Jehanne

One must wonder why Galileo was condemned. Have you read his abjuration?

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html

I already posted this reference, but here it is again from the USCCB:

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis1.htm

Here's one from the book of Revelation:

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/revel...evelation7.htm

So, the idea of a "flat earth" was taught from the book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, to the last book, Revelation.

Here's Professor Thomas Sheehan's free course:

http://www.learnoutloud.com/Catalog/...al-Jesus/23023

Paul and the Gospel writers all, clearly, believed in a flat-earth. Do you know of any Biblical scholar who would claim otherwise?

GakuseiDon

It's not clear at all from those links what Paul and the Gospel writers believed on a flat earth.

No, but I'd be interested in what their opinion is on this subject.

Jehanne

"Then the devil took him up to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence" (Matthew 4:8)

This is just one reference, of course, of which many have posted already. You can say that the Gospel writer is speaking "figuratively," but it is much more likely that he accepted the prevailing Hebrew cosmology of the day, which I posted in the Genesis link above.

So would I! I have not found any scholar who claims that Jesus, Paul, etc., believed in a spherical earth!

Stephen T-B

Just speculation here - but reasonable, I think.

For primitive people to suppose they inhabit a sphere would, I think, take a leap in imagination which is highly improbable.
Why would anyone who didn't know better suppose the Earth is a giant ball floating in space?
The dome of the sky doesn't suggest it; what it suggests is a dome, which the ancient Hebrews appear to have thought it was. The sun, the moon and the stars travel across it - they thought - and beyond it is the water which their god created at the start of Creation.

The Earth being at the centre of the universe was, I think, Aristotelian rather than early Christian, but the Church adopted it because it accorded with her doctrine of Man being what Creation was all about. Whether the Earth was flat or round was, I imagine, rather less of an issue, though the writers of the Biblical stories clearly assumed it was flat.

For me the significance of all this lies in Genesis, and what it does not reveal to the ancient Hewbrews about creation. Their "divine revelation" turns out to have been utterly useless. If a god indeed provided it, why the absence of valid information?
If the Church did indeed resist the idea of the Earth being spherical, it woiuld have had good reason because the Faithful might have been tempted to ask that exact same question.

GakuseiDon

According to Origen, the Gospel writer is speaking figuratively:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen125.html

The same style of Scriptural narrative occurs abundantly in the Gospels, as when the devil is said to have placed Jesus on a lofty mountain, that he might show Him from thence all the kingdoms of the word, and the glory of them. How could it literally come to pass, either that Jesus should be led up by the devil into a high mountain, or that the latter should show him all the kingdoms of the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes, and adjacent to one mountain), i.e., the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians? or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms are glorified by men?

I've read that this is something that we can probably assume, due to the concept's general acceptance at that time.

Jehanne

Origen may have thought that the World was round. Irenaeus, on the other hand, clearly saw that it was flat. In any case, both were writing over a century after the composition of Matthew. In any case, the author of Revelation certainly believed in a flat-earth, as I have already posted:

"1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, 2 holding back the four winds of the earth so that no wind could blow on land or sea or against any tree." (Revelation 7:1)

http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/re...evelation7.htm

Footnote 2:

2 [1] The four corners of the earth: the earth is seen as a table or rectangular surface.

QED

aa5874

After reading from that link, Origen appears to be utterly confused about what is figurative or literal, possible or impossible, plausible or implausible.

If one reads section 14,15 and 16 of that link, Origen seems to suggest that whatever appears to be impossibe, hot historical or implausible may be figurative. But if this loose standard is applied to the sacred and divine Scripture, then it can easily be concluded or infered that the Bible is almost entirely mythical or figurative in its entirety.

And in any event, whether Matthew 4-8 is literal or not, according to the Papal authorities in the 17th century, the hypotheses of Copernicus and Galileo were heretical and contravened the teachings of Scripture, figurarive or not.

And it must be remembered that Galileo was chastised, not once but twice for teaching and writing false doctrines contrary to sacred and divine scriptures. He was condemned the 25th Febuary 1616 and 22nd June 1633.

Antipope Innocent II

So let me get this straight – since every historian of science who has written on the medieval interpretation of Ptolemy and all the evidence from the medieval period clearly states that the medieval system was centred on a spherical Earth, you must be proposing a bold new thesis whereby all these historians are wrong and stating that the medieval Ptolemaic System was actually centred on a flat Earth?

This is remarkable news!

Where have you published this astounding, groundbreaking new thesis? How has it been received by all the historians of science that you have proven to be wrong? More importantly, what new evidence have you uncovered that every historian of science on the planet has overlooked for the last 200 years?

How, for example, do you explain that Martianus Capella, Bede, John Scottus Eriugena, Raban Maur, Giles of Rome, Roger Bacon, John Sacrobosco, Jean Buridan and Nicolas Oresme all talked about or described a spherical Earth in their works, if a flat Earth was taught by the Church? Your new thesis must be very impressive indeed if it’s managed to explain how these eminent Churchmen not only managed to escape the Inquisition, but some even managed to be made saints despite openly teaching this “heresy”.

Then I imagine your amazing new research reveals the works of medieval science and/or theology which talk about this flat-earth version of the Ptolemaic system which, oddly, have been totally and completely overlooked or undiscovered for the last 200 years. Where did you find these hitherto unknown works? Why were they overlooked for so long?

I can’t wait for your next post where you reveal all these things to us. Indeed, if you have achieved all this, you are indeed one of the greatest historians who has ever lived and a wonder of the age.

Either that, or you’re full of crap and haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.

WishboneDawn

I don't understand why your scripture quotes prove anything. They're devoid of the historical context in which they were read and a modern sense of literalism is implied.

Heliocentrism wasn't rejected simply because scripture contradicted it. That's modern fundamentalist thinking. It was rejected because that model ran counter to what had been revealed in scripture and no, that's not at all the same thing.

I can't understand why a flat earth would even enter a discussion about Galileo. This after 600 years under the influence of Aristotle. Aristotle who asserted the earth was round. There wasn't a natural philosopher worth his salt that would claim the earth was flat. And since most natural philosphers were often the theologians too and Aristotle was generally a happy fit with christian ideas of the time I can't understand how someone could thnk it was even an issue with the church.

As an aside, I'd like a discussion about Galileo's condemnation with those who know more about it (not sure where to put that thread?). Copernicus managed to tread heliocentric ground that got Galileo in trouble...Hints at interesting politics.

Sauron

I'm a little suspicious of your absolutist claim that absolutely zero Islamic texts reached Europe via the crusades. There appear to have been a small number. The contribution of Byzantium should also not be overlooked.

Of course, this may all be a point of confusion over what is being claimed. Even if zero texts did get transmitted, that is not to say that other kinds of information didn't get transferred from the Islamic lands to Europe via the crusades: scientific, astronomical, mercantile, etc.

Oh, and the painting of the Virgin Mary - if this is the one I'm thinking of, it depicts her wearing a fabric with the shahada ("there is no God..") stitched in gold lettering around the fringes. This is because the woman modeling for the painter was wearing a costly Islamic fabric, and the painter merely copied it faithfully. One thing that the crusades *did* bring back was a new taste for fabrics, pottery, and spices.

Unwitting copying of Islamic text happens in southern Spain (Andalusia) even today - local Spanish (Roman Catholic) potters still carve the shahada carved into their pottery - even though few of the potters realize what it is they are carving. But they'v been doing it for so long that it's just part of the finishing touches to the work.