dr. dino's point of view

[archaeologist]

No that's not the reference I quoted, that is Hippolytus on Hezekiah fragment I, I quoted Fragment III, but they are both good

sorry that does not prove he believed as you claim. anyone cansay those words and we still do inthe modern age. you have to do better than this.

The irony is gobsmacking.

This is your rebuttal????? if that is all you can come up with thenit is no wonder i do not take you seriously.

You look for excuses to handwave away the plain mean of what these people are saying to support a crazy notion that everyone knew the earth orbited the sun before Copernicus established it

there were astronomers before copernicus...sorry to burst your bubble. i am not handwaving, i am saying you have not proven your point.

How about you support you claim that the vast majority interpreted the geocentric passages heliocentricaly before Copernicus

sorry but i challenged your claim and the ball is still in your court.

So far all we have had is you wriggling

i haven't done any wriggling, your misrepresentation is just throwing the light off your inability tofind actuall proof the church fathers believed as you claim.

i even thrrew you a bone and you still can't do it.

all we are talking about is your claim about the church fathers and your inability to provide any shred of real proof they believed as you claim.

 

[KEPLER]

anyone cansay those words and we still do inthe modern age. you have to do better than this.

I don't know of anyone in the modern age who is concerned about the sun colliding with the moon, which Hippolytus explicitly states.

there were astronomers before copernicus...sorry to burst your bubble.

What bubble? He never said there were no astronomers before Copernicus. Of course, there were. Take Claudius Ptolemy and Johannes de Sacrobosco, for example. Two explicit geocentrists with whom there is absolutely no evidence of disagreement in the early church or middle ages.

all we are talking about is your claim about the church fathers and your inability to provide any shred of real proof they believed as you claim.

It is the universal consent of historians that until the 16th century, geocentrism was the dominant cosmology.

Period. We know this because NO ONE was arguing with it. If you want to contend -- in the face of the aforementioned universal consent -- that the early church held to a heliocentric cosmology, you must provide some kind of proof.

Who wrote the book describing the rival system? What was its title?

Name a single historian who argues that heliocentrism was an accepted view at any time between the life of Christ and the sixteenth century. You must provide name, title of the work, and page number.

Put up, or shut up, Arche.

 

[Willtor]

Archie, would you ever concern yourself with the sun and the moon colliding and use it as an explanation as to the "why" for the miracle in Joshua? Hippolytus did. But you must know that there is no chance of the sun and moon colliding if the earth stops rotating.

And what is this blanket complaint against the RCC? Don't you know that there was only one orthodox, catholic Church in the times of these various fathers? If the Church thought a particular way, it wasn't as against the fathers.

 

[Assyrian]

Stop the posturing archie, it's getting tired. Provide some evidence to back up your case. So far you have provided nothing. But of course you can't. Your claim is ridiculous.

 

[archaeologist]

Stop the posturing archie, it's getting tired. Provide some evidence to back up your case. So far you have provided nothing. But of course you can't. Your claim is ridiculous

there it is, you can't back up your claims thus you falsely accuse another poster of your own failure. how low will you go...?

Archie, would you ever concern yourself with the sun and the moon colliding and use it as an explanation as to the "why" for the miracle in Joshua? Hippolytus did. But you must know that there is no chance of the sun and moon colliding if the earth stops rotating.

again, i examined the contexts and found nothing that indicates they were using those words as you say. how hard is it for you to come up with independent evidence that they believed as you say?

so far all you have done is quote their words and said---'see, they believed it'. well anyone can do that, you need evidence and proof not your claims.

And what is this blanket complaint against the RCC? Don't you know that there was only one orthodox, catholic Church in the times of these various fathers?

not true. A History of Christianity by kenneth scoot latourette, vol. 1, page 115:

"The precise forms of the christian community in the first century or so of its existence have been and remain a topic of debate. This is partly because in subsequent generations christians sought in the organization of early christianity the authorioty for the structure of their particular branch of the church... For the first two or three generations, the Christian community exhibited great variety...Before the first century of its existence was out, the church began to display certain organizational features which, developed, have persisited, with modifications, into the 20th century"

page 187:

never was there a single organization which was comprehensive of all who professed themselves christians...By the close of the 5th century several rival bodies were in existence, each regarding itself as representative of true christianity...and denying that designation to the other

read chapter 6 of that volume and it will give you the reality of the church back then.

Put up, or shut up, Arche

such rudeness is ignored. the ball is still in your court, you have failed to prove your case.

 

[archaeologist]

i jst went through Paul Johnsons's chapter, From Martyrs to Inquisitors (ad 250-450), from his book, A History of Christianity, and not one mention of the claims you make for the church fathers.

one would think that a catholic historian or a historian who was catholic would address this issue but not one word about it.

the ball is still in your court.

 

[KEPLER]

i jst went through Paul Johnsons's chapter, From Martyrs to Inquisitors (ad 250-450), from his book, A History of Christianity, and not one mention of the claims you make for the church fathers.

one would think that a catholic historian or a historian who was catholic would address this issue but not one word about it.

the ball is still in your court.

Uhhh... ...to whom was this addressed? If it was addressed to me, these are my comments:

First of all, the relation of the Church to the cosmological systems of the day is not a topic even remotely addressed by Johnson. He doesn't even mention Copernicus and only mentions Galileo in a single footnote.

Secondly, the appropriate place for you to be looking is in a work such as David C. Lindberg's The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, 600 B.C. to A.D. 1450.

Also look at Edward Grant's, Science and Religion, 400 B.C. to A.D. 1550: From Aristotle to Copernicus.

In fact, anything by these two authors is good material.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Some here might regard them as "secular science" from the titles and thus never open the cover.

Shame, such an omission seems like "un-science".

 

[KEPLER]

Some here might regard them as "secular science" from the titles and thus never open the cover.

Shame, such an omission seems like "un-science".

I am 99% sure that both Grant and Lindberg are believing Christians.

 

[KerrMetric]

I am 99% sure that both Grant and Lindberg are believing Christians.

That beats my percentage about you know who. I'm still not convinced that he is not a parody.

 

[archaeologist]

I am 99% sure that both Grant and Lindberg are believing Christians

well they look interesting and i may get to buy them but korean selections of english books is not all that great. the shipping price that amazon charges is usually more than the cost of the used book and not very economical when factoring in the wait time .

First of all, the relation of the Church to the cosmological systems of the day is not a topic even remotely addressed by Johnson. He doesn't even mention Copernicus and only mentions Galileo in a single footnote

i know i own the book. still by the time i get the books this discussion will be long over. so if you have links and quoters feel free to prove your point until then, you haven't done so.***

***keep in mind i already threw the bone but no one seems to acknowledge that.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

well they look interesting and i may get to buy them but korean selections of english books is not all that great. ....

Archie, try "Whatthebook" - www.whatthebook.com in Itaewon: their service is excellent and I have found comparative costs usually cheaper.

Over the years, I have bought many books from them.

 

[theFijian]

there it is, you can't back up your claims thus you falsely accuse another poster of your own failure. how low will you go...?

It's no surprise that you would readily recognise it since you employ the tactic yourself without hesitation.

 

[Assyrian]

there it is, you can't back up your claims thus you falsely accuse another poster of your own failure. how low will you go...?

Still no evidence to back up you case then?

Hippolytus: And in the time of Hezekiah the moon also turned back along with the sun, that there might be no collision between the two elemental bodies,

anyone cansay those words and we still do in the modern age.

So you would say if the moon hadn't turned back too it could have collided with the sun

again, i examined the contexts and found nothing that indicates they were using those words as you say. how hard is it for you to come up with independent evidence that they believed as you say?

so far all you have done is quote their words and said---'see, they believed it'. well anyone can do that, you need evidence and proof not your claims.

Denial does not count as an argument archie.

This is over. Archie is just left with posturing and denial and hasn't provided a shred of evidence to back up his outlandish claim that the vast majority were heliocentrist before Copernicus.

 

[archaeologist]

still doesn't prove he believed the sun revolved around the earth. all it shows is that you deny people the right to describe what gtey think in a manner in whih they are acustomed and ignore the fact such words are usedtoday.

no where in all the quotes have the words been used 'i believe...' bu the church fathers. as it stands you have offered no proof that they believed what you claimed.

i can cut and paste to and say you believe in creation...sorry you have to have real proof.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

.... This is over. Archie is just left with posturing and denial and hasn't provided a shred of evidence to back up his outlandish claim that the vast majority were heliocentrist before Copernicus.

Were he to provide a shred of evidence of any claim, it would be the first I have seen from Archie in 3 years or so.

The posturing and denial I have long recognised.

 

[KEPLER]

no where in all the quotes have the words been used 'i believe...' bu the church fathers. as it stands you have offered no proof that they believed what you claimed.

i can cut and paste to and say you believe in creation...sorry you have to have real proof.

Arche,

What I am employing is called the argument from silence. Now admittedly, this can be a very weak way of arguing, but there is one situation in which this method can be very strong. That one case is very there is a definite object.

In our current discussion, the definite object is the geocentric cosmology. This cosmology was known to Plato (and to his student Eudoxus of Cnidus), to Aristotle, and was most brilliantly described in the Mathematical Syntaxis (aka Almagest) of Claudius Ptolemy.

Geocentrism was widely known; it was never criticized. The natural conclusion from this is that people accepted and agreed with it.

Kepler

 

[Willtor]

again, i examined the contexts and found nothing that indicates they were using those words as you say. how hard is it for you to come up with independent evidence that they believed as you say?

so far all you have done is quote their words and said---'see, they believed it'. well anyone can do that, you need evidence and proof not your claims.

Would you say that the sun and moon would collide? Seriously, I'd like to know whether this is a turn of phrase you would use.

not true. A History of Christianity by kenneth scoot latourette, vol. 1, page 115:

page 187:

read chapter 6 of that volume and it will give you the reality of the church back then.

That is correct insofar as it goes. But the fathers being discussed are all part of the group that called itself orthodox and catholic. There were, indeed, various gnostic groups that used the term "Christian." Augustine was part of one (called the Manichees) until he converted to orthodoxy. But the fathers being discussed are part of the orthodox, catholic Church. There was no distinction between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, or Lutherans, or Anglicans, or Calvinist Presbyterians, or Baptists, or Methodists. All of these groups trace their lineages back to this particular sect: the ancient orthodoxy or the ancient catholic Church. To reiterate, the fathers we are discussing are part of that sect.

To identify the later Catholic Church as holding a geocentric view is to identify one of the two branches (at the time of Copernicus) of that ancient Church.

 

[archaeologist]

But the fathers being discussed are part of the orthodox, catholic Church. There was no distinction between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, or Lutherans, or Anglicans, or Calvinist Presbyterians, or Baptists, or Methodists. All of these groups trace their lineages back to this particular sect: the ancient orthodoxy or the ancient catholic Church. To reiterate, the fathers we are discussing are part of that sect.

actually, only a few belonged to that group, some there is too little information of. also yu need to learn to back up your words with credible sources, links etc. as i do not take your word for anything.

Would you say that the sun and moon would collide? Seriously, I'd like to know whether this is a turn of phrase you would use.

sigh... this is still not proof they believed as you claim. come up with some independent credible sources which speak onthese issues or their own words , saying, ' believe...' until then you have no clue as to what they believed, you are just reading into their words the meaning you want.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

actually, only a few belonged to that group, (i.e., the ancient orthodoxy or the ancient catholic Church) some there is too little information of. ... .

Are you really saying most belonged to another group before the 16th century?

What was it called?

Let's hear more as you need to learn to back up your words with credible sources, links etc. as I for one do not take your word for anything.