Geocentric Early Church Writer Quotes

[prodromos]

So in other words the OT is not to be believed ?

That isn't remotely what he said.

 

[trophy33]

So in other words the OT is not to be believed ?

Do not try to say it in other words, just stick to mine.

 

[Apple Sky]

Do not try to say it in other words, just stick to mine.

Well ??

 

[trophy33]

Well ??

Well, stick to my exact wording.

 

[Apple Sky]

Well, stick to my exact wording.

I have and to me it sounds like to me that you don't believe anything in the OT.

 

[trophy33]

I have and to me it sounds like to me that you don't believe anything in the OT.

Well, if you have some problem connecting words to thoughts (meanings), I do not know how to help you.

 

[Valletta]

Magisterium / History

I'm not Roman Catholic, but this is still very interesting

Geocentrism - Scripture Catholic

Contents1 Scripture1.1 I. The Earth Does Not Move1.2 II. The Sun, Moon and Stars Move2 Tradition / Church Fathers Scripture Geocentrism is the view that the earth is the center of the universe, and that the universe (sun, moon, stars, planets) revolves around the earth. Most geocentrists also...

www.scripturecatholic.com

Following is a brief chronological summary of the historical developments and Magisterial pronouncements in connection with the Church’s teaching on the universe:


1564 – Council of Trent (Session IV, April 8): the Council infallibly teaches that no one could “in matters of faith and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine…interpret the sacred Scriptures…even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” The Fathers unanimously interpreted the Scriptures as supporting a geocentric cosmology.

1613 – Galileo publishes his Letters on Sunspots in which he praised the Copernican (heliocentric) theory.

1615 – Galileo writes a letter to one of his students, Fr. Benedetto Castelli, proclaiming the truth of Copernicanism, stating that “Scripture…in physical disputes should be reserved to the last place” as an authority for resolving those disputes. Galileo writes a similar letter to Dutchess Christina of Lorraine. Fr. Paolo Antonio Foscarini, a Carmelite friar, also writes a book defending the compatibility of Copernicanism with Scripture.

Copernicus dedicated his theory to the pope, and the pope accepted it as a theory. Protestants really ridiculed Copernicus, but to be fair, there were few scientists in the world that believed his theory.

 

[Apple Sky]

Well, if you have some problem connecting words to thoughts (meanings), I do not know how to help you.

Okay your on ignore from here on.

 

[Strong in Him]

I have and to me it sounds like to me that you don't believe anything in the OT.

The statement was "the Bible does not have a mandate to teach science", which is true. (Another way of saying that is "the Bible is not a science textbook", which has been said to you many times.)

How on earth did you get "we cannot believe anything in the OT" from that statement?

 

[Piers Plowman]

The statement was "the Bible does not have a mandate to teach science", which is true. (Another way of saying that is "the Bible is not a science textbook", which has been said to you many times.)

How on earth did you get "we cannot believe anything in the OT" from that statement?

In the light of the topic, I am interested in hearing your opinion regarding Joshua Ch 10.

 

[Strong in Him]

In the light of the topic, I am interested in hearing your opinion regarding Joshua Ch 10.

What about it?

Are you asking me if I believe the sun stood still?
Yes. The earth revolves around the sun; the sun doesn't move.

 

[Piers Plowman]

What about it?

Are you asking me if I believe the sun stood still?
Yes. The earth revolves around the sun; the sun doesn't move.

Ah, but even under heliocentrism, the sun orbits the milky way.
(Now, before anyone bites me, be it be known that I'm approaching this topic in humor-minded manner!)

 

[Strong in Him]

Ah, but even under heliocentrism, the sun orbits the milky way.

Yes, by a small amount.

From our perspective, the sun rises in the East and sets in the West - it appears to move, eventually "sets" and it gets dark.
In fact, it is the earth which revolves around the sun. Joshua wrote that the sun stopped, or delayed going down because that's what it looked like. The sun did not set and it was light for 24 hours until the nation had defeated their enemies. Which led to the conclusion "surely the Lord is fighting for Israel". God performed a miracle to allow his people to defeat their enemies.

Technically the Lord could have said, "ah, well you're wrong you see because it was the earth which stopped moving allowing there to be 24 hours of sunlight".
It doesn't matter. The result was the same; 24 hours of sunlight so that the nation could see to fight their enemies. And it was a miracle - God did it so that everyone would know that he was in control.

 

[trophy33]

Ah, but even under heliocentrism, the sun orbits the milky way.
(Now, before anyone bites me, be it be known that I'm approaching this topic in humor-minded manner!)

1. It is described from the perspective of Israelites. The text does not say that something happened with the Sun in the rest of the world. Could be some local optical phenomenon.
2. It is described as a miracle, so it does not have much meaning regarding the scientific debate how our common, daily world works.
3. It does not have to be inspired and can be just a legend/myth inserted to the text. Yes, this is a relevant possibility. Only few Christians believe in word-for-word dictation style of inspiration.

 

[Piers Plowman]

All good, gentlemen. But the crux of my question is, what scientifically consequential difference could there be between geocentrism and heliocentrism? After all, for those who subscribe to the view of continually expanding universe, the center of the universe then becomes dependent on the reference frame of the observer's choosing.

 

[trophy33]

All good, gentlemen. But the crux of my question is, what scientifically consequential difference could there be between geocentrism and heliocentrism? After all, for those who subscribe to the view of continually expanding universe, the center of the universe then becomes dependent on the reference frame of the observer's choosing.

Do you mean that there is no difference between saying the Sun orbits the Earth or the Earth orbits the Sun, because it depends on one's perspective?

If so, then the difference is in the laws. An object with higher mass orbiting an object with lower mass would be against the physical laws. The model would not make sense and would not provide a logically coherent explanation.

 

[Piers Plowman]

Now, hold on a moment; you edited your posts after I posted my replies.

1. It is described from the perspective of Israelites. The text does not say that something happened with the Sun in the rest of the world. Could be some local optical phenomenon.
2. It is described as a miracle, so it does not have much meaning regarding the scientific debate how our common, daily world works.
3. It does not have to be inspired and can be just a legend/myth inserted to the text. Yes, this is a relevant possibility. Only few Christians believe in word-for-word dictation style of inspiration.

1. Reformed Community would beg to differ on the 'optical phenomenon' part.
2. Not so. If the sun stopped... well, fine, if the earth stopped... well, fine. If the daylight was extended out of norm, there would be tangible evidence left behind in historical astronomical trajectories, no? Same would apply for the Star of Bethlehem.
3. Again, the Reformed Community would beg to differ. I refer you to the Westminster Confession of Faith.

 

[Piers Plowman]

Do you mean that there is no difference between saying the Sun orbits the Earth or the Earth orbits the Sun, because it depends on one's perspective?

If so, then the difference is in the laws. An object with higher mass orbiting an object with lower mass would be against the physical laws. The model would not make sense and would not provide a logically coherent explanation.

1. One could say that the 'perspective of Israelites' would not require 'logically coherent explanation'.
2. The 'greater light' was only created on the fourth day. To which did the earth orbit prior to this?

 

[trophy33]

Now, hold on a moment; you edited your posts after I posted my replies.

1. Reformed Community would beg to differ on the 'optical phenomenon' part.
2. Not so. If the sun stopped... well, fine, if the earth stopped... well, fine. If the daylight was extended out of norm, there would be tangible evidence left behind in historical astronomical trajectories, no? Same would apply for the Star of Bethlehem.
3. Again, the Reformed Community would beg to differ. I refer you to the Westminster Confession of Faith.

This forum is not limited to "Reformed Community", whatever that is supposed to be, so it does not matter.

I doubt that you can find something in the universe proving or disproving what the text says, because you do not know what to look for. The mechanism of the miracle was not provided in the text.

 

[trophy33]

1. One could say that the 'perspective of Israelites' would not require 'logically coherent explanation'.
2. The 'greater light' was only created on the fourth day. To which did the earth orbit prior to this?

I do not think I will surprise you with the answer that Genesis 1 is not a scientific description. Its a temple inauguration style, in my opinion.