtual world. The same people all but buried vital information about the Church and creation throughout the centuries because it was so intricately tied to Catholic liturgy, to Christ, and to reality. Although the author has sourced his information well (mostly), his commentary falls short as he's caught justifying his own heresy by blaming the Church, who was also a victim in this centuries old smear campaign.
"From the days of Constantine, Rome has aimed to replace the worship of God with the worship of the sun, and when Holy Writ went public, she started to employ other means than merely corrupting Scripture and killing its readers. To undermine the Bible’s authority, Rome began to change the perception of the masses regarding reality. That way she would nullify its main opponent without having to burn people or Torah scrolls. Heliocentrism was simply a tool of the Counter-Reformation and has been the bedrock of Jesuit ‘education’ ever since. Like the big bang and macro-evolution, it is an ancient pagan belief that was revived by ‘the beast.’"
Yeah, that was apparent from the outset when he referred to the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, "coming into being" on the first day. I didn't expect Catholic orthodoxy here, I view it the same as I would Edward Hendrie's book on FE; as he also goes into a ridiculous tangent about the "evil" Roman Catholic Church and the Jesuits in the latter quarter of that book. You'll get that when utilizing Protestant sources, but that doesn't necessarily mean their observations are wrong in the case of FE.
Still, a lot of the connections this author has made are interesting. Specifically the nature of the moon's light, and consequently its phases, as a result of transduction:
Since Genesis defines the moon not as a reflector but as a luminary, we know that she emits her own light. Put another way, the moon illuminates not through reflec-tion but through transduction.58 As commonly held, her position in relation to the sun determines the phases, i.e. the visible area of the moon’s illuminated hemisphere:
On the first day she is called New Moon because on the day light appears on her. The whole time in which the illumination of the moon progresses, light is transmitted to her, facing the sun, until the fourteenth day when her light is complete; then it amounts to one seventh of the light of the sun. (1 En 78:12, 11; 73:3)
The moon then wanes over fourteen days until she exhibits zero illumination:59
In her waning the moon decreases from her light. On the first day she has 14 parts, and on the second day 13 parts… [and on the fourteenth day 1 part]. And all the rest of her light is removed, and her orb emerges, devoid of all light, hidden by the sun. (1 En 78:8, 14)60
Footnote 58:
The Ethiopic text of 1 Enoch portrays the moon as ‘taking’ from the sun. She acts like a fluorescent bulb which absorbs electromagnetic radiation and re-emits the photons in the form of cold light.
Footnote 59:
Lunar eclipse is a misnomer: “Since about the 15th century over 50 eclipses have occurred while both sun and moon have been visible above the horizon.” F. Cook, The Terrestrial Plane (London, 1908), 58. When the EM axis between the terrestrial and celestial North Pole alters the conductive potential of the moon, the latter appears orange. It happens on rare occasions when the sun and moon are opposing each other while having the same distance to the equinox.
This idea of transduction is probably one of the better explanations I've seen for how the moon not only appears as a reflector of the sun's light, but also how it emits its own "cold light" and goes through phases (the absorption of electromagnetic radiation).
I'm in between on some of these books. Simply because it wasn't inspired by the Holy Spirit, this does not mean that it isn't authentic, real, and accurate. I think there's a temptation to throw anything out that wasn't declared by the Church to be inspired as if it were a fraud. But it doesn't have to be all or nothing. I could be authentic ... and yet not inspired. So, for instance, we have some of the early works like the Epistle of Pope St. Clement of Rome that's very real, has authority, but not inspired.
I'm in a similar position. Especially since Sacred Scripture references them. As it is not as though it is forbidden to believe in them, it's just that they have no definitive basis for proven legitimacy as inspired works. Obviously, anything that was clearly crafted by heretics would be out of the question (the Gnostic scriptures, specifically), but I don't seem harm in having a personal belief in them, as they are still part of Tradition, provided one isn't elevating them to the level of Sacred Scripture.
Topic: Dr. Sungenis: Flat Earth Flat Wrong (Read 31710 times)