Posted on 10/11/2004 8:24:38 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
You want me to deal with the text of the article, yet you dismiss the quotes from Sungenis in Cork's article?
A bit hypocritical, eh?
But I'm not sure whether it matters (to me, at least), who sinned first. I have enough things to be concerned with...
So in other words, character assassination and ad hominem is OK for you, but not for others. The fact that Bill Cork is a modernist diocesan bureaucrat (oops! oxymoron) and has family members who are Jewish does weigh into this discussion.
But when are you going to deal with the credibility of the argument, all in the name of true ecumenism, right?
How many Scripture classes did you have to take to become a deacon?
More ad hominems against Cork. Cork is not the issue. Sungenis own words are the issue. Do you deny Sungenis' own words in Cork's article? The man is in Holocaust-denial territory. That's nutty.
I took two full years of Scripture in the seminary back in 1974-75. I took, aggregated, an additional six months worth in diaconate training.
But when are you going to deal with the credibility of the argument, all in the name of true ecumenism, right?
Cork conducted a witch hunt against Sungenis that was above and beyond. Sungenis later apologized.
Do you accept his apology or not? Are you a Christian who believes in forgiveness?
On the other hand, Cork went after a fellow Catholic and destroyed his occupation. Now that is true Christian charity... All because Bill Cork wants everyone to believe that his Jewish relatives are all saved while staying Jews and all because Robert Sungenis holds traditional Catholic doctrine.
Again, you going to deal with the text of the argument in the article, which is what these discussion boxes are for, or continue to cut and splice only a sentence here and there out of my writings?
And who did you read primarily in 1974-75? Boy, I can't wait for this answer. Who were the primary exegetes you read?
As I said, I don't know Scott Hahn, and am not interested in "Dragon" theory.
As to the exegetes I studied, we used the Jerome Biblical Commentary, with many contributors, and edited by Raymond Brown.
My guess is that you think Brown's a heretic.
No wonder you have such a high opinion of Sungenis.
"As I said, I don't know Scott Hahn, and am not interested in "Dragon" theory."
Then why are you commenting when this is what this thread is about?
"As to the exegetes I studied, we used the Jerome Biblical Commentary, with many contributors, and edited by Raymond Brown.
"My guess is that you think Brown's a heretic."
The thing speaks for itself. I would say that anyone who denies the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ and His virgin birth and his mother's bodily assumption into heaven could be classified as a heretic.
"No wonder you have such a high opinion of Sungenis."
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. I knew of the ridiculous nature of Ray Brown's scholarship for years prior to Robert Sungenis ever pointing it out. I'll take that to mean you cannot dispute Sungenis's claims. Funny how having a solid knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and of the Church Fathers' commentaries on Sacred Scripture will automatically make people like you cast aspersions.
I have no idea what Sungenis said and don't care.
Then stop posting on this thread since this was the topic.
Stop pinging me to it, and I'll stop posting to it.
Were a lot of seminarians/deacons influenced by this guy's work? And, if so, what time period would that have occurred in? 60s, 70s?
Yes and yes, and even at the Roman seminaries he is featured there today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.