• 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.

KEPLER

Crux sola est nostra theologia
Mar 23, 2005
3,513
223
3rd Rock from the Sun
✟27,398.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Erm, Arche, let me get this straight...? Are you suggesting that all of the Church Fathers whom you addressed in posts 117 & 118 believed that the Earth travelled around the Sun, and not vice-versa?

***Kepler chokes on a Cheez-It[FONT=&quot]™[/FONT] ***
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hippolytus clearly believe the sun had a 'proper course' it followed according to natural law, and after the miracle it went back to finish running this course. In other words Hippolytus believed the sun travelled around the earth. He also believed this is what the bible was teaching in these passages.

He is saying to consider the creation we see around us, 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. He was talking about the present, rivers that never fail, dews that fall in season, showers.. and the stars circling through the heavens. It is only after this he talks of God creating light. Even if it was talking about the creation it would still be talking about God creating stars that orbit the earth. Theophilus was a geocentrist.

Sorry two references got run together there:

in chapter 6 Athenagoras tells us Plato thought space was God's body, when in reality it is a sphere of fixed stars moving in circles. Then in chapter 13 he tell us the earth is fixed in its place at the center of the vault of heaven God stretched out. No only is Athenagoras a geocentrist, his referring to a number of geocentrist passages from the bible here and interpreting them literally.

Whether his central point is the independence of God or not, Crysostome clearly believes the sun runs an unimpeded course all day, he is a geocentrist who believes the sun travels around the earth. Again this is a geocentrist interpretation of the bible, Psalm 19.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No this is not bible exegesis, this is simply Basil describing the seasons as a geocentrist. In the winter the sun spends its time in the south (doesn't he know that the sun is 93 millions of mile away from the earth? and that it is only the tilting of the earth's axis that makes the southern hemisphere face towards the sun) Spring comes because the sun returns from the south to the middle of the heavens. This is pure geocentrism.

He is describing the heavens that moving around the earth not the earth rotating. I have never heard a heliocentrist describe a day as the heavens starting from one point and returning back to it, or describing days in terms of a revolution of the sun.

He compares Joshua telling the sun to stand still to a man trying to stop a river. He really believed Joshua's miracle involved the sun literally being stopped as it moved around the earth. Ambrose was a geocentrist and he interpreted Joshua's miracle literally and geocentrically.

He certainly is comparing the sun with the Son. But he also believes the sun that travels across the heaven and he does not know the sun is just one of billions of other stars. Ambrose is being a geocentrist again.


He believes the stars orbit the earth. I am afraid it is you who is desperately trying to read heliocentrism into the these writing from long before the time of Copernicus. You obviously do believe fervently that the vast majority back then knew the earth orbited the sun, but you have not shown a shred of evidence.

You will find Aristides here www.newadvent.org/fathers/1012.htm i think he is great talking about the sky and the stars and the sun as they revolve and move by necessity, the way the star get carried along.

Aphrahat is also included in the church fathers section here www.newadvent.org/fathers/370122.htm Even if he wasn't a church father, he is still a Christian from the 4th century talking about the bible and and describing what it mean geocentrically. The sun circles around for 12 hours and when he has accomplished that, turns around in the night. It is not the earth rotating, it is the sun's rapid course.

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.
You don't explain away Gregory Nanzianzus by claiming to have explained Basil. Please explain Gregory's comment about sun's swift course, or his belief the sun's heat is not lessened by the distance from one end of the heaven to the other, what you can still get a sunburn 13.7 billion light years away? Why would he think the sun is swift? If you are describing how the sun appear to rise and set, it is very slow. It take half a day to get from one horizon to the other. It is only if you think the sun is a long distance away and actually moving along the path it appears to take that you would think it 'swift'.

I don't think you will find may YECs here who think Augustine was a heliocentrist. So best you try to explain what he said yourself. I can't answer for them but I suspect they are a bit uncomfortable see the type of verbal manipulation used to defend inerrancy being used to try to prove uninspired text say what they clearly don't. It is one thing for a YEC to try and prove God inspired scripture with heliocentrism built in, it is quite another to believe the Gregory's and Augustine were similarly inerrant.

Augustine: "Joshua the son of Nun... by the utterance of a prayer to God bridled and stopped the revolving sun. " It was the sun that stopped when Joshua prayed. It had been revolving, he prayed and it stopped moving.

I don't think I mentioned Gregory of Nyssa but here is a quote.

The perpetual motion of the heavens not only measures out time, but it drags the darkness of night with it. You think Gregory of Nyssa here wasn't a geocentrist?

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.
You haven't rebutted a thing, just ignored the obvious in what these people are saying.
 
Upvote 0

KEPLER

Crux sola est nostra theologia
Mar 23, 2005
3,513
223
3rd Rock from the Sun
✟27,398.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Assyrian, Willtor, et al.,

I think you're going about this the wrong way. If you don't mind, I'll try a different tactic.

Let us assume, Arche, that what you suggest is true, and that the Church Fathers all (or mostly) held a heliocentric view of the universe.

Where, then, in the historical record, is their criticism of Ptolemy's Almagest? If what you say is true, there ought to have been quite a bit of criticism of his geocentric model. There is a great deal of criticism amongst the Church Fathers of other pagan philosophy. Their criticism of Babylonian astrology is famous; why would they avoid criticizing Ptolemy's astronomy?

They certainly criticized Ptolemy's geography. Ptolemy argued that the earth was spherical. St. John Chrysostom, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, Lactantius all criticized Ptoloemy's views on a spherical earth; where are their criticisms of his geocentrism?

Second, if they were all heliocentrists, why was there no outcry when Johann de Sacrobosco published his De Sphaera Mundi in 1230? Sacrobosco's work, a magnificent treatise supporting geocentricism (in fact, an all-but plagiarization of Ptolemy), remained the standard textbook on astronomy for nearly 400 years. There was no criticism, no condemnation of this work at all.

WHY???

Because, in fact, with a very tiny number of odd-ball holdouts, everyone from the fall until the late 16th century was a geocentrist.

Q.E.D.

--Kepler
 
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

I asked the question first and you dodged it. You have repeatedly dodged the question, it is quite obvious why you do so. The verse does not address the queston, I'll repeat ot tp give you another chance to answer:

Are there more species/kinds alive today than there were at the time of Noah's Flood?

A really simple question I'm sure all will agree.
 
Upvote 0

archaeologist

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2007
1,051
23
✟23,813.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Arche, let me get this straight...? Are you suggesting that all of the Church Fathers whom you addressed in posts 117 & 118 believed that the Earth travelled around the Sun, and not vice-versa?

i am saying that those who teachthat the church fathers believed that the sun revolved around the earth, etc. are reading into the passages what they want to see.

it is quite clear upon examination of the contexts that they did not state the Bible teaches such a thing nor that they taught or believed such a thing.

we all do the same thing in modern times and no one accuses the other person of believing the earth is the center of the universe.
 
Upvote 0

archaeologist

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

here is the fragment. please show where it is clearly stated that hippolytus clearly believed the sun revolved around the earth:



You don't explain away Gregory Nanzianzus by claiming to have explained Basil.

sorry, it was worded poorly, i do not have his works either so i could not address them.

but it is clear from your postings and resposne thatyu are reading into the church fathers what you want to see, just like you do with genesis 1.

again, having gone through the contexts, i find your accusations and claims for the church fathers false and in line with what you want to believe and not what is true. sure you quote their words but you quote nothing else to substantiate that they believed as you say.

there is no commentary that you have linked to that shows what you claim is true and i have never come across any teaching, except done by TE's, that state what you say.

even in reading their biographies {and newadvent was one of them} there was no claim that they held to the beliefs you want them to hold. (yes, i did that before constructing my reply) on 4 of these people you quoted, very little is known about them and such claims as you make are far-fetched and wishful thinking.

.​
 
Upvote 0

archaeologist

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

you are asking me to give a reason for what did or didn't take place 1600 years ago without any documentation as to their motivations for doing or not doing what you say? get real.

when i become a forensic mind reader i will let you know the why. the reasons are many but i can only speculate.
 
Upvote 0

archaeologist

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2007
1,051
23
✟23,813.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I asked the question first and you dodged it. You have repeatedly dodged the question, it is quite obvious why you do so. The verse does not address the queston, I'll repeat ot tp give you another chance to answer:

i a not dodging you. you are, like hucker, being ignored for the simple reason, like hucker, that you are incapable of having a decent dialogue and because your only interest is in finding some obscure phrase with which to harass and belittle me.
 
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
Upvote 0

KEPLER

Crux sola est nostra theologia
Mar 23, 2005
3,513
223
3rd Rock from the Sun
✟27,398.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married

Well, actually, that was a rhetorical question; it's also called hyperbole. Since I have a Ph.D. in the History of Science, I already knew the answer: they didn't criticize Ptolemy because they agreed with him.



Cheers,

Kepler
 
Upvote 0

archaeologist

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2007
1,051
23
✟23,813.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Since I have a Ph.D. in the History of Science, I already knew the answer: they didn't criticize Ptolemy because they agreed with him.

prove it. your word is not good enough as in my research i found no such claims made.

given the fact that basil, hilary, ambrose, chrysostom, gregory of nazianzus were all basically memebrs of the r.c.c. which did hold to such a position and were basically contemporaries of each other, it is a possibility BUT their writings and the examples given show no such inclinations and are words that would be used even today when describing what something looks like.

there are also about 4 we know very little about and it would be presumptuous to even consider what their beliefs were.
 
Upvote 0

archaeologist

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2007
1,051
23
✟23,813.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
basil, chrysostom, and gregory were RC? Tell that to the EO...

basil:

http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=1691

St. Basil
Feastday: March 6
335

Bishop of Bologna, Italy, ordained by Pope St. Sylvester in 315. Basil served his diocese until his death

chrysostum:

http://www.chrysostom.org/life.html

But John decided, after he had been baptised at the age of 23, to abandon the law in favour of service to the Saviour. He entered a monastery which served to educate him in preparation for his ordination as a priest in 386

here i could be wrong as it looks like he was orthodox.



gregory:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07010b.htm


there is nothing to indicate otherwise and though they may be accepted by the eastern orthodox i see nothing in their biographies which state they were members of that church--chrysostum may be the exception--.

if you have better information than what i have put up, let's see it please.
 
Upvote 0

Melethiel

Miserere mei, Domine
Site Supporter
Jun 8, 2005
27,287
940
35
Ohio
✟99,593.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
RC and EO were one church before (officially) 1054, so technically whether they were RC or EO depends on who you ask (personally, I think the EO are closer to the original).
I was thinking of a different Basil.
Gregory - Cappadocia, in Asia Minor, is a region which after the split went to the EO.
Chrysostom wrote the Divine Liturgy which is still used by the EO today.
 
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
Are you suggesting, Archie, that the following passage does not indicate heliocentrism - even such that the sun and moon are not equidistant from the Earth?

"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, by their bearing against each other in defiance of law."

This is from the passage you quoted. Even if we allow for poetic license, and a nice heliocentric model of the solar system, in what context is it possible for the moon to collide with the sun?
 
Upvote 0

archaeologist

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2007
1,051
23
✟23,813.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
read what i wrote:

i said that what was given, the quotes and then study of the context, there was nothing there that indicates they believed the sun revolved around the earth. most of those sentences are quite nromal descriptions, so normal that we do the same thing today inspite of the fact we know it isn't correct.

without other docuumentation, you cannot build a case that the church fathers believed the earth was the center of the universe. this is even more so for those we know so little, as doing so would be pure speculation and assumption.

now i have thrown you a bone when i said that since some of them are contemporaries and lived at a time when the r.c.c. believed such things, that they may have believed it also but i qualified that with the same reasons above and added that their biographies did not mention their beliefs.

you have very little to go on unless you can provide credible documentation to prove your claim.
 
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
We know the Catholic church believed the sun orbited the earth.

That did not magically change in the mid 16th century when England turned away.

So which churches took a view different from that of the Catholic church?
 
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
i a not dodging you. you are, like hucker, being ignored for the simple reason, like hucker, that you are incapable of having a decent dialogue and because your only interest is in finding some obscure phrase with which to harass and belittle me.
So, if you are not dodging the question, Archie, let me remind you what it was:-

Are there more species/kinds alive today than there were at the time of Noah's Flood?

Do you need more time?
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No that's not the reference I quoted, that is Hippolytus on Hezekiah fragment I, I quoted Fragment III, but they are both good

In both sections Hippolytus shows that he believed the sun runs along a course every day and this course is governed by natural laws. In other word he believes the sun literally does follow a course around the earth, as prescribed by the laws of science. He believed the sun literally turned back on the path it takes for the Hezekiah miracle. He was also totally unaware that the sun and moon are million of miles apart, the moon a quarter of a million miles from earth and the sun 93 million miles, that it is the earth that rotates and orbits the sun while the moon orbits the earth. Instead he believed they are both in orbits very close to each other around the earth, and that when the sun was turned back the moon had to be turned back too or the sun and moon would have collided.

If he had believed the apparent motion of the sun was due to the earth's rotation and that God had reversed the earth's orbit, or changed the direction of the light coming from the sun and moon, he would never have thought the sun was in a danger of colliding with the moon during this miracle. Hippolytus could only have considered the collision a possibility if he believe the miracle was due to a change in the sun's orbit of the earth, rather than a change in the apparent motion of the sun that was in reality due to the rotation of the earth.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310243.htm Section 66.

but it is clear from your postings and resposne thatyu are reading into the church fathers what you want to see, just like you do with genesis 1.
The irony is gobsmacking.

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 is no commentary that you have linked to that shows what you claim is true and i have never come across any teaching, except done by TE's, that state what you say.
How about you support you claim that the vast majority interpreted the geocentric passages heliocentricaly before Copernicus? So far all we have had is you wriggling and trying to escape the obvious meaning of what these people said, even going so far as to try to dismiss people because they were part of the Catholic church, well duh, the vast majority of Western Europe before the time of Copernicus was Catholic. Copernicus's book was published in 1543. Luther had only nailed his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenburg in 1517. You exclude Church Father living in the Eastern Orthodox region unless we can prove they weren't Catholic, and of course Aphrahat because he lived in Persia.

Incidentally,
Wrong Basil there archie. That is St. Basil of Bologna who dies in 335.
The one who wrote the Homilies on the Hexaemeron we were looking at was St. Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea, died 379.

So it come down to a question of 'who?'. Who is the vast majority you are talking about interpreting the bible heliocentrically? The vast majority of Christians in the west that weren't a Catholic? The majority in the East who can still produce baptismal Certificates to prove they aren't Catholic, or aren't living so far East in Persian that they weren't even Greek orthodox? The vast majority of who? We have seen what the church fathers believed. They were geocentrist.

Maybe we are talking about Europe at the time of the Reformation. Are we talking about the vast majority of new protestants, who until recently were part of that that geocentric Catholic church? Suddenly they all understand the earth rotates and orbits the sun, it is just that the leaders of the Reformations whose views we do have in writing like Luther and Calvin were clearly still as geocentrist as the Catholic church and the church fathers. So when was this revolution when the vast majority of grassroot protestants suddenly had heliocentrism revealed to them and do you have any evidence for this?

It is clear what they believed about the movement of the heavens, the sun, the moon and the stars from what they wrote, unless you are trying desperately to deny the obvious. Which is clear by the way you have switched from trying to deny the church fathers were geocentrist, to trying to exclude them for suspected Catholicism (or living in Persia).
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.