• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

dr. dino's point of view

Status
Not open for further replies.

archaeologist

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2007
1,051
23
✟23,813.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I have shown you what Luther and Calvin said about geocentrism, Willtor gave us a great quotation from Clement of Rome.

willtor's link only went tothe first page of the work and did not go directlyto the part where clement was speaking about geocentrism. so it can be assumed that the link was posted for show and not proving a point.

i dealt with calvin and i don't see your luthor quote. but f course we could use your delitzsch argument but then that would be unfair as then you would have no defense at all.

whati see throughout allof this is a bunch of TE's looking to justify their participation in secular science and believing their conclusions over the bible's statements.

sure it is science if you investigate how a plant works and dioscover photosynthesis but it is not science when you attribute it to a evolutionary theory.

it is looking for an alternative to God's words because you cannot accept them nor believe them. it is easier to believe the world for then you escape the crap that i have to endure and you think you are doing something for God.

you are not.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
44
Cambridge
Visit site
✟39,787.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
willtor's link only went tothe first page of the work and did not go directlyto the part where clement was speaking about geocentrism. so it can be assumed that the link was posted for show and not proving a point.

I'm sorry you had to click on "Chapter XX" once you got to the page I linked to. I know that's a pretty unreasonable amount of work, especially if I only say "see chapter 20" and don't tell you that you have to click on the link to it. Research that involves figuring out that you have to click on a link is pretty hard, but I hope it helps you see just how difficult science is and why AiG and ICR aren't big on doing it, themselves.

Rest assured, however, I am used to such trials, and if you should ever reference something online and tell me to "go to chapter such and such" I will go the extra mile and click on the link to it when I get there. It's difficult work but once you get into the swing of things it actually becomes fairly routine. You might even say that moving the mouse a few inches and clicking the button becomes a second-nature... if that were possible. I suppose the only significant mental gymnastics really involved are relating my mention of "chapter 20" with the link for "chapter XX" on the page, itself.

---

In all seriousness, though, if you get a chance, you might read the whole epistle. It's really edifying and it's easy to see why it was so widely circulated in the early Church.
 
Upvote 0

archaeologist

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2007
1,051
23
✟23,813.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I'm sorry you had to click on "Chapter XX" once you got to the page I linked to. I know that's a pretty unreasonable amount of work, especially if I only say "see chapter 20" and don't tell you that you have to click on the link to it. Research that involves figuring out that you have to click on a link is pretty hard, but I hope it helps you see just how difficult science is and why AiG and ICR aren't big on doing it, themselves.

such posts are not helping you. they show that i am talking to children and not adults. if you can't link right to what you want people to read then don't link.

your desire to keep everyone guessing shows underscores the inability of your side to be honest or even clear.
 
Upvote 0

Rudolph Hucker

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2007
1,540
332
Canberra ACT
✟26,803.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Conservative
such posts are not helping you. they show that i am talking to children and not adults. if you can't link right to what you want people to read then don't link.

your desire to keep everyone guessing shows underscores the inability of your side to be honest or even clear.
You are never one to disappoint your readers Archie.
 
Upvote 0

KerrMetric

Well-Known Member
Oct 2, 2005
5,171
226
64
Pasadena, CA
✟6,671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
i am talking to children and not adults.


Adults can usually divide both sides of an equation by 6 and not think you switch a negative sign by doing so.

That is exactly what you thought on the thread last week where people were trying to explain high school level material to you with no success.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
44
Cambridge
Visit site
✟39,787.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
such posts are not helping you. they show that i am talking to children and not adults. if you can't link right to what you want people to read then don't link.

your desire to keep everyone guessing shows underscores the inability of your side to be honest or even clear.

I don't think everyone was guessing. I suspect most people figured it out pretty quickly. Nevertheless, here's chapter 20.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
i dealt with calvin and i don't see your luthor quote.
I have mentioned Luther to you a number of times. He called Copernicus a fool for saying the earth went round the sun.
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=35991066&postcount=212
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36014368&postcount=233
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36976194&postcount=71
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=37258908&postcount=18


And you haven't dealt with the Calvin quote either. You claimed that the geocentrists were 'minority of a minority', but you were totally unable to support this claim.

Here is what Cardinal Bellarmine said discussing the Galileo case. As he is a Catholic I presume you would not accept his view of scripture. However he was an expert on what the Church Fathers wrote, as well as later commentaries:

Cardinal Bellarmine on heliocentrism
And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators.

And here are a few quotations for the church fathers:
Ambrose Duties of the Clergy, Bk II, Ch XX, 99
Worthy surely was he to stand forth as a man who might stay the course of the river, and who might say: "Sun, stand still," and delay the night and lengthen the day, as though to witness his victory.

Ambrose Exposition of the Christian Faith, Bk V, Ch II
But they say that the sun can be said to be alone, because there is no second sun. But the sun himself has many things in common with the stars, for he travels across the heavens, he is of that ethereal and heavenly substance, he is a creature, and is reckoned amongst all the works of God. He serves God in union with all, blesses Him with all, praises Him with all. Therefore he cannot accurately be said to be alone, for he is not set apart from the rest.

Aristides Apology IV
They err who believe that the sky is a god. For we see that it revolves and moves by necessity and is compacted of many parts, being thence called the ordered universe (Kosmos). Now the universe is the construction of some designer; and that which has been constructed has a beginning and an end. And the sky with its luminaries moves by necessity. For the stars are carried along in array at fixed intervals from sign to sign, and, some setting, others rising, they traverse their courses in due season so as to mark off summers and winters, as it has been appointed for them by God; and obeying the inevitable necessity of their nature they transgress not their proper limits, keeping company with the heavenly order. Whence it is plain that the sky is not a god but rather a work of God.
VI. They also err who believe the sun to be a god. For we see that it moves by necessity and revolves and passes from sign to sign, setting and rising so as to give warmth to plants and tender shoots for the use of man.

Aphrahat Demonstration XXII
For the sun in twelve hours circles round, from the east unto the west; and when he has accomplished his course, his light is hidden in the night-time, and the night is not disturbed by his power. And in the hours of the night the sun turns round in his rapid course, and turning round begins to run in his accustomed path. As for the sun that is with you, you wise man, from your childhood till the completion of your old age, you know not where he runs in the night-time, so as to circle round to the place of its course. Is it necessary for you to inquire into those things that are hidden from you?

Athenagoras A Plea for the Christians 6
And first, as to our not sacrificing: the Framer and Father of this universe does not need blood, nor the odour of burnt-offerings, nor the fragrance of flowers and incense, forasmuch as He is Himself perfect fragrance, needing nothing either within or without; butthe noblest sacrifice to Him is for us to know who stretched out and vaulted the heavens, and fixed the earth in its place like a centre, who gathered the water into seas and divided the light from the darkness, who adorned the sky with stars and made the earth to bring forth seed of every kind, who made animals and fashioned man. When, holding God to be this Framer of all things, who preserves them in being and superintends them all by knowledge and administrative skill, we "lift up holy hands" to Him, what need has He further of a hecatomb?

Augustine Tractates, XCI, Ch XV, 24-25, 2
Who else save Joshua the son of Nun divided the stream of the Jordan for the people to pass over, and by the utterance of a prayer to God bridled and stopped the revolving sun? Who save Samson ever quenched his thirst with water flowing forth from the jawbone of a dead ass? Who save Elias was carried aloft in a chariot of fire? (Tractates, XCI, Ch XV, 24-25, 2).

Basil Hexaemeron, Homily VI, 8
It is winter when the sun sojourns in the south and produces in abundance the shades of night in our region. The air spread over the earth is chilly, and the damp exhalations, which gather over our heads, give rise to rains, to frosts, to innumerable flakes of snow. When, returning from the southern regions, the sun is in the middle of the heavens and divides day and night into equal parts, the more it sojourns above the earth the more it brings back a mild temperature to us.

Basil Hexaemeron, Homily II, 8
It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day.

Chrysostom Homily 10,10
When, therefore, you behold the sun arising, admire the Creator; when you behold him hiding himself and disappearing, learn the weakness of his nature, that you may not adore him as a Deity! For God has not only implanted in the nature of the elements this proof of their weakness, but has also bidden His servants, that were but men, command them; so that although you should not know their servitude from their aspect, you may learn, from those who have commanded them, that they are all your fellow-servants. Therefore it was, that Joshua, the son of Nave, said, "Let the sun stand still in Gibeon, and the moon over against the valley of Ajalon." And again the prophet Isaiah made the sun to retrace his steps, under the reign of Hezekiah; and Moses gave orders to the air, and the sea, the earth, and the rocks.

Chrysostom Homilies to Antioch, Homily X
And again, David saith of the sun, that "he is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a giant to run his course." Seest thou how he places before thee the beauty of this star, and its greatness? For even as a bridegroom when he appears from some stately chamber, so the sun sends forth his rays under the East; and adorning the heaven as it were with a saffron-colored veil, and making the clouds like roses, and running unimpeded all the day; he meets no obstacle to interrupt his course. Beholdest thou, then, his beauty?

Gregory Nanzianzus Funeral Orations for St. Basil, 66
The sun is extolled by David for its beauty, its greatness, its swift course, and its power, splendid as a bridegroom, majestic as a giant; while, from the extent of its circuit, it has such power that it equally sheds its light from one end of heaven to the other, and the heat thereof is in no wise lessened by distance.

Hilary of PoitiersOn the Trinity, Book XII, 53.
For in human affairs You have set before us many things of such a sort, that though we do not know their cause, yet the effect is not unknown; and reverence inculcates faith, where ignorance is inherent in our nature. Thus when I raised to Your heaven these feeble eyes of mine, my certainty regarding it was limited to the fact that it is Yours. For seeing therein these orbits where the stars are fixed, and their annual revolutions, and the Pleiades and the Great Bear and the Morning Star, each having their varied duties in the service which is appointed them, I recognise Your presence, O God, in these things whereof I cannot gain any clear understanding.

Hippolytus Fragments, III, Discourse on Hezekiah
We find in the commentaries, written by our predecessors, that day had thirty-two hours. For when the sun had run its course, and reached the tenth hour, and the shadow had gone down by the ten degrees in the house of the temple, the sun turned back again by the ten degrees, according to the word of the Lord, and there were thus twenty hours. And again, the sun accomplished its own proper course, according to the common law, and reached its setting. And thus there were thirty-two hours.

Theophilus of Antioch: To Autolycus Book I, 6
Consider, too, the flowing of sweet fountains and never-failing rivers, and the seasonable supply of dews, and showers, and rains; the manifold movement of the heavenly bodies, the morning star rising and heralding the approach of the perfect luminary; andthe constellation of Pleiades, and Orion, and Arcturus, and the orbit of the other stars that circle through the heavens, all of which the manifold wisdom of God has called by names of their own.
If you want to claim the vast majority in the the church before the time of Copernicus were heliocentrist, who knew not to interpret the geocentric passages in scripture geocentrically, then you will have to come up with a bit more evidence than simply claim it is so,

but f course we could use your delitzsch argument but then that would be unfair as then you would have no defense at all.
Feel free.

whati see throughout allof this is a bunch of TE's looking to justify their participation in secular science and believing their conclusions over the bible's statements.
Ad Hom. Deal with the arguments not what you think the other person's motives are. Why shouldn't we look at how the church dealt with a contradiction between their interpretation of scripture and science in the past and reinterpreted the scriptures science showed they had misunderstood? Especially when the person attacking evolution agrees with the reinterpretation the church made of the geocentric passages and has to try to claim the church never misinterpreted them in the first place.

sure it is science if you investigate how a plant works and dioscover photosynthesis but it is not science when you attribute it to a evolutionary theory.
Unfounded distinction between two sciences.

it is looking for an alternative to God's words because you cannot accept them nor believe them.
Were the Lutherans and Calvinists right to look for an alternative interpetation of the geocentric passages?

it is easier to believe the world for then you escape the crap that i have to endure
As I said before, you have no idea the crap we have to endure.

and you think you are doing something for God.

you are not.
It is God who will judge who has been faithful to him and his word, not you.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
What I can't understand is the inconsistency. They defend the flat earth and geocentric passages by insisting their non literal interpretation is the only way to interpret them, the way they were meant to be interpreted. Yet there is not reason they could not try to defend them the way they defend YEC by denying the science and insisting on a literal interpretation. Or equally, they could defend Genesis by treating it the way the treat the flat earth and geocentric passages, assuming the science is right and insisting the literal six day was not the way the passage was intended. Why two contradictory approaches to the same question, each approach defended by an assumption that this is the only way to do it.

As we stand on earth, we DO see the earth is flat and the sun goes around the earth. This is literally true.

The six-DAY creation is also taken to be literally true.

There is no inconsistency.

The modern science says: earth is round and earth orbits sun. YEC accept it. Thanks to the wisdom given by God.

The modern science says: earth is old. YEC says: Not so fast, we do not really know. The earth may still be very young. We need more wisdom to solve this problem.

I do not see any contradiction here either.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As we stand on earth, we DO see the earth is flat and the sun goes around the earth. This is literally true.

The six-DAY creation is also taken to be literally true.

There is no inconsistency.
So six day creationism is true to the creationist, just as the earth appears to be flat and the sun appears to rise, but at the same time the earth is really an oblate spheroid, rotates, orbits the sun and is 4.55 billion years old?

The modern science says: earth is round and earth orbits sun. YEC accept it. Thanks to the wisdom given by God.
Wisdom given by God to scientists like Eratosthenes, Copernicus, Galileo and Foucault you mean? Or the wisdom of God given to men like Augustine who said if you stand your interpretation of scripture against science you end up making bringing Christianity into disrepute?

The modern science says: earth is old. YEC says: Not so fast, we do not really know. The earth may still be very young. We need more wisdom to solve this problem.

I do not see any contradiction here either.
When the early church accepted a round earth, or Christians in the 16th and 17th century accepted heliocentrism, they did it on much, much less evidence than we have for the age of the earth today. They accepted the science because it was simply the best science they had. You are not doing what they did. How long was it before the earth was actually photographed from space to show it was round, or the laws of gravity which Newton used to explain the orbits of the solar system were actually demonstrated by man made objects to work in space? Yet the church accepted these theories long before any of that evidence came in. And it was right.

On the other hand if you want to argue that maybe the science is wrong, well people today still argue for geocentrism (coriolis forces caused by universe spinning around us) a flat earth (round earth is an optical illusion and or fake photographs). There is no reason to accept the word of science about heliocentrism and round earth and reject it about the age of the earth.

I was reading some of the early church flat earthers lately. There are not many, most of the early church writers knew better. I have been quoting the flat earther Cosmas Indicopleustes to archie because his arguments sound so much like Cosmas's arguments against a round earth: round earthers were following man instead of God, ye cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils.

You might appreciate the more level headed Lactantius

Lactantius Divine Institutes Book III Chapter 3.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07013.htm

Philosophy appears to consist of two subjects, knowledge and conjecture, and of nothing more. Knowledge cannot come from the understanding, nor be apprehended by thought; because to have knowledge in oneself as a peculiar property does not belong to man, but to God. But the nature of mortals does not receive knowledge, except that which comes from without. For on this account the divine intelligence has opened the eyes and ears and other senses in the body, that by these entrances knowledge might flow through to the mind. For to investigate or wish to know the causes of natural things,—whether the sun is as great as it appears to be, or is many times greater than the whole of this earth; also whether the moon be spherical or concave; and whether the stars are fixed to the heaven, or are borne with free course through the air; of what magnitude the heaven itself is, of what material it is composed; whether it is at rest and immoveable, or is turned round with incredible swiftness; how great is the thickness of the earth, or on what foundations it is poised and suspended,—to wish to comprehend these things, I say, by disputation and conjectures, is as though we should wish to discuss what we may suppose to be the character of a city in some very remote country, which we have never seen, and of which we have heard nothing more than the name. If we should claim to ourselves knowledge in a matter of this kind, which cannot be known, should we not appear to be mad, in venturing to affirm that in which we may be refuted? How much more are they to be judged mad and senseless, who imagine that they know natural things, which cannot be known by man!
Not so fast, no one has ever seen the shape of the earth, it is just conjecture... But Lactantius was wrong and the Christians who accepted the scientific consensus were the ones who had the wisdom of God.

And we have God's wisdom already. By the end of the 19th century, men of God like James Orr and the original Fundamentalists, or Methodist theologians like
Joseph Agar Beet, wrestled with these problems and realised the Genesis days are figurative and not the real message of Genesis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willtor
Upvote 0

theFijian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 30, 2003
8,898
476
West of Scotland
Visit site
✟86,155.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
finally someone posted something beyond their own statements. i will go through these quotes and get back to you. as i have said i have all the church fathers here but it will take time to sift through to find the context and construct a reply.

I'm still waiting for you to back up your baseless assertion that there is no such thing as micro-evolution. Remember also that you called fellow Creatonists hypocrites for accepting it.
 
Upvote 0

Rudolph Hucker

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2007
1,540
332
Canberra ACT
✟26,803.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Conservative
it has been done numerous times---gen. 1:30-31

there can be no micro-evolution
On a related issue, Archie, was the number of species on the ark greater - or smaller - than the number of species now existing?
 
Upvote 0

theFijian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 30, 2003
8,898
476
West of Scotland
Visit site
✟86,155.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
On a related issue, Archie, was the number of species on the ark greater - or smaller - than the number of species now existing?

It's laughable isn't, that verse doesn't even prove what Archie hopes it proves. He has no answer for the question on the number of species/kinds so he just dodges it. It's quite transparent that he has no answers, no doubt he will simply respond with insults.
 
Upvote 0

Rudolph Hucker

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2007
1,540
332
Canberra ACT
✟26,803.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Conservative
It's laughable isn't, that verse doesn't even prove what Archie hopes it proves. He has no answer for the question on the number of species/kinds so he just dodges it. It's quite transparent that he has no answers, no doubt he will simply respond with insults.
Over the years I have become accustomed to such insults!

I have the hide of a rhinoceros.

I wonder if they were there?
 
Upvote 0

archaeologist

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2007
1,051
23
✟23,813.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
okay here is my rebuttal against assyrian's contentions, my words will be in green & bold to set them apart from the quotes answered. i shall respond in two posts. # 1:

“Hippolytus Fragments, III, Discourse on Hezekiah
We find in the commentaries, written by our predecessors, that day had thirty-two hours. For when the sun had run its course, and reached the tenth hour, and the shadow had gone down by the ten degrees in the house of the temple,
the sun turned back again by the ten degrees, according to the word of the Lord, and there were thus twenty hours. And again, the sun accomplished its own proper course, according to the common law, and reached its setting. And thus there were thirty-two hours.”


Okay, in checking out this quote, I see it is not teaching that hippolytus believed the sun traveled around the earth but that he is commenting on what took place at hezekiah’s request. Here is the biblical chapter--2 Kings 20

“Theophilus of Antioch: To Autolycus Book I, 6
Consider, too, the flowing of sweet fountains and never-failing rivers, and the seasonable supply of dews, and showers, and rains; the manifold movement of the heavenly bodies, the morning star rising and heralding the approach of the perfect luminary; andthe constellation of Pleiades, and Orion, and Arcturus, and the orbit of the other stars that circle through the heavens, all of which the manifold wisdom of God has called by names of their own”

again, on examining the context there is nothing that indicates that Theophilus believed that the stars orbited as described by Assyrian and others. .consider the sentences that come after this out of context quote:

“all of which the
manifold wisdom of God has called by names of their own. He is God
alone who made light out of darkness, and brought forth light from His
treasures, and formed the chambers of the south wind, and the treasure houses
of the deep, and the bounds of the seas, and the treasuries of snows
and hail-storms, collecting the waters in the storehouses of the deep, and
the darkness in His treasures, and bringing forth the sweet, and desirable,
and pleasant light out of His treasures; “

{bold mine} it seems to be speakin gof creation as described by Genesis 1 and other scriptural passages.

“Athenagoras A Plea for the Christians 6
And first, as to our not sacrificing: the Framer and Father of this universe does not need blood, nor the odour of burnt-offerings, nor the fragrance of flowers and incense, forasmuch as He is Himself perfect fragrance, needing nothing either within or without; butthe noblest sacrifice to Him is for us to know who stretched out and vaulted the heavens, and fixed the earth in its place like a centre, who gathered the water into seas and divided the light from the darkness, who adorned the sky with stars and made the earth to bring forth seed of every kind, who made animals and fashioned man. When, holding God to be this Framer of all things, who preserves them in being and superintends them all by knowledge and administrative skill, we "lift up holy hands" to Him, what need has He further of a hecatomb?”

that quote is not found in the noted reference. The only thing that comes close is the following:

“If, therefore, Plato is not
an atheist for conceiving of one uncreated God, the Framer of the universe,
neither are we atheists who acknowledge and firmly hold that He is God
who has framed all things by the Logos, and holds them in being by His
Spirit.”

“Chrysostom Homilies to Antioch, Homily X
And again, David saith of the sun, that "he is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a giant to run his course." Seest thou how he places before thee the beauty of this star, and its greatness? For even as a bridegroom when he appears from some stately chamber, so the sun sends forth his rays under the East; and adorning the heaven as it were with a saffron-colored veil, and making the clouds like roses, and running unimpeded all the day; he meets no obstacle to interrupt his course. Beholdest thou, then, his beauty”


in reading the context, there is nothing there that states or infers that Chrysostom believed the sun went around the earth nor taught such a thing. The context points to the independence of God not that the sun runs around the earth.
 
Upvote 0

archaeologist

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2007
1,051
23
✟23,813.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
post #2:

“Basil Hexaemeron, Homily VI, 8
It is winter when the sun sojourns in the south and produces in abundance the shades of night in our region. The air spread over the earth is chilly, and the damp exhalations, which gather over our heads, give rise to rains, to frosts, to innumerable flakes of snow. When, returning from the southern regions, the sun is in the middle of the heavens and divides day and night into equal parts, the more it sojourns above the earth the more it brings back a mild temperature to us.”
I fail to see any statement or inference that says the Bible teaches the sun moves. I do read where basil is giving a perfectly human description to what we, even in modern times, ascribe to the sun.

Basil Hexaemeron, Homily II, 8
It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day.

Again, I see nothing here that teaches basil believed the sun revolved around the earth, I see a normal description we would use in our modern terminology and be thought quite normal. It seems that it is expected (and I find this with all the quote thus far) that the listener/reader already knows the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. The language is not much different than what we would find today and the expectation is the same.

Ambrose Duties of the Clergy, Bk II, Ch XX, 99
Worthy surely was he to stand forth as a man who might stay the course of the river, and who might say: "Sun, stand still," and delay the night and lengthen the day, as though to witness his victory.


In reading this excerpt, I see this quote used as an example and not a statement o fbelieve that they believe the sun revolves around the earth.

Ambrose Exposition of the Christian Faith, Bk V, Ch II
But they say that the sun can be said to be alone, because there is no second sun. But the sun himself has many things in common with the stars, for he travels across the heavens, he is of that ethereal and heavenly substance, he is a creature, and is reckoned amongst all the works of God. He serves God in union with all, blesses Him with all, praises Him with all. Therefore he cannot accurately be said to be alone, for he is not set apart from the rest.


The context of this book is talking about the SON being ‘alone’ and the example quoted above is just that, an example. There is no wording which indicates the interpretation given to it by Assyrian.

Hilary of PoitiersOn the Trinity, Book XII, 53.
For in human affairs You have set before us many things of such a sort, that though we do not know their cause, yet the effect is not unknown; and reverence inculcates faith, where ignorance is inherent in our nature. Thus when I raised to Your heaven these feeble eyes of mine, my certainty regarding it was limited to the fact that it is Yours. For seeing therein these orbits where the stars are fixed, and their annual revolutions, and the Pleiades and the Great Bear and the Morning Star, each having their varied duties in the service which is appointed them, I recognise Your presence, O God, in these things whereof I cannot gain any clear understanding

Again, such words in bold are just normal expressions anyone would use, even in our present day. To say otherwise is reading into a passage one wants to be there, a belief that the church fathers believed and taught that the sun and stars orbited the earth, and not seeing what is there— a normal human description of what is seen in everyday life.

I do not have 3 of the 12 quoted so they will not be dealt with as I am sure I would find the same corrections as stated above. Aristides, Aphrahat have little known about them with the latter considered Persian and it is hard to consider them church fathers when there is no confirmation documentation.

As for Gregory Nazianzus, he hung out with basil and I have Gregory Nyssa. I decided not to deal with Augustine as so many others do it better than I, so I defer to them.

it is quite obvious that the poster of these quotes i have rebutted, sees what he wants to see and not what is really there, all in a futile attempt to justify his behavior and personal beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

archaeologist

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2007
1,051
23
✟23,813.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
It's laughable isn't, that verse doesn't even prove what Archie hopes it proves

sure it does as i was responding to your false charge of my making baseless comments. i have posted that verse before thus you are way out of line.

if you have noticed i have ignored hucker and have been ignoring him from the beginning. he is not here for constructive dialogue, but to find something he canuse to attack the poster.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.