aa5874

St. Augustine was a flat earther. St.Augustine clearly states that a spherical earth with antipodes is untenable. It just cannot be credible. People, on the opposite side will obviously fall off.

You, on the other hand, claim that St. Augustine believed the earth is spherical but that people on the opposite side would just fall off. This makes no sense to me.

St. Augustine is clear. The earth cannot be spherical because people will not be able to walk on the opposite side.

And you can call me anything you like within the rules of IIDB, or put me on 'ignore', it doesn't bother me anyway at all.

Amaleq13

Did anybody actually read the entire article? Or even just a little bit beyond the quote? :banghead:

Roger Pearse

Most of Chrysostom's works are online. Perhaps you would care to verify the fact, and obtain the relevant reference for us, before anything further?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

lpetrich

Although I agree that the medieval Church did not officially support flat-earthism and was willing to accept round-earthism, there is another assertion that I must comment on:
I've never heard of that one before. And considering how little had actually been copied, I find that claim dubious at best. Several important works have survived by very tiny margins, such as only one copy, and sometimes because their parchment had been reused by scraping off the original text (palimpsest). A recently-discovered work of Archimedes had survived because its parchment had been reused to write a prayer book with. Etc.

Just about all of Plato's works have survived, even the homoerotic parts(!), because the theologians liked Platonism. But none of Democritus's works have survived, and only a little bit of Epicurus's works. Lucretius's On the Nature of Things barely made it through, and that was become someone had liked his writings.

Boro Nut

I think the problem here is with the changing definition of the word Antipodes, which now refers to place not people. It could and was clearly used in Augustine's day to mean a person who stood the opposite way up (anti-pode) to us, but also, in ignorance, to mean a person who's feet were where their head should be (and vice-versa) - two different things - and it wouldn't surprise me if the latter was the lay understanding. Complete misrepresentation of a sound concept to produce a ridiculous caricature is nothing new.

Boro Nut

Jehanne

It's in the Wikipedia article and has been cited now for over the past year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

Footnote here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#_note-19

aa5874

Nicholas Copernicus in his book "De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium' to Pope Paul III in 1543 CE, tries to convince the Pope that the earth is not flat but completely round. Copernicus mentioned many of the flat earth shapes or concepts that was propagated around the 16th century.

Copernicus, for fear of being ridiculed, delayed publication of his book, and it was published very near his death.

Book 1.3, to Pope Paul III, '...Therefore the earth is not flat, as Empedocles and Anaximenes thought, nor drum shaped, as Leukippus, nor bowl-shaped, as Heraclitus, nor hollow in another way, as Democritus, nor again cylindrical, as Anaximander, nor does it lower side extend infinitely downwards, the thichkness diminishing toward the bottom, as Xenophanes taught, but it is perfectly round as the philosphers hold."

So, it can be reasonable inferred that the Church did not consider the earth to be perfectly round but was some variation of the flat earth concepts as discussed by Copernicus, that is drum-shaped, hollow, bowl-shaped or like an ice-cream cone. And this inference is bolstered by the trial and condemnation of Galilleo in the 17th century by Papal authorities.

See, http://webexhibits.org/calenders/yea...opernicus.html

Stephen T-B

I don’t think there is a passage in the Bible which actually states the earth is flat, but why would there be one when the assumption of those who wrote the stories was that it is? They’d no more declare it to be fact than they would declare it a fact that people have two eyes.
That same assumption, along with the existence of giant worms and other fantastic creatures, would have been part of many people’s understanding of reality, into which religious “truths” and symbolism were interwoven.
The existence of these creatures was recorded by the monks in their bestials, hence: “The unicorn has but one horn in the middle of its forehead. It is the only animal that ventures to attack the elephant; and so sharp is the nail of its foot, that with one blew it can rip the belly of that beast. Hunters can catch the unicorn only by placing a young virgin in its haunts. No sooner does he see the damsel, than he runs towards her, and lies down at her feet, and so suffers himself to be captured by the hunters. The unicorn represents Jesus Christ, who took on Him our nature in the virgin's womb, was betrayed to the Jews, and delivered into the hands of Pontius Pilate. Its one horn signifies the Gospel of Truth. ...” —Le Bestiaire Divin de Guillaume, Clerc de Normandic (13th century) from http://www.factmonster.com/dictionar...estiaries.html
I have a book published in 1698 by a reverend gentleman in which he pours scorn on the notion of a spherical earth, pointing out that people would fall off it. Regardless of the Church’s “official” teaching, I would suppose he was expressing a popular belief which had always been held by the general population, and which was no doubt shared by a good many parish priests who were little better informed about such matters than their congregations.

Jehanne

The Quinsext Council, (or the Council in Trullo), 692:

Canon XIX: "No one shall dare to interpret the Holy Scripture contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/trullo.html

Roger Pearse

Is there some reason why you are afraid to go and find out whether Chrysostom actually says this?

All the best,

Roger Pearse