End times

[Brenda4God]

Trth-skr, you really think Mr. Sungenis is good when it comes to Jewish things? Really?

I’ve read a lot about this over the last year and was forced to admit the problem pretty early on. I love his early works but Mr. Sungenis has a real problem when it comes to Jews.

And what does it have to do with anything that Mr. Cork is a 7th Day Adventist anyways? Do you mean to say that 7th Day Adventists are liars or that they can’t tell when a person plagarizes ant-Semetic writings?

And I read what Mr. Blosser wrote too. What you said doesn’t have much at all to do with the problems he found from Mr. Sungenis.

What about all of the people that used to volunteer for Mr. Sungenis? Are they all liars, too? Or are they all crazy? 7th Day Adventists?

personal.psu.edu/bmd175/sungenis.htm

personal.psu.edu/bmd175/sungenis3.htm

sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/

sungenisandthejews.com/

You must be his mother or his best friend to defend him so. God bless your heart.

 

[tm30]

I am not sure what your point is. Sungenis does have fairly strong opinions on secular Jews and Talmudic Judaism, as well as Zionism. Much of his views do stem from his understanding of Scripture, especially Romans, but many other books as well. As to his views on end times, these do play in somewhat, but the interpretation of Apocalypse really does not depend on his views on Judaism too much.

True, he rejects a post-millenial scheme with Israel being prophetically reinstated as a nation, but this really never was a Catholic view. He does not reject the view out of any feelings towards Jews, but rather because the Church does not , nor has taught that. The Church has consistently taught an amillenial view since at least Augustine. The future Israel is the heavenly Israel. As St. Bellarmine pointed out ( Disputations on the Controversies Over the Christian Faith Against the Heretics of the Day):

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Sungenis’ book has been flat-out denied an imprimatur. Catholics beware, as Sungenis for many months led people to believe it was coming, when it had, in fact, already been denied.

 

[tm30]

Quite honestly, I doubt that is anything unusual. I am sure books are denied imprimatur on the first try all the time. Robert is still working to get an imprimatur. In the mean time he has released the book, and it is an excellent work.

Then why did he lie about it in the months leading up to publication by failing to disclose that he was already notified the imprimatur was categorically denied? I bought the book, not realizing this was the case.

 

[trth_skr]

Brenda4God:

I could link up Robert’s response to all those pieces you linked, but it is getting pretty old. Just go to his website, and you can find all the responses if you want.

Bill Cork (the 7th Day Adventist) first started criticiizing Robert when Robert wrote an article critcal of the idea that we do not need to evangalize Jews any longer. That is ridiculous.

Now we have a USCCB Adult Catechism which claims that the Mosaic Covenant is salvific for Jews. I truly question that. And Robert did write to the CDF about it. And the page of the catechism related to that question was indicated a a reason to decline his request for an imprimatur.

These are the type of things Robert has gone after. Maybe he is to strong and went over the top in some instances (especially in entering more political areas), but the basics of what he is going after is real.

For the last year or so, he has been being attacked by some of his co-workers, and responding, and being attacked, and responding (etc., etc., etc.). Each attack lead to more material on Jewish questions on his site, which then lead his attackers to point out all the Jewish material, etc.

I am not saying Robert is perfect, but as far as this thread is concerned, and the question of end times, and specifically his book on the Apocalypse, the Jewish question barely enters in. There are some questions, certainly, but they are not of too controversial a nature.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

Then why did he lie about it in the months leading up to publication by failing to disclose that he was already notified the imprimatur was categorically denied? I bought the book, not realizing this was the case.

Please read his statement. He did not lie about anything.

BTW, did you like the book? ? ?

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

Sungenis’ book has been flat-out denied an imprimatur. Catholics beware, as Sungenis for many months led people to believe it was coming, when it had, in fact, already been denied.

A denial is not the end of the road. It is like asking a girl out for a date. You may get rejected a few times before you get a ‘yes’.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Mommyof02green]

Now we have a USCCB Adult Catechism which claims that the Mosaic Covenant is salvific for Jews. I truly question that.

I happen to have a copy of the USCCB Adult Catechism. What page?

 

[tm30]

I think Robert Sungenis is a brilliant exegete. But all it takes is one fatal flaw to send the whole thing off the rails. If he’s claiming that the Catechism contains heresy, what else do I need to hear to determine if he’s safe to read?

I read the document you pointed me too and find that he’s just parsing his words. “I didn’t say WHICH imprimatur we were waiting for.” Come on. Anyone under the scrutiny he’s been under would have had all their cards on the table with something as serious as an imprimatur. So, if/when he’s rejected a second time and he tells everyone he’s still waiting, do we have to divine that he’s referring to a third bite at the apple without him telling us so?

It’s just too shifty by half. I’m afraid he’s turning into a modern-day Origen, but I sincerely SINCERELY hope his gifted mind for exegesis gets back on track. His work was too valuable for him to die on the hill of the Mosaic Covenant. If he won’t let go of it, as a sign of humility, then there’s not much to discuss.

In the meantime, I will keep his book tucked away in a box until an imprimatur actually materializes.

 

[trth_skr]

I happen to have a copy of the USCCB Adult Catechism. What page?

pg. 131:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

“Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.”

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Brenda4God]

Trth-skr,

Bill Cork (the 7th Day Adventist) first started criticiizing Robert when Robert wrote an article critcal of the idea that we do not need to evangalize Jews any longer. That is ridiculous.

That’s not the important part of his article, though. The plagarism and anti-Semetic writings he used are the part I was talking about.

These are the type of things Robert has gone after.

Mmmm…he went after a lot more than. I read it myself. I’m not blind…yet anyways.

For the last year or so, he has been being attacked by some of his co-workers, and responding, and being attacked, and responding (etc., etc., etc.). Each attack lead to more material on Jewish questions on his site, which then lead his attackers to point out all the Jewish material, etc.

My goodness. When Mr. Sungenis writes, it’s a reponse. When the people who disagree with him write, it’s an attack!

I read, Trth-skr. Mr. Sungenis started attacking a lot of people, especially Jews, before anyone said much of anything to him.

I am not saying Robert is perfect, but as far as this thread is concerned, and the question of end times, and specifically his book on the Apocalypse, the Jewish question barely enters in. There are some questions, certainly, but they are not of too controversial a nature.

I read about what is happening now, too. Mr. Sungenis said that he could not get his imprimtur because of what he wrote about Jews in his book. I could find it if you like. That doesn’t sound small to me.

 

[Mommyof02green]

pg. 131:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y236/markjwyatt/USCCB.gif

“Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.”

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Thank-you… However isn’t that what the CCC itself states?:

839 Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, “the first to hear the Word of God.” The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”; "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."

840 And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

Source: usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p3.htm

OR the Compendium?

169. What is the relationship of the Catholic Church with the Jewish people?

The Catholic Church recognizes a particular link with the Jewish people in the fact that God chose them before all others to receive his Word. To the Jewish people belong “the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, the promises, and the patriarchs; and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ” (Romans 9:4, 5). The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to the revelation of God in the Old Covenant.

Source: vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html#The%20Sacramental%20Celebration%20of%20the%20Paschal%20Mystery

Also I was brought up with the understanding that God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I was brought up with the understanding that HE never goes back on His word.

According to the CCC we both, Jews and Christians, are awaiting the coming of the SAME Messiah.

The Jews just don’t know it’s Christ they are waiting for…

 

[trth_skr]

Thank-you… However isn’t that what the CCC itself states?:
…
OR the Compendium?
…
Also I was brought up with the understanding that God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I was brought up with the understanding that HE never goes back on His word.

According to the CCC we both, Jews and Christians, are awaiting the coming of the SAME Messiah.

The Jews just don’t know it’s Christ they are waiting for…

I think the other statements are much more general.

It is a long way from:

To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”; “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”

(This is basically saying that Christ came from the Jews, and God certainly kept his promise * through Christ.)

or

“The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to the revelation of God in the Old Covenant.”

(clearly there is a continuation from Judaism to Christianity, its fulfillment)

to

“Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.”

This at least strongly implies that the Mosaic covenant is still in force, and thus, if in force, salvific (at least to the degree salvation was possible before Christ). It also implies one covnenant for the Jews and one for the Christians (and everybody else):

“…the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them…”

I.e., it is not implying a fulfillment remaining eternally valid **for all **(which by default includes the Jews).

I won’t argue with you, but it sounds very different to me. As I said, Robert Sungenis has already written to the CDF concerning it. You can see his letter. here (question 48). I claim no expertise in this area, but it seems pretty clear in this case.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com*

 

[lumengentleman]

Robert is still working to get an imprimatur. In the mean time he has released the book, and it is an excellent work.

Is it “an excellent work”?

On pp. 14-15, Sungenis writes about the dating of the Apocalypse, and places it during the reign of Domitian, around AD 95-97.

Specifically, he says that “In addition, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Anthanasius, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine also confirm that the Apocalypse was written during Domitian’s reign.”

Now, in his response to me from several weeks ago, he amplified this statement further and said:

“Incidentally, the additional witnesses to a 95 AD date that Mr. Michael failed to mention are: Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine. Footnotes to the sources are provided in the text of the CASB 2.” (catholicintl.com/book-recomendation/ifmay24.pdf , page 5)

An “excellent” work such as this surely ought to have the patristic sources supplied in the footnotes, and Sungenis claims here that they are provided “in the text of the CASB 2.”

So here’s the million-dollar question, Mark: what are those patristic sources, referenced in the footnote(s) on pp. 14-15, which show that Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, etc., held to an AD 95-97 date of composition for the Apocalypse? You have the book, so it shouldn’t take you long to find them …

 

[trth_skr]

…On pp. 14-15, Sungenis writes about the dating of the Apocalypse, and places it during the reign of Domitian, around AD 95-97.

Specifically, he says that “In addition, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Anthanasius, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine also confirm that the Apocalypse was written during Domitian’s reign.”

…what are those patristic sources, referenced in the footnote(s) on pp. 14-15, which show that Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, etc., held to an AD 95-97 date of composition for the Apocalypse? You have the book, so it shouldn’t take you long to find them …

The footnote in question lists the fathers, but does not supply the actual quotes (in fact I’m not sure the footnote really supports the contention, but it does list the major fathers to whom he was referring). Here is a clarification from Robert. I am posting it for Robert, since he is in website limbo currently.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Fidelis]

Hasn’t this thread gotten just a little off topic? How did it become a thread about Bob Sungenis??

 

[Brenda4God]

Hasn’t this thread gotten just a little off topic? How did it become a thread about Bob Sungenis??

It started with #5 by Trth_Skr (Mark Wyatt) who is very creative at finding ways to bring Mr. Sungenis into a thread. Bless his heart, he really should be getting paid by Mr. Sungenis for all his hard work!