Author Topic: Problems with Sungenis' Book (Read 2086 times)

happenby · « **on:** July 06, 2018, 09:19:56 AM »

Sungenis provides a list of 16 Fathers of the Church he claims that taught earth is a globe. The problem is, the list is provably inaccurate. I will address two on the list for the time available to me. On the list is Arnobius. Wiki gives some insight.

The work of Arnobius appears to have been written when he was a recent convert, for he does not possess a very extensive knowledge of Scripture. He knows nothing of the Old Testament, and only the life of Christ in the New, while he does not quote directly from the Gospels. He was much influenced by Lucretius and had read Plato. His statements concerning Greek and Roman mythology are based respectively on the Protrepticus of Clement of Alexandria, and on Cornelius Labeo, who belonged to the preceding generation and attempted to restore Neoplatonism.^[10]

^{Without knowledge of Scripture, any discussion of the shape of the earth by Arnobius would not be authoritative.}

^{Sungenis lists St Athanasius as a globe earther, yet that claim is proven quite a stretch. Wiki places St. Athanasius with flat earthers and we can see its highly questionable that the saint taught earth is a globe. Below is a quote from St. Anthanasius and beyond that is an excerpt from Wiki.}

^{Athanasius: but the earth is not supported upon itself, but is set upon the realm of the waters, while this again is kept in its place, being bound fast at the center of the universe. (Against the Heathen, Book I, Part I)}

Diodorus of Tarsus, a leading figure in the School of Antioch and mentor of John Chrysostom, may have argued for a flat Earth; however, Diodorus' opinion on the matter is known only from a later criticism.^[88] Chrysostom, one of the four Great Church Fathers of the Eastern Church and Archbishop of Constantinople, explicitly espoused the idea, based on scripture, that the Earth floats miraculously on the water beneath the firmament.^[89] Athanasius the Great, Church Father and Patriarch of Alexandria, expressed a similar view in Against the Heathen.^[90]

Regarding Athanasius' claim that earth is set on the waters (under the firmament) and not in space, we see that Sungenis has a problem. But that St. Athanasius says the earth is "bound fast" also shows that he did not teach that the earth was a ball hanging in space. Scripture says the earth is bound to the firmament at the edges, is firmly fixed, and even quotes God saying, "I have bound it (heaven and earth) like a square block of stone".

More to come...

happenby · « **Reply #1 on:** July 06, 2018, 10:31:45 AM »

Also on Sungenis' list includes St. Cyril of Jerusalem as having taught the globe. Well, not so much, as we see below.

Wiki

“J.L.E. Dreyer, A History of Planetary
Systems’, (1906)” A limited preview is here, and Severian is on p.211-2
A contemporary of Basil, Cyril of Jerusalem, lays great stress on the necessity of accepting as real the supercelestial waters 1, while a younger contemporary of Basil, Severianus, Bishop of Gabala, speaks out even more strongly and in more detail in his Six Orations on the Creation of the World,2, in which the cosmical system sketched in the first chapter of Genesis is explained. On the first day God made the heaven, not the one we see, but the one above that, the whole forming a house of two storeys with a roof in the middle and the waters above that.
1 Catechesis, ix., Opera, Oxford, 1703, p. 116.
2 Joh. Chrysostomi Opera, ed. Montfaucon, t. vii. (Paris, 1724), p. 436 sqq. Compare also the extracts given by Kosmas, pp. 320-325.

No glober teaches that there is water in space.

Further explanation tells us:

The literal interpretation of the Bible was totally
followed by the leaders of the Syrian Church,
who accepted only the cosmogony of the Genesis.
Some contemporaries of Basil, Cyril of
Jerusalem and Severian of Gabala agreed with the
creation of the world according the Genesis.
The heaven is not a sphere, but a tent, a tabernacle,
a vault, or a curtain. The earth is flat and the
sun does not pass under it in the night, but travels
through the northern parts, hidden by a wall.

So, Sungenis' claims about St. Cyril are definitely a problem.

happenby · « **Reply #2 on:** July 06, 2018, 10:43:34 AM »

Another Saint on Sungenis' list of Fathers who taught that earth is a globe is St. Clement of Alexandria. Again, Sungenis' information is inaccurate.

"Other notable Fathers of the Church who taught flat geocentric earth are Theophilus of Antioch in the second century and Clement of Alexandria in the third, based on the seventh verse of the first chapter of Genesis, both taught that spread over the earth was a solid vault, "a firmament," and they added the passage from Isaiah in which it is declared that the heavens are stretched out "like a curtain," and again "like a tent to dwell in."

--A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom
by Andrew Dickson White
Historian

happenby · « **Reply #3 on:** July 06, 2018, 11:21:45 AM »

Another on Sungenis' list is Eusebius.
While this blurb isn't as clear as to what he exactly believed, this is what historian Andrew Dickson White tells us about Eusebius: References below may add more information.

A few of the larger-minded fathers of the Church, influenced possibly by Pythagorean traditions, but certainly by Aristotle and Plato, were willing to accept this view (spherical earth), but the majority of them took fright at once. To them it seemed fraught with dangers to Scripture, by which, of course, they meant their interpretation of Scripture. Among the first who took up arms against it was Eusebius. In view of the New Testament texts indicating the immediately approaching, end of the world, he endeavoured to turn off this idea by bringing scientific studies into contempt. Speaking of investigators, he said, "It is not through ignorance of the things admired by them, but through contempt of their useless labour, that we think little of these matters, turning our souls to better things." Basil of Caesarea declared it "a matter of no interest to us whether the earth is a sphere or a cylinder or a disk, or concave in the middle like a fan." Lactantius referred to the ideas of those studying astronomy as "bad and senseless," and opposed the doctrine of the earth's sphericity both from Scripture and reason. St. John Chrysostom also exerted his influence against this scientific belief; and Ephraem Syrus, the greatest man of the old Syrian Church, widely known as the "lute of the Holy Ghost," opposed it no less earnestly.

(27) For Eusebius, see the Proep. Ev., xv, 61. For Basil, see the
Hexaemeron, Hom. ix. For Lactantius, see his Inst. Div., lib. iii, cap.
3; also citations in Whewell , Hist. Induct. Sciences, London, 1857, vol.
i, p. 194, and in St. Martin, Histoire de la Geographie, pp. 216, 217.
For the views of St. John Chrysostom, Ephraem Syrus, and other great
churchmen, see Kretschmer as above, chap i.nklhlbl

happenby · « **Reply #4 on:** July 06, 2018, 11:41:38 AM »

Another Father on Sungenis' list is Gregory Thaumaturgus, yet Gregory was a student of Origen, who was an ardent flat earther and who taught that the firmament was without doubt a solid structure above the earth through which rain passed. Although this isn't exactly proof Gregory wasn't a glober, with the errors Sungenis has found himself immersed in already doesn't bode well for his claim. Note the glowing sentiment of Gregory for Origen:

In his panegyric on Origen, Gregory describes the method employed by that master to win the confidence and esteem of those he wished to convert; how he mingled a persuasive candour with outbursts of temper and theological argument put cleverly at once and unexpectedly. Persuasive skill rather than bare reasoning, and evident sincerity and an ardent conviction were the means Origen used to make converts. Gregory took up at first the study of philosophy; theology was afterwards added, but his mind remained always inclined to philosophical study, so much so indeed that in his youth he cherished strongly the hope of demonstrating that the Christian religion was the only true and good philosophy. For seven years he underwent the mental and moral discipline of Origen (231 to 238 or 239).
Before leaving Palestine, Gregory delivered in presence of Origen a public farewell oration in which he returned thanks to the illustrious master he was leaving.
From Wiki

Also on Sungenis' list is St. Jerome. And yet we have information telling us that St. Jerome did not believe in the flat earth.

"Greek gýros turns up in its transliterated form gyrus--present in Roman literature as early as Lucretius (mid-first century BC)--in the Latin versions of the Bible as well.27 St. Jerome (c. 340-420), the early Latin Church's master linguist and Bible translator, began his work on the Old Testament by creating a standard version from the several unreliable Old Latin recensions then in existence, using as a valuable aid Origen's fair copy of the Hexapla which he consulted in the library at Caesarea around 386 AD.28 The Old Latin recensions were based on the LXX and commonly rendered this same portion of Isa. 40:22a as "qui tenet gyrum terrae."29 Later, when he prepared a new version from the Hebrew that would become part of the Vulgate, he kept the Old Latin reading, changing only the verb tenet, "dwells," to sedet, "sits."30 And in his Commentary on Isaiah, Jerome, who is regarded by critics today as a competent and careful scholar,31 specifically rejected the notion that in this verse the prophet is referring to a spherical earth." 32

^{We also know that St. Jerome taught, based on Scripture, that Jerusalem is in the center of the earth; which is totally impossible on a globe.}

^{The book of Ezekiel speaks of Jerusalem as in the middle of the earth, and all other parts of the world as set around the holy city. Throughout the "ages of faith" this was very generally accepted as a direct revelation from the Almighty regarding the earth's form. St. Jerome, the greatest authority of the early Church upon the Bible, declared, on the strength of this utterance of the prophet, that Jerusalem could be nowhere but at the earth's centre; in the ninth century Archbishop Rabanus Maurus reiterated the same argument; in the eleventh century Hugh of St. Victor gave to the doctrine another scriptural demonstration; and Pope Urban, in his great sermon at Clermont urging the Franks to the crusade, declared, "Jerusalem is the middle point of the earth"; in the thirteenth century an ecclesiastical writer much in vogue, the monk Caesarius of Heisterbach, declared, "As the heart in the midst of the body, so is Jerusalem situated in the midst of our inhabited earth," - "so it was that Christ was crucified at the centre of the earth." Dante accepted this view of Jerusalem as a certainty, wedding it to immortal verse; and in the pious book of travels ascribed to Sir John Mandeville, so widely read in the Middle Ages, it is declared that Jerusalem is at the centre of the world, and that a spear standing erect at the Holy Sepulchre casts no shadow at the equinox.}

happenby · « **Reply #5 on:** July 06, 2018, 11:50:08 AM »

The posts above show that Robert Sungenis is unable to avoid personal bias in his studies and writings. His willingness to make erroneous statements in order to promote what he believes rather than do a thorough study makes him less than reliable, (or worse) as well as a common propagandist for the pagan model.

I didn't buy the book, but used the 50 pages preview available through the link provided in another thread.

I still remain open minded, in case there is information I haven't seen from him, but already Sungenis is on thin ice.

hismajesty · « **Reply #6 on:** July 06, 2018, 04:56:34 PM »

Well done happenby. Thats great work.

I'll be interested to see what his actual quotations are though, rather than just his assertions about the Fathers are.

Assertions cannot be trusted because of globers wanting to confirm their own biases. They have been shown to wrong so often.

happenby · « **Reply #7 on:** July 06, 2018, 05:18:58 PM »

Oh, my and here are more errors for all of Sungenis' efforts. This too, is in the preview of the book provided in the link shared by Klas in the CI library.

Sungenis quotes St. Ambrose as though the Saint is teaching the spherical earth. He titles it:

The Consensus of the Fathers: Earth is a Sphere
Pg 97

Ambrose:
"They ask us to concede to them the heaven turns on its axis with a swift motion, while the sphere of the earth remains motionless, so as to conclude the waters cannot stay above the heavens, because the axis of heaven as it revolved would cause these to flow off. They wish, in fact, that we grant them their premise and that our reply be based on their beliefs. In this way they would avoid the question of the existence of length and breadth and that height and depth, a fact which no one can comprehend except Him who is filled with the fullness of the Godhead, as the Apostle says.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone with half a brain can see that St. Ambrose is saying that "they" (pagans) ask "us" (Catholics) to concede to them that heaven turns on its axis with a swift motion, while the sphere the earth remains motionless. And he tells us why. "so as to conclude the waters cannot stay above the heavens, because the axis of heave as it revolved would cause these to flow off."

This entire statement of St. Ambrose's is his contention against the their globe. St. Ambrose is telling us about what "they" believe and what their purpose is in believing it. And yet, Sungenis has the word "sphere" in italics as if St. Ambrose is teaching the sphere himself. Fr. Pfeiffer did the same thing. They see the word "sphere" or "globe" and they jump on the quote, which invariably destroys their argument. This is a common mistake by those who have a preconceived idea that earth is a globe.

St Ambrose goes on to say that pagans say this about the sphere to avoid the question of the existence of length and breadth and height and depth (of earth) a fact which no on can fully comprehend except God.

St Ambrose speaks of the firmament as well, saying that it is solid, something Sungenis refuses to admit.
St Ambrose comment on Genesis 1:6, said, “the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant” (Hexameron, FC 42.60).

The firmament is a deal killer for globers so Sungenis prefers to sweep it under the globe.

kiwiboy · « **Reply #8 on:** July 08, 2018, 03:39:24 AM »

Wow, that is really idiotic. Someone needs to give this guy a lesson in logical thinking.

If this is all he can come up with then it should be a piece of cake refuting him.

happenby · « **Reply #9 on:** July 12, 2018, 05:15:06 PM »

I continue to find unbelievable errors and sleight of hand exegeses in Sungenis' book to include superstition and heresy.

Sungenis resorts to pagan systems of numerology in spite of the Church's position on such things. Mr. Sungenis announces without source or proof that the four corners of earth mentioned in Scripture are only symbolic and that he assumes the "four corners" comes from compass points and are understood to be directions only. In one passage, Sungenis is talking about the Book of Revelation, so one could make the case that the four corners might be symbolic since the book is known for that, but what Sungenis fails to tell the reader is that the four corners of earth are also mentioned in Ezekiel. And since the Church teaches that we are to interpret Scripture considering the literal first, Sungenis leads the reader to a false conclusion with numerology and guessing.
First, Ezekiel's passage:

"Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An
end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land". - Ezekiel 7:2

On page 161 Sungenis begins to tell us what he thinks the four corners means:

In Ap 7:1, John sees four angels standing at the four corners of the earth. The “four corners” refer to the compass points north, south, east and west. These four angels are holding back four winds, which we assume come from each of the four compass points.(emphasis mine)

Later, Sungenis' "all symbolic" conclusion on Pg 173 about the four corners in Scripture.

Such is the case when Apocalypse 7:1 speaks of “four” corners, angels and winds. They are all symbolic, especially since these items were things John saw in a vision, as if he were in a dream (see Ap 1:9-20). As our dreams are almost all symbolic images of the realities of life, so are John’s visions, and the use of the first twelve cardinal numbers is one of the more frequent symbols used in the Apocalypse. They appear 230 times, which is remarkably high for even a symbolic text, much more one that is only 22 chapters long. The breakdown is as follows:

Number Frequency 1 36 2 14 3 32 4 33 5 7 6 8 7 60 8 2 9 1 10 12 11 1 12 24 Total 230

As we can see, the number “four” appears 33 times. It is applied to such things as elders, beasts, angels, winds, people, quarters, corners, cubits, seals, parts, and gems. The sheer diversity implies that symbolism is highly involved, while the contexts of each passage confirms this fact. In most instances, “four” is used for universality, similar to a synecdoche in which the part stands for the whole. As noted previously, “four corners” refers to all the land in view. Likewise, “four angels” refers to the entire work of the angels for a particular event, and “four winds” refers to all of land which will be involved.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Sungenis' argument regarding the shape of the earth is not only incomplete, and doesn't address Ezekiel, he draws from Pythagorean and Gnostic numerology to make his point. The Church doesn't use such theatrics to explain numbers, let alone draw uninformed conclusions by it, nor does She teach that all of Scripture is to be interpreted symbolically.

Here's what the Church says about numerology:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The world in which the Christian religion and Catholic Church were founded was dominated by pagan religions that attributed mystical meanings to numbers and objects in nature. Numerology is the study of mystical relationships between numbers and events. The Catholic Church has historically believed in the significance of certain numbers, but ultimately rejects the systematic divination associated with numerology.

The Catholic Church Fathers believed the numbers in the Old Testament had mystical significance, but they cautioned against pushing mystical interpretations to the extreme. Father Herbert Thurston, S.J., wrote in the Catholic Encyclopedia: “The Fathers repeatedly condemned the magical use of numbers which had descended from Babylonian sources to the Pythagoreans and Gnostics of their times.”

https://classroom.synonym.com/the-catholic-church-numerology-12086108.html

happenby · « **Reply #10 on:** July 12, 2018, 06:08:46 PM »

Psalm 103:11-12: For as the heavens are high above the earth, so great
is his steadfast love toward those who fear him; as far as the east is
from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us.

On pg 277 Sungenis remarks on the Scripture passage above. He says:

In this passage the imagery of a vast distance between the height of the
heavens above the Earth is compared to the distance between east and
west. On a flat Earth, the distance between east and west is at least 12,000
miles, which is four times higher than what the flat-earthers assign to their
3,000-mile high dome. Not only does the disparity between the two
distances makes the verse confusing, the small numbers of both suggest a
limitation on God’s love rather than it being limitless. On a spherical
Earth, the distance between east and west is incalculable, since as one
moves eastward on a sphere, west is always 12,000 more miles ahead of
him, which, in turn, depicts God’s love as infinite. Likewise, a distance of
the heavens above the Earth in the multi-millions of miles portrays a
divine love that is beyond our comprehension.

Sungenis compares what he does not understand and draws a silly conclusion. Firstly, he compares what he says is the flat earth distance between east and west according to what he thinks some flat earthers have said. Then he assigns another number to the height of the sky and makes a comparison between the two. What is so miserable about this venture is that flat earthers readily admit they do not really know for certain the distances from east to west on earth, nor to the highest point of the firmament, but merely attempt to understand, based on other known measurements, what might be true. Sungenis' comparison fails anyway, because it is 100% conjecture and misses the point of the passage. This passage in Scripture shows that earth cannot be a globe because it compares in a clear depiction of terms that man's sins are as removed from him (by God) as far as east is from west. In other words, permanently apart on a flat map. However, east and west on a globe always meet up. Sungenis tries to suggest east and west are infinitely away from each other since direction on a globe goes round and round, but fails in his analogy because east and west invariably meet up at some point on a globe, and never on a flat earth. East and west are not specific on a globe either, and cannot be assigned a place since there is nothing to determine what is east and what is west. The only way east is east and west is west is that it was once understood to be a flat earth, with an east and a west. That notion is copy and pasted to a globe now, but doesn't really work. A globe relegates the terms east and west to relative positional nonsense and leaves the sinner confused about the relationship between east and west with regards to God forgiving the sinner who fears Him.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #11 on:** July 20, 2018, 10:55:29 AM »

More stark raving nonsense from obstreperously nescient flat-earthers!

Sungenis compares what he does not understand and draws a silly conclusion. Firstly, he compares what he says is the flat earth distance between east and west according to what he thinks some flat earthers have said. Then he assigns another number to the height of the sky and makes a comparison between the two. What is so miserable about this venture is that flat earthers readily admit they do not really know for certain the distances from east to west on earth, nor to the highest point of the firmament, but merely attempt to understand, based on other known measurements, what might be true. Sungenis' comparison fails anyway, because it is 100% conjecture and misses the point of the passage. This passage in Scripture shows that earth cannot be a globe because it compares in a clear depiction of terms that man's sins are as removed from him (by God) as far as east is from west. In other words, permanently apart on a flat map. However, east and west on a globe always meet up. Sungenis tries to suggest east and west are infinitely away from each other since direction on a globe goes round and round, but fails in his analogy because east and west invariably meet up at some point on a globe, and never on a flat earth. East and west are not specific on a globe either, and cannot be assigned a place since there is nothing to determine what is east and what is west. The only way east is east and west is west is that it was once understood to be a flat earth, with an east and a west. That notion is copy and pasted to a globe now, but doesn't really work. A globe relegates the terms east and west to relative positional nonsense and leaves the sinner confused about the relationship between east and west with regards to God forgiving the sinner who fears Him.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #12 on:** July 20, 2018, 10:57:01 AM »

Quote from: happenby on July 06, 2018, 09:19:56 AM

More to come...

.
More nonsense to come? Great! ............. NOT!

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #13 on:** July 20, 2018, 11:00:57 AM »

Quote from: happenby on July 06, 2018, 10:31:45 AM

No glober teaches that there is water in space.

.
Wrong, as usual. There's plenty of water in space. It's far between molecules, but there are lots of molecules.
.
In fact, there is very little water on earth.
There is far more water in space than there is on earth, because space is immensely huge, compared to earth.
.
I know, it's hard for a flat-earther to understand these things. I'm so sorry. :baby: Maybe your pacifier will help.
.

happenby · « **Reply #14 on:** July 21, 2018, 01:10:21 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on July 20, 2018, 11:00:57 AM

.
Wrong, as usual. There's plenty of water in space. It's far between molecules, but there are lots of molecules.
.
In fact, there is very little water on earth.
There is far more water in space than there is on earth, because space is immensely huge, compared to earth.
.
I know, it's hard for a flat-earther to understand these things. I'm so sorry. :baby: Maybe your pacifier will help.
.

Hilarious. Water and vacuum to not mix, nor vacuum with non-vacuum as the atmosphere is said to meet up with the vacuum of space. And now Neil has laid an irrigation system up there. Ah mazing. You heard it here first, folks.

Author Topic: Problems with Sungenis' Book (Read 2086 times)

happenby

Problems with Sungenis' Book

happenby

Re: Problems with Sungenis' Book

happenby

Re: Problems with Sungenis' Book

happenby

Re: Problems with Sungenis' Book

happenby

Re: Problems with Sungenis' Book

happenby

Re: Problems with Sungenis' Book

hismajesty

Re: Problems with Sungenis' Book

happenby

Re: Problems with Sungenis' Book

kiwiboy

Re: Problems with Sungenis' Book

happenby

Re: Problems with Sungenis' Book

happenby

Re: Problems with Sungenis' Book

Neil Obstat

Re: Problems with Sungenis' Book

Neil Obstat

Re: Problems with Sungenis' Book

Neil Obstat

Re: Problems with Sungenis' Book

happenby

Re: Problems with Sungenis' Book