Author Topic: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis (Read 55877 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #225 on:** July 13, 2023, 07:11:33 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on July 12, 2023, 04:48:36 PM

No he does not. He referred to the earth as aquosa et globosa moles, that is, "a watery and spherical mass"

Yes he does.

Most of the misreading of the Church Fathers comes from the notion that when they spoke of the globe, they were speaking about NASA's ball earth where the ground we walk on is a globe. When they discussed the shape of the world, they were speaking about the entire world, including the firmament that surrounds it, and most of the debates among the Church Fathers about the shape of the earth deal explicitly with the shape of the firmament ... sphere, hemisphere, tent/cone shaped, etc.

Jaynek · « **Reply #226 on:** July 13, 2023, 07:22:10 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 13, 2023, 07:11:33 AM

When they discussed the shape of the world, they were speaking about the entire world, including the firmament that surrounds it, and most of the debates among the Church Fathers about the shape of the earth deal explicitly with the shape of the firmament ... sphere, hemisphere, tent/cone shaped, etc.

That is a legitimate point but you can't seriously be agreeing with Tradman's claim that "Augustine tells us that scripture describes a flat earth." You have read enough of St. Augustine to realize that this is not true. You must have recognized that those quotes were taken out of context.

Tradman · « **Reply #227 on:** July 13, 2023, 07:44:39 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on July 13, 2023, 04:55:06 AM

St. Augustine writes of four ways of understanding Scripture proper to Catholics:

in accord with history, allegory, analogy, and etiology. It is a matter of history when deeds done-whether by men or by God-are reported. It is a matter of allegory when things spoken in figures are understood. It is a matter of analogy, when the conformity of the Old and New Testaments is shown. It is a matter of etiology when the causes of what is said or done are reported

This first sense is sometimes called the literal sense. St. Augustine wrote two books about the literal meaning of Genesis in which the focus was what actually, historically happened rather than the other three ways of understanding. Neither of these was an exhortation to take everything in Genesis (or Scripture in general) literally, that is, without recognizing figures of speech. Expressions in Scripture about God speaking, having a mouth, hands or arms are not literal and it is incorrect to understand them that way, since as you say, God is a spirit.

Anyone who reads these works in their entirety can see that St. Augustine explitly taught that Scripture is silent on the shape of the earth. He disagrees with every flat earther who claims that Scripture teaches the earth is flat. His view (which is also the Catholic view and my personal view) is that Scripture teaches neither that the earth is flat nor that it is a globe.

It is not possible to have actually read his works (rather than isolated quotes) and think anything else. Scholars discuss what Augustine personally believed and the vast majority conclude that he believed in a globe earth. A notable exception is Leo Ferrari, who wrote a famous paper on the thesis that Augustine personally believed in flat earth. The work the poster cassini quoted was a critique of Ferrari's paper. (I have read the entire critique and think that the author made a good case that Ferrari was wrong.)

Tradman, you did not answer my question about whether you read On the Literal Meaning of Genesis. Given how wrong your understanding of this work is, I am going to assume that you did not. I would be interested in discussing this work with anyone who as read it and especially interested in finding a functional link for it. But I don't have anything to say to people who simply make false assertions about Augustine's views.

Yes, I read "On the Literal Meaning of Genesis' a few years ago and have returned to it for information many times. I appreciate your interpretation of what Augustine said in this particular piece, but it seems we need to define some things. Just to make it easy I'll use Wiki:

"According to doctrine developed by the Church Fathers, the literal meaning, or God-intended meaning of the words of the Bible, may be read figuratively as a moral reading for one's personal life."

And there we have it, the literal is the God-intended meaning. We can also be assured that all exegesis is based in the literal even as the other senses are considered for fuller understanding. Of course Augustine used all four senses to explain the richness of scripture. He demonstrated when things don't appear in actuality, they can still be embedded in the text. For instance, Genesis doesn't literally say that God created water. Augustine explains why the creation of water is contained in the first line, "In the beginning, God created heaven and earth.'

Of course, exegesis doesn't mean you can extrapolate willy nilly. When the Church Fathers who taught on the form of the earth, they certainly applied all senses, while they held to the literal. So when God says "like a tent" He doesn't mean "like a ball." When God says the earth stands firm in it's foundation, He doesn't mean it dangles in space. So, when you say scripture doesn't describe a flat earth, have you read scripture?

Marulus Fidelis · « **Reply #228 on:** July 13, 2023, 08:11:19 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on July 13, 2023, 06:48:20 AM

I accept what the Church taught on the subject in the encyclical Humani Generis: https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

I think that St. Augustine neither supports nor rejects it, since the theory did not exist in his life time. We can safely say, however, that he would not accept any theory that denied that truth that God is the Creator of the universe.

For someone who has read De Genesi ad litteram you're astoundingly ignorant of it:

St. Augustine: "The elements of this corporeal world have also their well defined force, and their proper quality, from which depends what each one of them can or cannot do, and what reality ought or ought not to issue from each one of them. Hence it is that from a grain of wheat a bean cannot issue, nor wheat from a bean, nor a man from a beast, nor a beast from a man." (De Genesi ad litt., IX, n. 32).

Here's one more quote from Augustine ruling out evolution.

St. Augustine, Against Julian, Book 1, Chap. 5: “… before sin entered [the world], all beasts were subject to man, and the fact that now they harm men is punishment for the first sin.”

I won't be debating the heresy of evolution with you since it's so obviously false and has been debunked in a myriad of ways, but I thank you for exposing yourself as completely unreliable, ill-informed and lacking Catholic sense.

You should tend to womanly duties instead of promoting modernist destruction of genesis. Yes, the quotes you abuse from Leo XIII and others are favourites of the modernists.

Thank you Tradman for these beautiful quotes, I'll be adding them to my collection.

Jaynek · « **Reply #229 on:** July 13, 2023, 08:24:45 AM »

Quote from: Tradman on July 13, 2023, 07:44:39 AM

"According to doctrine developed by the Church Fathers, the literal meaning, or God-intended meaning of the words of the Bible, may be read figuratively as a moral reading for one's personal life."

And there we have it, the literal is the God-intended meaning. We can also be assured that all exegesis is based in the literal even as the other senses are considered for fuller understanding.

The literal sense of Scripture (as opposed to allegorical, etc.) is the meaning that God intends for us to understand about what is actually occurring or described. This does not mean that God intends for us to take figures of speech or parables as literal descrptions. The Church guides us in understanding the meaning that God intends for Scripture. Only sola Scriptura heretics take everything in Scripture literally. (And yet they somehow miss that "This is my Body" is literal.)

We can best understand St. Augustine's view how it is used in magisterial teaching, here in Providentissimus Deus:

To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

I have bolded the Augustine quote. (And Ladislaus, please stop the nonsense claiming that quoting this encyclical somehow puts me on a "trajectory to modernism" merely because modernists have misinterpretted it according to their agenda. What haven't they misinterpretted? This is their basic mode of operation.)

So here we have clear magisterial teaching that the intent of God in Scripture, therefore its literal sense, is NOT to describe the physical nature of the visible universe. When it speaks of such things it is using figurative language. To claim that Scipture teaches the earth is flat is to go against Church teaching on how to understand Scripture.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #230 on:** July 13, 2023, 08:24:56 AM »

Quote

Here is a passage in which St. Augustine is being explicitly critical of literal interpretation:

19. "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and the light was made." We ought to understand that God did not say, "Let there be light," by a sound brought forth from the lungs, or by the tongue and teeth. Such thoughts are those of carnal persons, and to be wise in accord with the flesh is death. "Let there be light," was spoken ineffably. One can ask whether what was spoken is the only-begotten Son. For what was spoken is called the Word of God by whom all things were made. Only let us banish the impiety of believing that the Word of God, the only-begotten Son, comes about like a sound uttered by us.

You have a serious reading comprehension problem. The literal interpretation of this passage is that "God spoke...Let there be light." St Augustine says that God spoke, but not like a human being. So he is supportive of the literal interpretation, he just added details. And anyone with a brain knows that God doesn't talk like we do.

Jaynek · « **Reply #231 on:** July 13, 2023, 08:29:47 AM »

Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on July 13, 2023, 08:11:19 AM

I won't be debating the heresy of evolution with you since it's so obviously false and has been debunked in a myriad of ways, but I thank you for exposing yourself as completely unreliable, ill-informed and lacking Catholic sense.

You won't be debating evolution with me because I would not defend evolution so there is nothing to debate. But you have here shown yourself to be an intellectually dishonest and illogical debater who misrepresents the positions of his opponents.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #232 on:** July 13, 2023, 08:40:38 AM »

Quote

To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

You're missing the point.

This encyclical is saying that the Holy Ghost did not intend to "teach men...the essential nature of things...to penetrate the secrets of nature".

But the Holy Ghost did "describe...things...in terms which were commonly used at the time...in a way men could understand and were accustomed to".

There is a difference between Teaching and Explaining something. To be taught means one has studied and knows the topic inside/out and can teach others because they are an expert. To be explained to means one understands the topic, at a general level, but not enough to teach others, but only re-explain it.

In other words, a biologist understands how a tree grows, what nutrition it needs, when to prune it and "why" pruning it at certain times is good or bad. A simple farmer won't understand the "why" but he can still understand enough to know the nutrition/pruning needs and how to grow big, healthy trees (i.e. the "hows").

The point is, Scripture and the Holy Ghost did not teach the "whys" of the earth/universe, as this encyclical says. But it did give mankind enough to know "how" to navigate, operate and work nature/earth.

So, yes, Scripture can be used to explain the earth/sciences/history (in a general sense...the "how" does it work?) but just not specifically and profoundly (i.e. "why does it work this way?").

Jaynek · « **Reply #233 on:** July 13, 2023, 08:41:47 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on July 13, 2023, 08:24:56 AM

The literal interpretation of this passage is that "God spoke...Let there be light." St Augustine says that God spoke, but not like a human being. So he is supportive of the literal interpretation, he just added details. And anyone with a brain knows that God doesn't talk like we do.

Yes, the literal interpretation, that is the meaning intended by God, is that light came into being when created by the will of God. This meaning is conveyed by using the figurative expression "God spoke" in which we understand God's act by analogy to human speech while recognizing they are not equivalent.

The word "literal" can sometimes refer to the meaning intended by God or sometimes is used as the opposite of figurative. I can see how you would get confused, but I think you could figure it out if you were to pay close attention.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #234 on:** July 13, 2023, 08:41:56 AM »

Quote

I thank you for exposing yourself as completely unreliable, ill-informed and lacking Catholic sense.

He didn't come close to doing anything of the sort.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #235 on:** July 13, 2023, 08:49:13 AM »

Quote

Yes, the literal interpretation, that is the meaning intended by God, is that light came into being when created by the will of God.

That's half of what happened. You left off the part where God "spoke", which was the manifestation of His will.

Quote

This meaning is conveyed by using the figurative expression "God spoke" in which we understand God's act by analogy to human speech while recognizing they are not equivalent.

Totally false. St Augustine said that God spoke. This is not literal language. "Let there be light," was spoken ineffably.

Do you know what "ineffible" means? Incapable of being expressed; indescribable or unutterable:
This does not mean a word wasn't used and language wasn't expressed. It simply means we can't understand what God was saying.

God definitely spoke. This is the literal interpretation of Scripture, which St Augustine confirms.

Quote

The word "literal" can sometimes refer to the meaning intended by God or sometimes is used as the opposite of figurative. I can see how you would get confused, but I think you could figure it out if you were to pay close attention.

Here's what the word 'literal' means - true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual

You have an agenda, this clear.

Jaynek · « **Reply #236 on:** July 13, 2023, 08:50:06 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on July 13, 2023, 08:40:38 AM

You're missing the point.

People who claim that Scripture teaches the earth is flat are the ones missing the point. Catholic teaching is that Scripture does not teach this and that it is not important for salvation. This was taught by Church Fathers like Augustine and Basil, accepted throughout the history of the Church, and explicitly taught in magisterial docuмents.

Catholics are free to make arguments from science for a flat earth, but they may not claim that we are obliged to believe it as a truth taught in Scripture.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #237 on:** July 13, 2023, 08:57:39 AM »

Quote

People who claim that Scripture teaches the earth is flat are the ones missing the point.

It can be argued (as the Encyclical points out) that Scripture doesn't "scientifically teach" this point. But does it "explain" enough details so we can conclude flat land? Very possible.

Quote

Catholics are free to make arguments from science for a flat earth, but they may not claim that we are obliged to believe it as a truth taught in Scripture.

The Church authorities of the Middle Ages (i.e. their Magisterium) would disagree with you. There is evidence, both theologically and historically, that the Church thought that a globe earth was contradictory to Scripture, thus we can't believe it (even if we can't fully explain the "whys" of the world...we know enough).

Secondly, the scientific attributes of a flat-land vs globe land are innumerably different, almost opposed. It's not like we're comparing a red apple vs a green apple, where the differences are minor (i.e. color and taste). The differences between these 2 earthly theories are vast.

To say that Scripture offers "absolutely no" insight or hints/explanations into such a question is both stupid and short-sighted.

Jaynek · « **Reply #238 on:** July 13, 2023, 09:05:12 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on July 13, 2023, 08:57:39 AM

The Church authorities of the Middle Ages (i.e. their Magisterium) would disagree with you. There is evidence, both theologically and historically, that the Church thought that a globe earth was contradictory to Scripture, thus we can't believe it (even if we can't fully explain the "whys" of the world...we know enough).

This is nonsense. In the Middle Ages,educated Catholics accepted Aristotle and Ptolemy as authorities on cosmology. They could only do this because they believed that Scripture was silent on the topic and that it was a matter for science.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #239 on:** July 13, 2023, 09:07:11 AM »

How much have you read about Galileo?

Author Topic: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis (Read 55877 times)

Ladislaus

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Jaynek

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Tradman

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Marulus Fidelis

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Jaynek

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Pax Vobis

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Jaynek

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Pax Vobis

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Jaynek

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Pax Vobis

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Pax Vobis

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Jaynek

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Pax Vobis

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Jaynek

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Pax Vobis

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis