Print Page - "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Incredulous on April 23, 2018, 11:06:13 AM

Title: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Incredulous on April 23, 2018, 11:06:13 AM

In 1998, before he entered the Winona seminary, Fr. Robinson's stepfather wrote the following book debunking Heliocentrism

More evidence that Father had a good traditional Catholic formation, but rejected it all for modern science and neo-SSPX consiliarism.

The Heliocentric Hoax

Written by
James V. Forsee

Sept 1998

Truth forever on the scaffold.

Wrong forever on the throne.

James Russell Lowell

About four hundred years ago a great debate challenged the Catholic world and it has still not recovered from the crushing blow of heliocentrism. Aside from the intrigues of the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic Conspiracy, Nicholaus Copernicus (1473-1543), Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), and Albert Einstein (1879-1955) are three of the most prominent architects of this New Age hoax.

Copernicus, who taught the theory that the earth both rotates on its axis once a day and revolves around the sun once a year, rejuvenated this ancient Babylonian myth call heliocentrism. This re-hashing of the error of Aristarchus(1) was actually nurtured by astrology for generations, and most scholars acknowledge that those who embraced this deception after the death of Christ were Bible-hating pagans. During the Life of Copernicus this novelty was sustained via the network of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. This satanic craft, shrouded in symbolic sophistry, has as its main objective the destruction of Christ’s Church (Truth).

The renowned Catholic historian, William Thomas Walsh, in his bibliography, Philip II, examines an unfinished article from that period entitled The New Atlantis. This work, by the revolutionist Francis Bacon, was a veiled description of the Freemason machinery as it operated in Europe around the 1500’s and is claimed by modern Masons to be their own. Bacon’s piece acknowledges that subversive “members of the order control medicine, science, astrology . . .”(2) Even today, according to the revisionist historian Ralph Epperson, Masonry claims the sun as their symbol!

It was not, however, until Galileo that heliocentrism was used to subvert the Roman Catholic world view (geocentrism). Solange Hertz, a contemporary Catholic historian, reveals that Galileo, usually in need of money, “was easily inspired and financed by the group of revolutionary spirits who clustered about Cosimo de Medici II in Florence.”(3) Perhaps because of their influence, Galileo lied to the Church and College of Cardinals and resumed teaching the theory as a fact. He, “the wrangler”, had a tendency to mock his opponents and to overstate his case.(4) God’s Providence, it seems, arranged a Saint and Doctor of the Church, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, S.J., the Master of Controversial Questions, to refute the Galileo heresy. Despite Bellarmine’s impeccable refutation, the lack of viable proofs submitted by Galileo, and the failure of modern science to verify heliocentrism, Galileo has become the “light” and “Father of Modern Science”, while the Church, our Mother, appears “dark” and defunct.

Modern science texts to this day, dominated by secular humanists, state that Galileo proved the Copernican sun-centered theory. The fact is, he proved nothing. Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859), who sought to formulate the known facts about the universe into a uniform conception of nature in his Cosmos (5 Vols, 1845-1862), said quite candidly: “I have already known for a long time that we have no proof for the system of Copernicus . . .but I do not dare to be the first one to attack it.”

Bernard Cohen in Birth of a New Physics, 1960, concurs: “There is no planetary observation by which we on earth can prove the earth is moving in an orbit around the sun.”

Before previewing and/or summarizing some of the well-known scientific experiments and their conclusions regarding heliocentrism vs. geocentrism, one must be aware of the Catholic Church’s position concerning science. One, too, must understand the philosophical and psychological implications inherent in the dethronement of man from the center of the universe. And one must not be so naive as to think that such subtleties are not systematically employed by Satan and his agents in the ultimate plan to destroy the Catholic Church.

This Church teaches that there is no contradiction between science and religion, and that faith is higher than science, and in fact, that theology is the Queen of the Sciences. Nevertheless, because of the machinations of the Evil One, this cancerous heresy, heliocentrism, succeeded in displacing man from the center of the universe, where Jesus Christ came to redeem man. But more importantly, it appeared to have discredited Holy Scripture.

Indeed, the far-reaching consequences of this cannot be underestimated. A contemporary Catholic scholar, Paula Haigh, in a letter to The Remnant (May 12, 1989) speaks her observations most emphatically: “Galileo’s case was decisive in the course of history, and the Church, in her condemnation of the Copernican system, was guided by the Holy Spirit (in spite of all the politics involved) and spoke infallibly for our future guidance.” Walter van der Kamp (1913-1998), founder and past director of the Tychonian Society, affirms: “For the Galileo affair and its aftermath, as all historians of whatever aspect of human action and thought, acknowledge that it has wrought a change in our attitude towards the world, not equaled by anything since Our Lord walked among us.”(5) To an incalculable degree, man was spiritually wrenched from his Creator, God.

20^thcentury man may think that it is of no importance whatever whether the sun or the earth was proved to be the center of the universe. But it was then and it is now. History has verified this. To understand it, one must seek to study history on its own terms, and in the context of that era. Before the Galileo heresy the Christian, as opposed to the progressive modern man, was not only geocentric, but theo-centric (God-centered). Before the “earth-movers” arrived on the scene, Western Civilization had an orderly world-view; everything had its place. First of all, man believed in God, the Creator of Heaven and earth, and in Holy Mother the Church. He also believed that God sent His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to the center of the universe, the motionless earth, in order to redeem man. And, contrary to his worldly 20^th century counterpart, man yearned for Heaven where God reigned. The only means of enjoying the Beatific Vision was through Christ’s Church.

All bespoke unity. Man knew the importance of the Church and necessity of belonging to Her. He may have belonged to a certain manor, a certain town, a certain guild, and so on, but the chain of command was virtually unbroken. If he were a vassal, he would be answerable to his lord, and in turn the lord would be answerable to the king, the king answerable to the Pope (primarily in moral matters), and all of these answerable to God. In short, man knew where he stood. All was orderly, all was secure. Man believed and he belonged.

Then, with the new world view, came doubt, the enemy of faith. As the famous English poet, John Donne, so aptly bemoaned: “And new philosophy calls all in doubt.” Man, now displaced from the center of the universe, not only sustained a loss of dignity, purpose, and direction, but also he was most tragically and psychologically divorced from God, the all-unifying Creator. This is precisely why this controversy is crucial.

The foremost human authority on this issue is, of course, St. Robert Bellarmine, who knew the perilous consequences of Galileo’s heresy. The following letter of April 12, 1613 was written to an involved party, Fr. Paolo Foscarini, and it decisively and prophetically cautions the 16^th century world about the dangers of heliocentrism. Lest one might believe it is quoted out of context, and also to dispel any doubt, Bellarmine’s entire letter will be cited. The following should indicate why Pope Clement VIII rejoiced that “the Church of God had not his equal in learning.”(6) Bellarmine to Foscarini:

I have gladly read the letter in Italian and the treatise which Your Reverence sent me, and I thank you for both. And I confess that both are filled with ingenuity and learning, and since you ask for my opinion, I will give it to you very briefly, as you have little time for reading and I for writing.

First. I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically, and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (turns upon its axis) without travelling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scripture false. For Your Reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.

Second. I say that, as you know, the Council (of Trent) prohibits expounding the Scripture contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. 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 literally (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 in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the center and the earth is in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers. I add that the words “the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc” were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move. And that is enough for the present.

Are not the words of this great Church doctor and saint eloquent, insightful, profound? Is there any Catholic among us who can find a flaw in it?

Since, as previously stated, theology is true science (God’s science), then only through theological sources can one be absolutely sure of answers. Also, scientifically speaking, how can anyone go outside the universe to observe what is actually happening? Since this is impossible, God has provided us with an unerring source of truth. The Holy Scriptures, certainly a primary source, are absolutely geocentric. There are a number of passages to support the earth-centered reality. Refer, for example, to Genesis and the Psalms. Note Psalms 18:5-6, 92:1, 95:10; also, Ecclesiastes 1:4-6 and Josue’s long day (Josue 10). Believe the truth revealed in perpetuity, when you read Psalm 103, which anticipates Copernicus, Galileo and Einstein, and all the other innovators: the earth…”shall not be moved forever and ever“. (emphasis added)

Many writers, scientists, and pseudo-theologians have spilt much ink trying to accommodate unverifiable, modern science (heliocentrism and evolution, in particular) with the Bible. Despite their mental gymnastics, their forced allegorical interpretations, their flaws in logic, and so on, not one has presented a viable argument. Belief in their reasoning not only requires blind faith, but leads one to conclude that God is a poor grammarian at best or a liar at worst. Some exegetes try to pass off all the inconsistencies by calling the language of the Scriptures poetic, figurative, or phenomenological; meaning that God in some cases did not really mean what He said. Aside from the inspired Word of God, we have the Doctors of the Church, the Magisterium and the Decrees(7), all geocentric. Today, after four hundred years, the official teaching of the Catholic Church is still geocentric: The earth is the center of the universe, and it has no motion.

Even secular authorities, though unknown to most, give the Church credence. For example, two hundred years ago, well after the Galileo affair, in a Nov 22, 1885 letter to St. George Mivart, the English scientist Thomas Huxley wrote: “I gave some attention to the case of Galileo when I was in Italy, and I arrived at the conclusion that the Pope and the College of Cardinals had rather the best of it.”

Science’s sun-centered theory, on the other hand, did not fare as well. Ironically, the scientific experiments, observations, data, and proofs, to purportedly have verified heliocentrism and thus to have discredited the Holy Catholic Church and Scripture, regardless of these efforts have verified geocentrism as well. One wishing to explore man’s efforts to prove God wrong should investigate the following: the supposed revolution of the earth around the sun can be studied by Bradley’’ experiment, the parallax of stars, the annual loop of Pluto, the intensification of meteors after midnight, annual Doppler shifts of stars, and so on. The supposed rotation (spinning) can be studied by reviewing the earth’s oblateness, the wind patterns, the force of projectiles and spacecraft, force of air falling bodies, the direct observation from the moon, the Coriolis effect, and so on. The Foucault pendulum has been proven to be a fabrication which proves nothing.(8)

Is the earth actually moving or are the heavenly bodies doing the moving? Or to use the nebulous phrase of science: “Is there some unexplained phenomenon to consider?” Study them all. Cold reason should cause you to acknowledge that no conclusive proofs exist to prove Galileo’s theory. Even our most powerful instruments conclusively prove movement only — but movement of what?

Perhaps the most notable experiments are “Airy’s failure” and the Michelson-Morley experiment. These two are a ‘must’ for any serious study of this intriguing subject. The Astronomer Royal of England, George Biddel Airy (1801-1892), in 1871 performed a star-gazing experiment which came to be known as “Airy’s failure”. The simple solution to all the problems raised in this experiment was that the earth is at rest, immobile, in absolute space.(9) God and His agents, the angels, hold it there. But the crushing blow to heliocentrism was the Michelson-Morley experiment, and all those who tried to imitate or perfect it. Their classical experiment of 1887 was another effort designed to vindicate Galileo. But it also backfired. They bounced a beam of light off two mirrors in perpendicular directions and reflected the light back to their source. The lights returned simultaneously, regardless of location, season, elevation or orientation of instruments. The expected result was that the beam of light running parallel to the “supposed” path of the orbiting earth would return more quickly.

For those desiring detailed, scientific information on experiments that favor geocentrism, research the Fresnell drag experiments and Arago’s experiment (Livingston). Study the Trouton-Noble experiment, the induction effect (des Coudres), the test for rotation of polarized light (Strutt), the Ahranov-Bohm effect (Erlichson), and the phase shift of electrons in a superconductor (Jacklevic).

Satan, allied with the modern conspirators, needed a new strategy to snuff out the remnant of the Catholic world view, in order that their diabolical agenda take its place. In the late 1800’s to the early 1900’s experiments actually ran contrary to modern science, and the conspirators needed somehow to keep the earth moving. Enter Albert Einstein. Besides tirelessly and diligently working for the Communist cause and aiding the Soviets by supplying them with our atomic secrets, he had a most unique position in the Novus Ordo Seclorum (nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr). An apparent objective of all his intellectual efforts was to destroy, as completely as possible, all confidence that our human race might have in our accuмulated knowledge from prior generations about the physical nature of our universe. Indeed, how could the average layman refute Einstein’s abstractions? It is beyond the scope of this study to do so, but this champion of the cause was always suspiciously elusive when asked about the inconsistencies of his famous theories. “It is well known that Einstein at different times and occasions, for understandably different reasons, gave different answers to questions about the occurrences that had prompted him to his views on motion, rest and space-time.”(10)

In De Labore Solis Walter van der Kamp exposes Einstein’s fallacies quite handily. For those wanting to explore this more thoroughly, you are referred to pp39-51 of that remarkable work. Einstein’s theories do not disprove geocentrism. At the end of a letter in the Bulletin of the Tychonian Society, No. 54, Charles Long, Ph.D. of Minnesota, cogently explains the lack of definitives:

. . .Einstein is the fellow who went on to compose the General Theory of Relativity. The basis of this theory is that all motion is relative! Einstein wrote his equations describing how the Universe works. If the Earth spins and the stars are at rest – the equations explain all observations. But if the Earth is at rest and stars whirl – the equations still explain all observations. They must, for the theory begins with the assumption that all motion is relative. You can’t say positively that anything is at rest. Take your choice – the equations of General Relativity come out the same. Einstein put Mach’s (Principle) into mathematical form and what emerged is surely one of the ultimate creations of the human mind.

Like Galileo, Newton the alchemist, and many others who support godless science, Einstein proved nothing. Even the atheistic philosopher, Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), correctly asserts: “Whether the earth rotates once a day from West to East as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from East to West, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. That shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption which can never be proved or disproved by observation.”(11) (emphasis added)

These occult-influenced scientists have trespassed into the sacred realm of metaphysics, that lofty philosophy which seeks to methodically explain ultimate realities. And this crime, in the 16^th century, immediately set off alarms heard in the Church, especially by those scholastically sensitive and educated. Having no competence to function in a metaphysical consideration, science’s failure could be predicted from the start; its effort to prove geocentrism wrong failed.

But to continue . . .the very name ‘Einstein’ (savior of heliocentrism) is ‘sacred’ and synonymous with ‘genius’, thanks to the conspiratorial propaganda so thoroughly disseminated. And in addition to his fallacies as detailed in De Labore Solis, not to mention the common fallacy among writers who confuse Newton’s relativity with Einstein’s, the latter’s fantasy cannot be reconciled with the Sagnac effect. This experiment reveals that the speed of light is not the same in every direction, while the theory of relativity relates that it is the same in every direction.

More generally, Solange Hertz accurately acknowledges that science has moved from the “visible” and “observable” to the “hypothetical” and “purely mathematical”.(12) As a result, this abstruseness makes it all the more difficult to analyze Einstein’s true purpose. Adding more light, Jєωιѕн Dr. Erich Fromm, a United Nations cohort, in his Beyond the Chains of Illusion, boasted that “. . .Freud, Einstein and Marx were architects of the modern age.” Notice he avoids the more controversial phrase, “nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr”. More specifically, it is known that Karl Marx is said to have stated that he was indebted to Copernicus for preparing the world for Marxism (nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr).(13) Most illuminating.

And there is the “quasar distribution problem.” In 1976 a heliocentrist of sorts, Y. P. Varshni, analyzed the spectra of three hundred eighty-five quasars (the farthest known stars from earth). One hundred fifty-two of them fell into fifty-seven groupings, all of which had the same red-shift. This red-shift hypothesis is not debated among astronomers. To quote Varshni, who arrives at the paradoxical conclusions:

“. . .the Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes.(14)

Exit, Einstein.

In short, modern textbooks lie when they claim proof for heliocentrism. After four hundred years it ‘appears’ that God is right. Have we not now ‘evolved’ full circle to the pre-16^th century world view? St. Robert Bellarmine saw no proof nor does Van der Kamp, who said: “Numerous experiments have confirmed its (geocentrism’s) stability; none have dislodged it.”

Before concluding the scientific section of this study, consider for a moment the supposed antiquity of the earth, ranging into the billions of years, the evolution and descent of man from lower life forms, the abstract theory of relativity, the expanding universe, ‘black holes’, life on other planets — the entire panoply of organized myth. Each of these theories, masquerading as truth, has its origin in the Father of Lies.

The supposed implied existence of life forms on far-away planets are a natural offshoot of heliocentrism. This myth, too, is heretical and dates to at least the time of St. Boniface in the 8^th century. These supposed beings (precursors of homo sapiens) in an expanding, vast (nay, limitless) universe, according to the contemporary view in astronomy (which is ‘acentric’ — no center), would not be descendants of Adam and hence could not be ransomed by the suffering and death of Christ on the Cross. The entire incarnation is in jeopardy.

Suppressing the truth has been the primary means for the success of so many of Lucifer’s deceptions.(15)

From the beginning this old serpent was rightly named Lucifer, ‘the Light-Bearer’, for he is the source of the ‘false light’ which the Blessed Virgin later told us at La Salette would soon “illuminate the world”, causing “extraordinary wonders every place because the true faith will be extinguished.” Furthermore, he and his agents have gone under various names: Gnostics, Cabbalists, Rosicrucians, Freemasons, Illuminati, Communists, New Age Movement, and other theosophical societies. More specifically, even the luciferian Albert Pike, Illustrious Grandmaster of American Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ during the cινιℓ ωαr period, said: “At the bottom of magic . . .was science.(16)

Notice that Pike uses past tense (was). Truth in general is reversed:

God signifies Satan and Satan – God. Good is evil. Virtue is vice and vice is virtue. Light is darkness and darkness, light. Revelation is obscurantism and obscurantism is revelation. Religion is superstition and superstition, religion.(17)

Similarly, modern pseudo-science, controlled by ʝʊdɛօ-Masonry, mixes fact with fantasy, hypothesis with reality, and false proofs with exacting calculation. This magical sleight of hand can easily present itself harmful to those not firmly grounded in the Truth.

Incidentally, aviation, naval and NASA’s space navigational systems use geocentric calculations. This in itself is neither proof of geocentrism nor disproof of heliocentrism, since the mathematics of both systems are workable.

In conclusion, scientific, historic and theological proofs have been submitted. Our findings: geocentrism is the truth; we have God’s Word on it. But despite the truth, falsity has reigned supreme. Satan has convinced mankind that God was wrong. Because of this, our New Age world-view is one of religious skepticism, disorder, and moral decay. The malignancy of heliocentrism (developed from sun worship) is as vicious as it is insipid, for it seeks to destroy the truth and the faith. As a result, today’s Novus Ordo Seclorum is void, empty, expanding, relative, godless. St. Athanasius, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Robert Bellarmine have been replaced by 20^th century frauds. These subverters of the truth and faith are, in general, without values, without order, without absolutes. Consequently, many have been seduced from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church — and from God, “Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.”

The Catholic monk, Copernicus, felt a gnawing, remorse for what he had done: “I do not ask for the grace granted to Paul, neither do I demand the forgiveness of Peter, but I incessantly pray for the forgiveness which Thou on the wood of the Cross has granted to the murderer.” May we not rightly deduce from this that he realized the consequences of his pernicious theory?¹⁸

Has not this subtle attack and onslaught been to the detriment of many souls? In the final analysis, how can any truth-seeking person have faith in the modern truth-benders? Have not the Church and Holy Scripture been correct from the beginning? Have not the supposed antiquated Church and morality been far more perceptive than the human intellect?

Is science divine, or is God? Has not this been the Devil’s ruse? Has not the heliocentric heresy been a driving wedge in the attack on Christ’s Church?

It is time for the faithful to come to the defense of the Church and Truth, every particle of it. Does not true science, the Church, Holy Scripture, and the Holy Faith all hang in the balance?

Once to every man and nation

Comes the moment to decide

In the strife of truth with falsehood

For the good or evil side

James Russell Lowell

“The Present Crisis”

St. Robert Bellarmine, pray for us

Notes

1 Solange Hertz, The Sides of the North, Big Rock Papers, Leesburg VA, 1981, p4.
2 William Thomas Walsh, Philip II. TAN Books, Inc, Rockford IL, 1987, xvi.
3 Solange Hertz, Recanting Galileo, Big Rock Papers, Leesburg VA, 1983, p4
4 Anne W. Carroll, Christ the King: Lord of History, Trinity Communications, Manassas VA, 1986, p278
5 Walter van der Kamp, Tychonian Society of Canada, Bulletin, Dec 1981.
6 Sidney F. Smith, “Bellarmine, Robert”, The Catholic Encylopedia, 2^nd ed, II, 411-413
7 Rev. William W. Roberts, The Pontifical Decrees Against the Doctrine of the Earth’s Movement, and the Ultramontane Defence of Them, Parker & Co., London, 1885.
8 Richard G. Elmendorf, A Critical Investigation of the Foucault Pendulum, Pittsburgh Creation Society, Bairford PA, USA, 1994
9 Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D., With Every Wind of Doctrine, Tychonian Society, Cleveland OH, 1984, p190.
10 Walter van der Kamp, De Labore Solis, Anchor Book & Printing Centre, BC Canada, 1988, p43.
11 D. W. Sciama, The Unity of the Universe, Doubleday, New York NY, 1961, p102.
12 Solange Hertz, Recanting Galileo, Big Rock Papers, Leesburg VA, 1983, Part 2, p1.
13 Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D., With Every Wind of Doctrine, Tychonian Society, Cleveland OH, 1984, p236.
14 ibid, p252.
15 Ivor Benson, This Age of Conflict, Noontide Press, Costa Mesa CA, 1987, p35.
16 Solange Hertz, The Occult Franklin, Big Rock Papers, Leesburg VA, 1976, pp1-2.
17 Maurice Pinay, The Plot Against the Church, Christian Book Club, Palmdale CA, pp559-562
18 Walter van der Kamp, De Labore Solis, Anchor Book & Printing Centre, BC Canada, 1988, p103
(By

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Mr G on April 23, 2018, 11:19:18 AM

Interesting, where did you find that?

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Incredulous on April 23, 2018, 11:51:42 AM

Quote from: Mr G on April 23, 2018, 11:19:18 AM

Interesting, where did you find that?

A KY trad who knew Father's background advised me of the book and a quick search found it: Jeranism blog (https://jeranism.com/the-heliocentric-hoax-written-by-james-v-forsee/)

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on April 23, 2018, 06:18:03 PM

Where is the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that says a belief in
Heliocentrism is a mortal sin or venial sin ?

Where in the Bible does it say that the earth is the center of anything ?

Where, in any English dictionary, is the word moved always defined to mean
"taken away from the center" ?

Notes:
1. The word "center" does not exist in the Douay-Rheims Bible.
2. The word "solar" does not exist either.
3. The word "system" does not exist either.
4. The phrase "solar system" does not exist either, obviously.

Therefore, the Bible is not very specific and not very scientific
on this topic, unless "shall not be moved" can be demonstrated
to mean "shall be the center of the solar system".

Conclusion: The Bible does nothing to disprove Heliocentrism.
And, a belief in Heliocentrism does not make one a good Catholic.

Addendum: Geocentrism is a hoax. I can prove it to people whose
brain can function in the mathematical and astronomical world.
Unfortunately, there are not that many, not even on CathInfo.

Lastly, telling me that I'm an idiot proves nothing.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on April 23, 2018, 07:23:03 PM

Correction:
"And, a belief in Heliocentrism does not make one a good Catholic."

should have said:
"And, a belief in Geocentrism does not make one a good Catholic."

Two facts disprove Geocentrism:
1. The universal gravity (between objects in the universe, bigger = more gravity).
2. Retrograde motion of the planets (as viewed from earth).

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Mr G on April 24, 2018, 08:20:51 AM

Quote from: apollo on April 23, 2018, 07:23:03 PM

Correction:
"And, a belief in Heliocentrism does not make one a good Catholic."

should have said:
"And, a belief in Geocentrism does not make one a good Catholic."

Two facts disprove Geocentrism:
1. The universal gravity (between objects in the universe, bigger = more gravity).
2. Retrograde motion of the planets (as viewed from earth).

http://galileowaswrong.com/how-can-the-larger-sun-revolve-around-the-smaller-earth/ (http://galileowaswrong.com/how-can-the-larger-sun-revolve-around-the-smaller-earth/)

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Smedley Butler on April 24, 2018, 09:12:33 AM

Ironically, most Trad Catholics do not believe heliocentrism is a heresy.

They gobble up the errors told to them by science, rather than adhere to the divinely revealed truths of the Bible.

They worship at the Church of Copernicus, not the Church of Christ.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Smedley Butler on April 24, 2018, 09:14:50 AM

Quote from: apollo on April 23, 2018, 06:18:03 PM

Where is the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that says a belief in
Heliocentrism is a mortal sin or venial sin ?

Where in the Bible does it say that the earth is the center of anything ?

Where, in any English dictionary, is the word moved always defined to mean
"taken away from the center" ?

Notes:
1. The word "center" does not exist in the Douay-Rheims Bible.
2. The word "solar" does not exist either.
3. The word "system" does not exist either.
4. The phrase "solar system" does not exist either, obviously.

Therefore, the Bible is not very specific and not very scientific
on this topic, unless "shall not be moved" can be demonstrated
to mean "shall be the center of the solar system".

Conclusion: The Bible does nothing to disprove Heliocentrism.
And, a belief in Heliocentrism does not make one a good Catholic.

Addendum: Geocentrism is a hoax. I can prove it to people whose
brain can function in the mathematical and astronomical world.
Unfortunately, there are not that many, not even on CathInfo.

Lastly, telling me that I'm an idiot proves nothing.

Thank you for demonstrating my point. We've got a Church of Copernicus member right here, pagan-god screenname and all!

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on April 24, 2018, 09:24:31 AM

Like I said, calling me names proves nothing.

Why not search the Bible at http://drbo.org and find the verse(s)
that prove Geocentrism.

Also explain how planets in our solar system appear to travel backward
in their orbit at certain times during the year. If they are orbiting the
earth, this is impossible.

"Apollo" is an ancient god. "apollo" is not.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Smedley Butler on April 24, 2018, 09:43:04 AM

Why don't you vote in my poll?

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on April 24, 2018, 09:45:46 AM

The truth is not determined by voting.
However, it would be interesting to find out the percentage
of CathInfo people who are on each side of this debate.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Smedley Butler on April 24, 2018, 09:48:37 AM

So vote!

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on April 24, 2018, 10:09:28 AM

I don't believe that Geocentrism is declared in the Bible, so I cannot vote, because
I would be voting against the Bible, because of the wording of the choices, sorry.
BTW, I have a response to Robert Sungenis' argument coming next.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on April 24, 2018, 10:44:27 AM

At: http://galileowaswrong.com/how-can-the-larger-sun-revolve-around-the-smaller-earth/ (http://galileowaswrong.com/how-can-the-larger-sun-revolve-around-the-smaller-earth/)
Here are the two opposing agruments:

1. "Sir Isaac Newton, as it is generally considered, gave ultimate
explanation of planetary motions that was in accord with Kepler’s model,
and excluded Brahe’s one.The laws of motions and the inverse square law
of gravity could reproduce all the observed data only with the assumption
that the Sun (i.e. the center of mass of the system, which can be very well
approximated by the center of the Sun) stands still, and all planets move
around it. According to Newton’s laws, it is impossible for the small Earth
to keep the big Sun in its orbit: the gravitational pull is just too weak. This
argument is very strong, and it seems to settle the question for good."

2. "Ernst Mach (1839-1916) came with the principle which states the
equivalence of non-inertial frames. Using the famous “Newton’s bucket”
argument, Mach argues that all so-called pseudo-forces (forces which
results from accelerated motion of the reference frame) are in fact real
forces originating from the accelerated motion of distant masses in the
Universe, as observed by the observer in the non-inertial frame. Some
even go further, stating that “every single physical property and behavioral
aspect of isolated systems is determined by the whole Universe.”5
According to Mach’s principle, the Earth could be considered as the “pivot
point” of the Universe: the fact that the Universe is orbiting around the
Earth will create the exact same forces that we usually ascribe to the
motion of the Earth."

So, the argument is between gravity and pseudo-forces.

Gravity we understand. Pseudo-forces? What the heck is that? Answer:
it is something that is created by the spinning universe. What makes
the universe spin? It must be another force, call it fantasy force. What
make this fantasy force? Where did it come from? How does it work?

How many unknown forces are required to explain Geocentrism? The
problem here is that these forces are unprovable and unmeasurable.
Just because you can show mathematical formulas for the motion of
the planets as if they were orbiting the earch, does not mean that the
formulas accurately describe reality.

So, if you want to believe in fantasy forces, go ahead. Now you believe
in a fantasy called Geocentrism.

Mathematics and astronomy (gravity, mass, motion) have a very simple
explanation for the Heliocentric system. Why believe in fantasy?

If you persist in the belief that the Bible proves Geocentrism, you may
find it difficult to convert thinking people to Christianity. Why not just say
the Bible is not a science textbook, and on the subject of Heliocentrism,
the Bible is not very specific.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Smedley Butler on April 24, 2018, 10:57:07 AM

We do NOT understand gravity.

Even "science" admits that.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: aryzia on April 24, 2018, 11:12:48 AM

Quote from: apollo on April 24, 2018, 10:44:27 AM

At: http://galileowaswrong.com/how-can-the-larger-sun-revolve-around-the-smaller-earth/ (http://galileowaswrong.com/how-can-the-larger-sun-revolve-around-the-smaller-earth/)
Here are the two opposing agruments:

1. "Sir Isaac Newton, as it is generally considered, gave ultimate
explanation of planetary motions that was in accord with Kepler’s model,
and excluded Brahe’s one.The laws of motions and the inverse square law
of gravity could reproduce all the observed data only with the assumption
that the Sun (i.e. the center of mass of the system, which can be very well
approximated by the center of the Sun) stands still, and all planets move
around it. According to Newton’s laws, it is impossible for the small Earth
to keep the big Sun in its orbit: the gravitational pull is just too weak. This
argument is very strong, and it seems to settle the question for good."

2. "Ernst Mach (1839-1916) came with the principle which states the
equivalence of non-inertial frames. Using the famous “Newton’s bucket”
argument, Mach argues that all so-called pseudo-forces (forces which
results from accelerated motion of the reference frame) are in fact real
forces originating from the accelerated motion of distant masses in the
Universe, as observed by the observer in the non-inertial frame. Some
even go further, stating that “every single physical property and behavioral
aspect of isolated systems is determined by the whole Universe.”5
According to Mach’s principle, the Earth could be considered as the “pivot
point” of the Universe: the fact that the Universe is orbiting around the
Earth will create the exact same forces that we usually ascribe to the
motion of the Earth."

So, the argument is between gravity and pseudo-forces.

Gravity we understand. Pseudo-forces? What the heck is that? Answer:
it is something that is created by the spinning universe. What makes
the universe spin? It must be another force, call it fantasy force. What
make this fantasy force? Where did it come from? How does it work?

How many unknown forces are required to explain Geocentrism? The
problem here is that these forces are unprovable and unmeasurable.
Just because you can show mathematical formulas for the motion of
the planets as if they were orbiting the earch, does not mean that the
formulas accurately describe reality.

So, if you want to believe in fantasy forces, go ahead. Now you believe
in a fantasy called Geocentrism.

Mathematics and astronomy (gravity, mass, motion) have a very simple
explanation for the Heliocentric system. Why believe in fantasy?

If you persist in the belief that the Bible proves Geocentrism, you may
find it difficult to convert thinking people to Christianity. Why not just say
the Bible is not a science textbook, and on the subject of Heliocentrism,
the Bible is not very specific.

Sungenis is mistaken in his theory on the stationary ball. However flat earth geocentrism has not been disproved. Heliocentrism stands condemned by the Church.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on April 24, 2018, 11:47:49 AM

We understand gravity much better than pseudo-forces caused by a spinning universe.

Actually, a spinning universe is part of the original hypothesis: that the earth is the
center and the universe spins around it. You cannot use the original hypothesis as
part of the proof of the original hypothesis.

The idea of a spinning universe is caused by assuming that the earth does not spin,
and the universe spins around the earth. Next time you take a bath, watch what
happens when you drain the water. You will get a spinning whirlpool. What causes
it to spin? Clockwise in the Northern hemisphere, counter-clockwise in the Southern
hemisphere. The earth is spinning !! This also proves that the earth is not flat, or else
you've to find some more fantasy forces to explain it.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Smedley Butler on April 24, 2018, 11:57:54 AM

Earth does not "spin."

Earth does NOT move.

That is de fide from the Bible.

Even Sungenis, who believes the ball, acknowledges earth does not rotate.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on April 24, 2018, 11:59:16 AM

Quote from: aryzia on April 24, 2018, 11:12:48 AM

Sungenis is mistaken in his theory on the stationary ball. However flat earth geocentrism has not been disproved. Heliocentrism stands condemned by the Church.

Please tell me where to find the condemnation of Heliocentrism by the Catholic Church.
The earth is not flat, but that is another discussion. Next, someone will tell me that the
Moon is made of green cheese and the Bible says so. It's this kind of thinking that made
me lose interest in CathInfo a few years ago.
In found this statement by a good Catholic priest:
6. Is not the Bible statement that the sun stood still in the heavens (Jos. 10, 13) an example of obvious error?
No, we must remember that the Bible was written in every-day language of the time, not in scientific terms. Even to this day,
for example, we speak of sunset even though the sun is not setting anywhere and we know that the Earth is orbiting around
the Sun and not vice-versa.
You can find it here: http://drbo.org/catechism.htm#lesson12

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on April 24, 2018, 12:01:48 PM

Quote from: Smedley Butler on April 24, 2018, 11:57:54 AM

Earth does not "spin."
Earth does NOT move.
That is de fide from the Bible.
Even Sungenis, who believes the ball, acknowledges earth does not rotate.

I'm sorry, I could not find any proofs in your post.
I don't care what Sungenis says.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Smedley Butler on April 24, 2018, 12:04:54 PM

Quote from: apollo on April 24, 2018, 11:59:16 AM

Please tell me where to find the condemnation of Heliocentrism by the Catholic Church.
The earth is not flat, but that is another discussion. Next, someone will tell me that the
Moon is made of green cheese and the Bible says so. It's this kind of thinking that made
me lose interest in CathInfo a few years ago.
In found this statement by a good Catholic priest:
6. Is not the Bible statement that the sun stood still in the heavens (Jos. 10, 13) an example of obvious error?
No, we must remember that the Bible was written in every-day language of the time, not in scientific terms. Even to this day,
for example, we speak of sunset even though the sun is not setting anywhere and we know that the Earth is orbiting around
the Sun and not vice-versa.
You can find it here: http://drbo.org/catechism.htm#lesson12

Your 1997 quote from SSPX priest Fr. Jaime Pazat De Lys doesn't help you: all SSPX priests are heliocentrists.
There are several Bible verses that state de fide: earth does NOT move.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on April 24, 2018, 12:15:48 PM

Quote from: Smedley Butler on April 24, 2018, 12:04:54 PM

Your 1997 quote from SSPX priest Fr. Jaime Pazat De Lys doesn't help you: all SSPX priests are heliocentrists.
There are several Bible verses that state de fide: earth does NOT move.

OK, you believe the Earth does not move, you are entitled to your opinion.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: klasG4e on April 24, 2018, 12:58:52 PM

Quote from: apollo on April 24, 2018, 09:24:31 AM

Why not search the Bible at http://drbo.org and find the verse(s)
that prove Geocentrism.

I. The Earth Does Not Move

When interpreted literally, the Scriptures teach us that the earth does not move. Should we interpret the Scriptures literally? The Catholic Church, having adopted the rule of St. Augustine, teaches “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.” Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, No. 15, 1893. This was affirmed by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, No. 36, 1950.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 116, also says: “The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”
In other words, we are to interpret the Scriptures literally unless there is a compelling reason to interpret them otherwise. This is why the Church interprets literally, for example, Matt. 16:18 (Peter is the rock); Matt. 19:9 (remarriage after divorce is adultery); Matt. 26:26-28 (“this is my body”); John 6:51-58 (“eat my flesh”; “drink my blood”); John 3:5 (born of water means baptism); John 20:23 (“whose sins you forgive are forgiven”); 1 Peter 3:21 (“baptism saves you”); and James 5:14-15 (“anoint the sick with oil to save them and forgive their sins”).
We must also remember that the Scriptures were dictated to the sacred writers by the Holy Ghost. Thus, we take God’s Word for what it says, for He is the author of Scripture. There does not seem to be a compelling reason to depart from the literal and obvious sense of the following Scriptures which teach, both implicitly and explicitly, that the earth does not move.
Certainly, a literal interpretation is not untenable, nor does necessity require an alternative interpretation (because science has not disproved the geocentric theory; in fact, science also provides more evidence for geocentrism):
1 Sam. 2:8 – “For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them he has set the world.”
2 Sam. 22:16; Psalm 18:15 – “Then the channels of the sea were seen, the foundations of the world were laid bare…” (Describing the earth as having “foundations” is consistent with an earth that is fixed and established and does not move, as many Scriptures reveal).
1 Chron. 16:30 – “yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.” This and many other passages say very plainly that the earth does not move.
Job 26:7 – “He stretches out the north over the void, and hangs the earth upon nothing.”
Job 38:4; cf. Job 9:6 – “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?”
Psalm 8:29 – “…when he marked out the foundations of the earth.”
Psalm 93:1 – “Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.”
Psalm 96:10 – “Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved.”
Psalm 102:25 – “Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands.”
Psalm 104:5 – “Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken.”
Psalm 119:90 – “thou has established the earth, and it stands firm.”
Isaiah 24:18 – “…for the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble.”
Isaiah 48:13 – “My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens…”
Isaiah 66:1 – “Thus says the Lord: ‘Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool.”
When the Scriptures say the world is “established” (in Hebrew, “kun”), it indicates that the establishment is ongoing. See, for example, 1 Chron. 22:10, Judges 16:26,29 and Ezra 3:3 where “kun” is used to explain an ongoing lack of motion.
The only time Scripture says the earth will “move” (in Hebrew, “mot” – see “mot” in Job 41:23; Psalm 125:1; 140:10; and Isa. 41:7) is in the context of the end of the world, where God will come in judgment (e.g. Psalm 76:8 ). This coincides with the apocalyptic literature of, inter alia, Matt. 24:29-30 and 2 Peter 3:10-13, but never suggests actual motion.
Gen. 1:1-5; 14-19 – God created the earth on the first day, and the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day. God created them to “give light upon the earth.” The heavenly bodies were therefore created for the earth, to adorn it, and to mark its seasons. The earth is God’s focal point. This ordering is another indicator that the earth is the center of the universe. How could the sun be the center, if it wasn’t created until the fourth day? This also raises the question: How did the earth have “evening and morning” on days one to three, before the sun was created on day four? Scripture reveals this is because the universe has light that is independent of the sun and stars. In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas hypothesized that God created the sun and stars on day four from this effusive light that He created on day one (just like God created man on day six from the dirt He created on day one). This effusive light is what brought about the “evening and morning” periods of days one through three.
Job 38:18-20,24 – in these verses, although Job knows the sun gives light, God asks Job “where is the way to the dwelling of light” and “where is the way the light is divided?” Job cannot answer God’s questions. Why can’t he, if Job knows that the sun gives light? God is referring to the light He created without any dimensional source. For example, Psalm 74:16 says “You have prepared the light and the sun,” which distinguishes the two sources of light. Ecclesiastes 12:1-2 also says “Remember your Creator…before the sun and the light, and the moon and the stars are darkened.” The sacred writer distinguishes between “the sun” and “the light,” and also indicates that there are four separate sources of light.
Gen. 1:1; 2:1,4; Psalm 113:6; Jer. 10:11; 32:17; 51:48; Joel 3:16; Hag. 2:6,21; Jud. 13:18; cf. Psalm 102:25; Isaiah 24:18; 48:13 – here are some examples where God distinguishes “between the heavens and the earth.” The earth is unique and distinguishable from the rest of the heavens.
Gen. 14:19,22; Ex. 20:11; 31:17; Deut. 4:26; 30:19; 31:28; 2 Sam. 18:9; 2 Kings 19:15; 2 Chron. 2:2; Ez. 5:11; Psalms 69:34; 115:15; 121:2; 124:8; 134:3; 146:6; Isaiah 37:16; Jer. 23:24; 33:25; 4 Ez. 2:14; 6:38; Tob. 7:18; 1 Macc. 2:37; Jud. 7:28; 9:12; Matt. 5:18; 11:25; 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 10:21; 16:17; 21:33; Acts 17:24; Rev. 14:7; cf. Matt. 28:18; Eph. 4:8-10; Phil. 2:10; Col. 1:16 – more examples where God distinguishes between “heaven and earth.” The Scriptures clearly teach that the earth is unique among the rest of the universe.
John 17:24 – Jesus says “…behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world.” Jesus’ language also suggests a world that has a firm, unmovable foundation.

II. The Sun, Moon and Stars Move

Joshua 10:12-14 – “Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, ‘Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon.’ And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. There has been no day like it before or since, when the Lord hearkened to the voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel.” This is the most powerful passage which supports a geocentric view of the universe. This passage clearly says that both the sun and moon stopped moving. This is the literal reading of the passage, and the passage does not warrant a figurative or phenomenological interpretation. Why? First, the book of Joshua was written to record actual historical events in the history of Israel (as opposed to figurative or poetic literature found elsewhere in Scripture), and there is no compelling reason to interpret it other than literally. Second, heliocentrists believe the moon moves. Therefore, it would be contradictory for them to claim that Joshua told the moon to stand still literally, but told the sun to stand still figuratively. The most reasonable conclusion is that both the moon and sun were moving, and both the moon and sun stopped moving at Joshua’s command. Finally, Joshua records that the sun stopped over Gibeon, while the moon stopped over Aijalon. These are two distinct points on the earth which confirm the coordinates of cessation of movement of the sun and moon. There are other Scriptures which also indicate that the sun, moon and stars are moving:
Judges 5:20 – “From heaven fought the stars, from their courses they fought against Sisera.”
Judges 5:31 – “So perish all thine enemies, O Lord! But thy friends be like the sun as he rises in his might.”
2 Kings 20:11 – “And Isaiah the prophet cried to the Lord; and he brought the shadow back ten steps, by which the sun had declined on the dial of Ahaz.”
Job 9:7 – “who commands the sun, and it does not rise.”
Psalm 19:5-6 – “In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridgegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs its course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.”
Psalm 104:19 – “Thou hast made the moon to mark the seasons; the sun knows its time for setting.”
Eccles. 1:5 – “The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.”
Wis. 13:2 – “but they supposed that either fire or wind or swift air, or the circle of the stars, or turbulent water, or the luminaries of heaven were the gods that rule the world.”
Sir. 43:2 – “The sun, when it appears, making proclamation as it goes forth, is a marvelous instrument, the work of the Most High.”
Sir. 43:5 – “Great is the Lord who made it; and at his command it hastens on its course.”
Sir. 46:4 – “Was not the sun held back by his hand? And did not one day become as long as two?”
Isaiah 38:7-8 – “This is the sign to you from the Lord, that the Lord will do this thing that he has promised: Behold, I will make the shadow cast by the declining sun on the dial of Ahaz turn back ten steps. So the sun turned back on the dial the ten steps by which it had declined.”
Hab. 3:11 – “The sun and moon stood still in their habitation, at the light of thine arrows as they sped, at the flash of they glittering spear.”
1 Esdras 4:34 – “The earth is vast, and heaven is high, and the sun is swift in its course, for it makes the circuit of the heavens and returns to its place in one day.”
James 1:11 – “for the sun rises with its scorching heat…”
Jude 13: – “wandering stars for whom the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved forever.” A “wandering star” is called a “planet.” If the earth does not wander, it is not a planet.
Mark 16:2 – the Apostle says “And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen.” Mark is drawing a clear parallel between the risen sun and the risen Son at this poignant moment when the women discovered that Jesus had risen from the dead. Just as the sun rises literally, so Jesus rose literally as well. Scripture also refers to Jesus as the “Sun of Justice” (see Mal. 4:2).
Gen. 1:14-15, 17 – God said, “let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens”; and “God set them in the firmament of the heavens.” Geocentrists generally believe that God placed the stars and planets in the “firmament” (which scientists often call the “aether”) described by Moses in Genesis. The firmament is a shell containing the heavenly bodies and rotates around a fixed earth.
Dan. 12:3 – “And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.” This demonstrates that there is a relationship between the stars and the firmament, and yet a distinction between the two as well (the stars have been placed in the firmament).
Sir. 43:1 – “the pride of the heavenly heights is the clear firmament…” This text suggests that the firmament is clear (not visible), and that the firmament shows the “heavenly heights” (the stars, which are imbedded in the firmament).
Gen. 15:12,17; 19:23; 28:11; 32:31; Ex. 17:12: 22:3,26; Lev. 22:7; Num. 2:3; Deut. 11:30; 16:6; 23:11; 24:13; 24:15; Josh. 1:4; 8:29; 10:12,13,27; 12:1; Judges 9:33; 14:18; 19:14; 2 Sam. 2:24; 3:35; 23:4; 1 Kings 22:36; 2 Chron. 18:34; Psalm 50:1; 104:22; 113:3; Isa. 13:10; 41:25; 45:6; 59:19; 60:20; Jer. 15:9; Dan. 6:14; Amos 8:9; Jonah 4:8; Mic. 3:6; Nah. 3:17; Mal. 1:11; Matt. 5:45; 13:6; Mark 1:32; 4:6; 16:2; Luke 4:40; Eph. 4:26 – more examples where the sun “rises,” “sets,” “goes up,” and “goes down.”

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Mr G on April 24, 2018, 01:45:18 PM

Quote from: apollo on April 24, 2018, 11:59:16 AM

Please tell me where to find the condemnation of Heliocentrism by the Catholic Church.
The earth is not flat, but that is another discussion. Next, someone will tell me that the
Moon is made of green cheese and the Bible says so. It's this kind of thinking that made
me lose interest in CathInfo a few years ago.
In found this statement by a good Catholic priest:
6. Is not the Bible statement that the sun stood still in the heavens (Jos. 10, 13) an example of obvious error?
No, we must remember that the Bible was written in every-day language of the time, not in scientific terms. Even to this day,
for example, we speak of sunset even though the sun is not setting anywhere and we know that the Earth is orbiting around
the Sun and not vice-versa.
You can find it here: http://drbo.org/catechism.htm#lesson12 (http://drbo.org/catechism.htm#lesson12)

In the book "Galileo Was Wrong" there are quotes from Church Fathers and other Church docuмents condemning Heliocentism, some of these docuмents are presented for the first time in English. So I would suggest reading through the books to see which questions are answered and those that are not answered, then you can discuss further.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: forlorn on April 24, 2018, 01:49:52 PM

Quote from: klasG4e on April 24, 2018, 12:58:52 PM

I. The Earth Does Not Move

When interpreted literally, the Scriptures teach us that the earth does not move. Should we interpret the Scriptures literally? The Catholic Church, having adopted the rule of St. Augustine, teaches “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.” Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, No. 15, 1893. This was affirmed by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, No. 36, 1950.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 116, also says: “The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”
In other words, we are to interpret the Scriptures literally unless there is a compelling reason to interpret them otherwise. This is why the Church interprets literally, for example, Matt. 16:18 (Peter is the rock); Matt. 19:9 (remarriage after divorce is adultery); Matt. 26:26-28 (“this is my body”); John 6:51-58 (“eat my flesh”; “drink my blood”); John 3:5 (born of water means baptism); John 20:23 (“whose sins you forgive are forgiven”); 1 Peter 3:21 (“baptism saves you”); and James 5:14-15 (“anoint the sick with oil to save them and forgive their sins”).
We must also remember that the Scriptures were dictated to the sacred writers by the Holy Ghost. Thus, we take God’s Word for what it says, for He is the author of Scripture. There does not seem to be a compelling reason to depart from the literal and obvious sense of the following Scriptures which teach, both implicitly and explicitly, that the earth does not move.
Certainly, a literal interpretation is not untenable, nor does necessity require an alternative interpretation (because science has not disproved the geocentric theory; in fact, science also provides more evidence for geocentrism):
1 Sam. 2:8 – “For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them he has set the world.”
2 Sam. 22:16; Psalm 18:15 – “Then the channels of the sea were seen, the foundations of the world were laid bare…” (Describing the earth as having “foundations” is consistent with an earth that is fixed and established and does not move, as many Scriptures reveal).
1 Chron. 16:30 – “yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.” This and many other passages say very plainly that the earth does not move.
Job 26:7 – “He stretches out the north over the void, and hangs the earth upon nothing.”
Job 38:4; cf. Job 9:6 – “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?”
Psalm 8:29 – “…when he marked out the foundations of the earth.”
Psalm 93:1 – “Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.”
Psalm 96:10 – “Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved.”
Psalm 102:25 – “Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands.”
Psalm 104:5 – “Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken.”
Psalm 119:90 – “thou has established the earth, and it stands firm.”
Isaiah 24:18 – “…for the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble.”
Isaiah 48:13 – “My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens…”
Isaiah 66:1 – “Thus says the Lord: ‘Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool.”
When the Scriptures say the world is “established” (in Hebrew, “kun”), it indicates that the establishment is ongoing. See, for example, 1 Chron. 22:10, Judges 16:26,29 and Ezra 3:3 where “kun” is used to explain an ongoing lack of motion.
The only time Scripture says the earth will “move” (in Hebrew, “mot” – see “mot” in Job 41:23; Psalm 125:1; 140:10; and Isa. 41:7) is in the context of the end of the world, where God will come in judgment (e.g. Psalm 76:8 ). This coincides with the apocalyptic literature of, inter alia, Matt. 24:29-30 and 2 Peter 3:10-13, but never suggests actual motion.
Gen. 1:1-5; 14-19 – God created the earth on the first day, and the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day. God created them to “give light upon the earth.” The heavenly bodies were therefore created for the earth, to adorn it, and to mark its seasons. The earth is God’s focal point. This ordering is another indicator that the earth is the center of the universe. How could the sun be the center, if it wasn’t created until the fourth day? This also raises the question: How did the earth have “evening and morning” on days one to three, before the sun was created on day four? Scripture reveals this is because the universe has light that is independent of the sun and stars. In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas hypothesized that God created the sun and stars on day four from this effusive light that He created on day one (just like God created man on day six from the dirt He created on day one). This effusive light is what brought about the “evening and morning” periods of days one through three.
Job 38:18-20,24 – in these verses, although Job knows the sun gives light, God asks Job “where is the way to the dwelling of light” and “where is the way the light is divided?” Job cannot answer God’s questions. Why can’t he, if Job knows that the sun gives light? God is referring to the light He created without any dimensional source. For example, Psalm 74:16 says “You have prepared the light and the sun,” which distinguishes the two sources of light. Ecclesiastes 12:1-2 also says “Remember your Creator…before the sun and the light, and the moon and the stars are darkened.” The sacred writer distinguishes between “the sun” and “the light,” and also indicates that there are four separate sources of light.
Gen. 1:1; 2:1,4; Psalm 113:6; Jer. 10:11; 32:17; 51:48; Joel 3:16; Hag. 2:6,21; Jud. 13:18; cf. Psalm 102:25; Isaiah 24:18; 48:13 – here are some examples where God distinguishes “between the heavens and the earth.” The earth is unique and distinguishable from the rest of the heavens.
Gen. 14:19,22; Ex. 20:11; 31:17; Deut. 4:26; 30:19; 31:28; 2 Sam. 18:9; 2 Kings 19:15; 2 Chron. 2:2; Ez. 5:11; Psalms 69:34; 115:15; 121:2; 124:8; 134:3; 146:6; Isaiah 37:16; Jer. 23:24; 33:25; 4 Ez. 2:14; 6:38; Tob. 7:18; 1 Macc. 2:37; Jud. 7:28; 9:12; Matt. 5:18; 11:25; 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 10:21; 16:17; 21:33; Acts 17:24; Rev. 14:7; cf. Matt. 28:18; Eph. 4:8-10; Phil. 2:10; Col. 1:16 – more examples where God distinguishes between “heaven and earth.” The Scriptures clearly teach that the earth is unique among the rest of the universe.
John 17:24 – Jesus says “…behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world.” Jesus’ language also suggests a world that has a firm, unmovable foundation.

If you are to take all those quotes literally, as you insist, then you must believe in a flat Earth. For all of those quotes mention the Earth having "pillars" or "foundations", something it does NOT have in the Geocentric model. Furthermore, in the desert the devil showed Christ the whole world from the sky. That is impossible with a globe Earth.
I'm not even a flat Earther, your argument is just self-defeating.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on April 24, 2018, 02:10:04 PM

Quote from: klasG4e on April 24, 2018, 12:58:52 PM

The Catholic Church, having adopted the rule of St. Augustine, teaches “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.”

Three things I don't understand:
1. How "shall not be moved" means "shall not be in orbit around the Sun (or anything)".
The word "moved" is not a word people use when talking about astronomy and planetary
motion (celestial mechanics). In astronomy, we don't say that someone or some force is
moving a planet. We talk about the planet having a speed (velocity) and a mass. The
only force on the planet is the pull of gravity, keeping it in orbit.
2. How Heliocentrism is a novelty. It just makes a lot of sense and it's provable.
3. How Heliocentrism poses a danger to a Catholic. So what if the earth orbits around
the sun? How does that affect the 10 commandments or "love they enemies".
Your post looks very good, but the word "moved" is just not conclusive enough for me.
And where is the teaching of the Church on this, which condemns Heliocentrism ?
And which pope did that ?

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: klasG4e on April 24, 2018, 02:14:32 PM

Quote from: forlorn on April 24, 2018, 01:49:52 PM

If you are to take all those quotes literally, as you insist, then you must believe in a flat Earth. For all of those quotes mention the Earth having "pillars" or "foundations", something it does NOT have in the Geocentric model. Furthermore, in the desert the devil showed Christ the whole world from the sky. That is impossible with a globe Earth.
I'm not even a flat Earther, your argument is just self-defeating.

Wow! I am really glad to hear you are not a "flat Earther."
As for the rest of your post, let me just say this and it is rather a key and distinguishing point. Whereas all the Fathers of the Church agreed on a geocentric interpretation of SS, they did not agree on a flat Earth interpretation. Frankly, I am not aware of even a single one that believed in a flat Earth interpretation, although it you know of any I'd be happy to view your source docuмentation for same.
P.S. God is God and Christ could see the whole Earth from whenever and wherever. As a matter of fact he could see the whole Earth even if He was blindfolded After all he was (and is and always will be) God!

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: klasG4e on April 24, 2018, 02:28:20 PM

Quote from: apollo on April 24, 2018, 02:10:04 PM

Three things I don't understand:
1. How "shall not be moved" means "shall not be in orbit around the Sun (or anything)".
The word "moved" is not a word people use when talking about astronomy and planetary
motion (celestial mechanics). In astronomy, we don't say that someone or some force is
moving a planet. We talk about the planet having a speed (velocity) and a mass. The
only force on the planet is the pull of gravity, keeping it in orbit.
2. How Heliocentrism is a novelty. It just makes a lot of sense and it's provable.
3. How Heliocentrism poses a danger to a Catholic. So what if the earth orbits around
the sun? How does that affect the 10 commandments or "love they enemies".
Your post looks very good, but the word "moved" is just not conclusive enough for me.
And where is the teaching of the Church on this, which condemns Heliocentrism ?
And which pope did that ?

I hope these questions are of enough importance for you to do your own research. My goodness, entire books -- many, many, of them -- have been written in answering these very questions. You might want to start with an astounding work by Dr. Robert Sungenis -- Galileo Was Wrong -- The Church Was Right. Sorry, if my answer sounds a bit abrupt, but I've only got so much time. Best wishes in your search for the truth. cf. http://galileowaswrong.com/ (http://galileowaswrong.com/)

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: forlorn on April 24, 2018, 02:41:36 PM

Quote from: klasG4e on April 24, 2018, 02:14:32 PM

Wow! I am really glad to hear you are not a "flat Earther."
As for the rest of your post, let me just say this and it is rather a key and distinguishing point. Whereas all the Fathers of the Church agreed on a geocentric interpretation of SS, they did not agree on a flat Earth interpretation. Frankly, I am not aware of even a single one that believed in a flat Earth interpretation, although it you know of any I'd be happy to view your source docuмentation for same.
P.S. God is God and Christ could see the whole Earth from whenever and wherever. As a matter of fact he could see the whole Earth even if He was blindfolded After all he was (and is and always will be) God!

Indeed the Geocentric model was the predominant one held by the Church throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance, but in the first centuries there was plenty of disagreement regarding it. Some Church fathers were flat-earthers, St. Athanasius included. And while yes, the Geocentric consensus was a very strong one held for a very long time, Heliocentrism has also been believed by the vast majority of the Church(including Cardinals and Popes) for a couple hundred years now. So a strong consensus does not necessarily mean it's true.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Smedley Butler on April 24, 2018, 02:52:43 PM

Quote from: apollo on April 24, 2018, 12:01:48 PM

I'm sorry, I could not find any proofs in your post.
I don't care what Sungenis says.

I don't care that Fr. Jaime Pazat at Our Lady Of Sorrows in Phoenix believes heliocentrism.
He is WRONG!
The Bible is without error.
Earth does not move.
But at least you admit that some Church Fathers knew earth to be flat.
You said you "want" to believe it is flat.
Why is that?
Why do you not believe the Bible?
Why be a Doubting Thomas?
Our Lord is going to tell you bring your finger hither, and the He is going to smack you upside the head with it!

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on April 24, 2018, 02:53:10 PM

Quote from: Incredulous on April 23, 2018, 11:06:13 AM

The foremost human authority on this issue is, of course, St. Robert Bellarmine ... [who said:]

I have gladly read the letter in Italian and the treatise which Your Reverence sent me ... and since you ask for my opinion, I will give it to you very briefly ....

First. I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically, and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (turns upon its axis) without travelling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scripture false. For Your Reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.

Second. I say that, as you know, the Council (of Trent) prohibits expounding the Scripture contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. 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 literally (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 in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the center and the earth is in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers. I add that the words “the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc” were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move. And that is enough for the present.

Here we have the words of St Robert Bellarmine, who in the Third part admits the possibility of a true demonstration of Heliocentrism. It sure sounds like he is NOT CONDEMNING Heliocentrism. He even says, if Heliocentrism is found to be true,
then we must say that we have not understood Scriptures (rather than say Scriptures are false).

It's 2018, not 1613. We have telescopes now that did not exist in 1613. So, it's time to apply what he allows for in the Third part. So, now tell me, where is the infallible teaching that Heliocentrism is a heresy ??

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on April 24, 2018, 03:03:03 PM

Quote from: Smedley Butler on April 24, 2018, 02:52:43 PM

The Bible is without error.

Yes, but the interpretation of the verses are subject to the authority of the Church.
And in the case of Geocentrism, it is not a defined dogma, only the opinions of many
of the Church Fathers, but not all.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: cassini on April 24, 2018, 04:39:06 PM

Quote from: apollo on April 24, 2018, 03:03:03 PM

Yes, but the interpretation of the verses are subject to the authority of the Church.
And in the case of Geocentrism, it is not a defined dogma, only the opinions of many
of the Church Fathers, but not all.

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement,” was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”

If 'not all the Fathers' interpreted the Scriptures geocentrically, then why did the 1616 decree condemn a fixed sun as formal heresy 'as understood by the Fathers.'
Moreover read Bellarmine again 'Second. I say that, as you know, the Council (of Trent) prohibits expounding the Scripture contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers.
Now Trent said ALL the Fathers, not some of the Fathers. Bellarmine meant all the Fathers, not some of them. The 1616 decree referred to all the Fathers so let there be no undermining of their judgements to try to undermine a defined dogma. Besides it it the Church who decides what is a dogma, no one else. That is the Protestant way.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: cassini on April 24, 2018, 04:58:18 PM

Quote from: apollo on April 24, 2018, 02:53:10 PM

Here we have the words of St Robert Bellarmine, who in the Third part admits the possibility of a true demonstration of Heliocentrism. It sure sounds like he is NOT CONDEMNING Heliocentrism. He even says, if Heliocentrism is found to be true,
then we must say that we have not understood Scriptures (rather than say Scriptures are false).

It's 2018, not 1613. We have telescopes now that did not exist in 1613. So, it's time to apply what he allows for in the Third part. So, now tell me, where is the infallible teaching that Heliocentrism is a heresy ??

First of all this Letter to Foscarini was written in 1615, one year BEFORE Pope Paul V's decree. This letter has to be read in its entirety to know what Bellarmine actually says.
Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them

Here Bellarmine is addressing GALILEO'S CLAIM THAT THERE IS proof for heliocentrism, that is all. But later in his letter he rejects Galileo's clain, saying he does not believe there will ever be such a proof.

But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the center and the earth is in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers. I
He is not condemning heliocentrism. Are you kidding us Apollo? Bellarmine and two Cardinals present at the time of the 1616 decrees had been involved in Bruno's seven year trial when all the Pythagorean heresies were condemned, as they were from 100Ad to 340Ad

Finally;

Bellarmine’s personal opinion was reported to Galileo by Prince Ceisi (of the Academy of the Lynxes) in the following unmistakable terms:

‘With regard to the opinion of Copernicus, Cardinal Bellarmine, who heads the Congregations that deal with such matters, told me himself that he holds it to be heretical, and that the doctrine of the Earth’s motion is beyond all doubt whatever (senza dubbio aleuno) contrary to Scripture.’Letter from Prince Cesi to Galileo on January 12, 1615, Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, Antonio Favaro, vol. X11, pp.129-131.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on April 24, 2018, 06:30:21 PM

OK, then it looks like I made an error. I hereby correct my statement to say: "ALL the fathers believed in Geocentrism," until I find otherwise
by additional research.

Now, since ALL the Fathers and this council are such experts in science, can someone please give me their explanation of how this works,
from a mathematical and astronomical point of view, because there can be no incorrect science in the Bible.

Please explain how this works, scientifically. This is 2018. There must be a way to explain this, by now. How does this work?
And no fantasy forces please, no pseudo forces either.

I thought the Pope was the only one who could make an infallible declaration on faith and morals, not a council. Oh I get it. This does
not pertain directly to faith and morals, right? Then how can it be a heresy?

What if I believe that Saturn does not have rings? Could I go to hell?

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: klasG4e on April 24, 2018, 06:53:10 PM

Quote from: apollo on April 24, 2018, 06:30:21 PM

OK, then it looks like I made an error. I hereby correct my statement to say: "ALL the fathers believed in Geocentrism," until I find otherwise
by additional research.

Now, since ALL the Fathers and this council are such experts in science, can someone please give me their explanation of how this works,
from a mathematical and astronomical point of view, because there can be no incorrect science in the Bible.

Please explain how this works, scientifically. This is 2018. There must be a way to explain this, by now. How does this work?
And no fantasy forces please, no pseudo forces either.

I thought the Pope was the only one who could make an infallible declaration on faith and morals, not a council. Oh I get it. This does
not pertain directly to faith and morals, right? Then how can it be a heresy?

What if I believe that Saturn does not have rings? Could I go to hell?

Do you not know how to do any good solid research on the Internet? Do you expect people to try to walk you through baby step by baby step all the way through everything? It seems like as soon as you get your questions answered you immediately throw up new ones. Why not do some real research on your own and report back with your own docuмentation after same. If you teach yourself I suspect you will become more firmly convinced rather than have others spoon feed you along.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: wallflower on April 24, 2018, 07:18:49 PM

Quote from: apollo on April 24, 2018, 02:53:10 PM

It's 2018, not 1613. We have telescopes now that did not exist in 1613.

All the gadgets in the world are worth very little in the hands of people who would rather make up theories than acknowledge the simple truth of God's existence or the truth of the Bible. We live in a world full of people who have all the smarts and technology but without much wisdom, understanding or humility. That combination does not bode well for reaching truth, no matter the topic, no matter the year.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on April 24, 2018, 09:12:59 PM

1.
If I ask a question, it does not mean that I don't know how to do the research. It can mean that if you answer the question,
you will see how silly your argument is.
2.
The Council that declared Copernicanism a "formal heresy" was the opinion of Pope Urban VIII speaking as a "man" not as "pope"
(in an infallible way). That means that it's an opinion. The Church cannot make dogmas that pertan to science that has not been
revealed by God. And, the Bible does not give us a revelation from God on the subject of Geocentrism.
3.
The reason you cling to your ancient theory of Geocentrism is that you believe the Bible is divine revelation on Geocentrism. It is
not. If you look at the current state of the Church's teaching you will see that you are out of date.
4.
"The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html) §19)"
5.
"Both Popes had been too cautious to endanger this highest privilege of the papacy by involving their infallible authority in the decision of a scientific controversy; they therefore refrained from conferring their sanction, as heads of the Roman Catholic Church, on the measures taken, at their instigation, by the Congregation “to suppress the doctrine of the revolution of the earth.” Thanks to this sagacious foresight, Roman Catholic posterity can say to this day, that Paul V. and Urban VIII. were in error “as men” about the Copernican system, but not “as Popes.” (Karl von Gebler, Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia, trans. J. Sturge, London: C. Kegan Paul & Co., 1879, pp. 235-6)"
6.
"In 1820, the Catholic Church officially closed the debate: Catholics are perfectly free to accept and teach modern cosmological views concerning the motion of the earth while rejecting geocentrism. In 1822, the Church went even further and declared penalties for not allowing the publication of books that present the motion of the earth as a logical conclusion of science."
7.
"In the early 1800s a Catholic astronomer, Canon Giuseppe Settele wrote a book presenting a non-geocentric view—and specifically the motion of the earth on its axis and around the sun—as a clear and logical conclusion from the scientific evidence. Fr. Filippo Anfossi, the Master of the Sacred Palace and hence chief censor for Rome at the time, denied this book an imprimatur on the ground that such a view violates the 1633 decree against Galileo. When Canon Settele appealed directly to Pope Pius VII, the question was examined by the Holy Office (the same church body that issued the decree against Galileo), and as result the question of whether it is permitted for Catholics to believe in the mobility of the earth was answered officially in two decrees. Here is the first:
Decree
[Rome], 1820 VIII 16
Vol. I, fol. 174v (Bruni, scribe)
The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe Settele, Professor of Optics and Astronomy at La Sapienza University, regarding permission to publish his work Elements of Astronomy in which he espouses the common opinion of the astronomers of our time regarding the earth’s daily and yearly motions, to His Holiness through Divine Providence, Pope Pius VII. Previously, His Holiness had referred this request to the Supreme Sacred Congregation and concurrently to the consideration of the Most Eminent and Most Reverend General Cardinal Inquisitor. His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today, even by Catholic authors. He has, moreover, suggested the insertion of several notations into this work, aimed at demonstrating that the above mentioned affirmation [of Copernicus], as it has come to be understood, does not present any difficulties; difficulties that existed in times past, prior to the subsequent astronomical observations that have now occurred. [Pope Pius VII] has also recommended that the implementation [of these decisions] be given to the Cardinal Secretary of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace. He is now appointed the task of bringing to an end any concerns and criticisms regarding the printing of this book, and, at the same time, ensuring that in the future, regarding the publication of such works, permission is sought from the Cardinal Vicar whose signature will not be given without the authorization of the Superior of his Order. [1]
It’s hard to overstate the importance of this decree. Unlike the 1633 decree against Galileo, this decree explicitly invokes the pope’s authority and does not address a single individual but makes a broader decision on the matter. And it rules that there are “no obstacles” and “no difficulties” for Catholics to hold to modern cosmological views, which include both the rotational and translational motion of the earth. It is little wonder, then, that in a 1992 address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, Pope John Paul II stated, “the debate which had not ceased to evolve thereafter, was closed in 1820 with the imprimatur given to the work of Canon Settele” [2].
In 1822 the Holy Office issued a follow-up decree, which actually applies penalties for not allowing the publication of books that present the motion of the earth as a logical conclusion of science:
The most excellent [cardinals] have decreed that there must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the earth and of the immobility of the sun, according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme [Holy Office] of 1820; and that those who would show themselves to be reluctant or would disobey, should be forced under punishments at the choice of [this] Sacred Congregation, with derogation of [their] claimed privileges, where necessary.[3]
This decree, too, was approved by Pope Pius VII."

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on April 24, 2018, 09:19:19 PM

My last reply was just the tip of the iceberg. For the whole iceberg see:

http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/

I'm getting tired of all the attacks which turn out to be out-of-date or ridiculous arguments.
Some of you will never admit you are wrong anyway. This may be my last reply.

Believe what you want. I don't care what you believe and I don't care what you have to say
anymore.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: klasG4e on April 24, 2018, 10:18:30 PM

Quote from: apollo on April 24, 2018, 09:19:19 PM

My last reply was just the tip of the iceberg. For the whole iceberg see:

http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/

I'm getting tired of all the attacks which turn out to be out-of-date or ridiculous arguments.
Some of you will never admit you are wrong anyway. This may be my last reply.

Believe what you want. I don't care what you believe and I don't care what you have to say
anymore.

And if you don't do what I want I'm going to take my bat and ball and go home. Anyway, say hi to David the palm reader unless you are him.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Incredulous on April 24, 2018, 10:21:48 PM

Quote from: apollo on April 24, 2018, 09:24:31 AM

Like I said, calling me names proves nothing.

Why not search the Bible at http://drbo.org and find the verse(s)
that prove Geocentrism.

Also explain how planets in our solar system appear to travel backward
in their orbit at certain times during the year. If they are orbiting the
earth, this is impossible.

"Apollo" is an ancient god. "apollo" is not.

Oh, that's right... apollo lost his heliocentric fight with Ivan Drago...
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f2/1d/0d/f21d0d5310441940e391ca4e170cb15b.jpg)
It's all coming back to me now :facepalm:

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: cassini on April 25, 2018, 07:10:29 AM

Quote from: apollo on April 24, 2018, 06:30:21 PM

OK, then it looks like I made an error. I hereby correct my statement to say: "ALL the fathers believed in Geocentrism," until I find otherwise
by additional research.

Now, since ALL the Fathers and this council are such experts in science, can someone please give me their explanation of how this works,
from a mathematical and astronomical point of view, because there can be no incorrect science in the Bible.

Please explain how this works, scientifically. This is 2018. There must be a way to explain this, by now. How does this work?
And no fantasy forces please, no pseudo forces either.

I thought the Pope was the only one who could make an infallible declaration on faith and morals, not a council. Oh I get it. This does
not pertain directly to faith and morals, right? Then how can it be a heresy?

What if I believe that Saturn does not have rings? Could I go to hell?

Are you rerally interested in the questions you ask Apollo, some of which you answer yourself, or are you trying to catch us non educated geocentrists out in one way after another? I suspect you are a closed-shop heliocentrist not willing to be open minded, one who feels safe in your belief with 99.999% of post-U-turn Catholics today.
How could one reason with someone like yourself who posts Bellarmine's letter to Foscarini to make a point and then write what you do above in red in particular? 'This does not pertain directly to faith and morals, right?' Did you not read Bellarmine's letter you posted earlier? Obviously not, or either you were not really interested in what he said other than use it to try to twist the history of the Galileo case as the heliocentrists have been doing for centuries. Anyway, for others who might think you are actually correct here again is what Bellarmine's letter said, a copy of what you posted earlier;

Second. I say: Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

Now is your own post not clear enough even for you? Why do you post things you do not read or perhaps not understand? Do you, and a history of like-minded heliocentrists, feel you are more informed or blessed theologians than St Robert in that you know better and biblical geocentrism is a matter for or of science and not of faith? AND THAT IS HOW CONTRADICTING SCRIPTURE by prefering to believe in a fixed-sun solar system, IS HERESY, just as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ.

A Catholic council is always called by and presided over by a pope. Unless that pope, or popes if it goes on after one or more dies, declares it is not an infallible council, such as Vatican II, then it is infallible by means of the pope who called and presided over its decrees.

Finally you want to know how geocentrism works before you will believe in it. 'And no fantasy forces please, no pseudo forces either.' God you cannot be serious, you heliocentrists with your Newtonian theories, your Einsteinian theories, falsified so many times (but you wouldn't know about such falsifications, would you?) to try to make your heliocentrism work.

How does what you see every day and year WORK? Well, try asking God, because only He knows how 'it works.' Here He is telling us that:

‘Shalt thou be able to join together the shining stars of the Pleiades, or canst thou stop the turning about of Arcturus? Canst thou bring forth the day star in its time, and make the evening star to rise upon the children of the Earth? Dost thou know the order of heaven, and canst thou set down the reason thereof on the Earth?’ (Job 38: 31-33)

Oh, by the way, St Thomas Aquinas had no problem in thinking God could have put an angel in charge of every star and body in the heavens so that they operate His creation and cause it to do exactly what he created them to do.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: cassini on April 25, 2018, 08:15:33 AM

Quote from: apollo on April 24, 2018, 09:12:59 PM

1.
If I ask a question, it does not mean that I don't know how to do the research. It can mean that if you answer the question,
you will see how silly your argument is.
2.
The Council that declared Copernicanism a "formal heresy" was the opinion of Pope Urban VIII speaking as a "man" not as "pope"
(in an infallible way). That means that it's an opinion. The Church cannot make dogmas that pertan to science that has not been
revealed by God. And, the Bible does not give us a revelation from God on the subject of Geocentrism.
3.
The reason you cling to your ancient theory of Geocentrism is that you believe the Bible is divine revelation on Geocentrism. It is
not. If you look at the current state of the Church's teaching you will see that you are out of date.

Let us begin with Pope Leo XIII's encyclical you quote above. Note he says 'the opinions which each of the Fathers' had. Well this is Catholic teaching. It does not however make Pope Leo XIII deny the Council of Trent that decreed:

‘The Vulgate Editions of the Bible is Accepted and the Method Prescribed for the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture, etc.

‘The sacred and holy, ecuмenical, and general Synod of Trent, - lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein, - keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the Holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament - seeing that one God is the author of both - as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately condemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema…. Furthermore, in order to curb imprudent clever persons, the synod decrees that no one who relies on his own judgement in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by holy Mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though interpretations of this kind were never intended to be brought to light. Let those who shall oppose this be reported by their ordinaries and be punished with the penalties prescribed by law.’ -- (Denz – 783/786)

Pope Leo XIII did not deny Trent, he wrote 'EACH OF THE FATHERS' not 'ALL OF THE FATHERS.'

Now given churchmen before him had allowed heliocentric books to be printed in the wake of them all falling for the 'proofs' that the earth moves, and the encyclical was meant to curb the 'scientific' attacks on ther Bible's revelations, all begun by Galileo and continued by Churchmen, and the fact that pope Paul V had issued a papal decree defining a fixed sun formal heresy, which churchmen took to be an error (that turned out not to be an error), a Church harming 'mistake' that had to be covered over. So what did they do, they used this encyclical, just as you do apollo, as referring to the 1616 decree that condemned heliocentrism as formal heresy BECAUSE IT CONTRADICTED THE UNANIMOUS CONCENT OF THE FATHERS, and used it forevermore as some sort of infallible rejection of the 1616 decree.

Here are two such examples of hoax.

‘Actually, almost 100 years before Pope John Paul II’s apology, an earlier Pope (Leo XIII) effectively reinstated Galileo in an encyclical dealing with how Catholics should study the Bible. Although Pope Leo XIII does not mention Galileo by name in the encyclical, nevertheless, “In 1893, Pope Leo XIII made honorable amends to Galileo’s memory by basing his encyclical Providentissimus Deus on the principles of exegesis that Galileo had expounded.”’ ---D. A. Crombie’s ‘A History of Science from Augustine to Galileo,’ Vol. 2, 1996, p.225

‘Anyone who will compare this [Galileo’s] wonderful letter with the Encyclical Providentissimus Deus of Pope Leo XIII on the study of Holy Scripture will see how near in many places Galileo came to the very words of the Holy Father.’--- James Brodrick, S.J: The life of Cardinal Bellarmine, Burns Oats, 1928, p.351.

‘Galileo addressed this problem in his famous Letter to Castelli. In its approach to biblical exegesis, the letter ironically anticipates Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893), which pointed out that Scripture often makes use of figurative language and is not meant to teach science. Galileo accepted the inerrancy of Scripture; but he was also mindful of Cardinal Baronius’s quip that the Bible “is intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” And he pointed out correctly that both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas taught that the sacred writers in no way meant to teach a system of astronomy.’--[1] Catholics United for the Faith - Catholics United for the Faith is an international lay apostolate founded to help the faithful learn what the Catholic Church teaches, 2010. (http://www.cuf.org/)

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on April 25, 2018, 12:57:16 PM

Quote from: apollo on April 24, 2018, 11:59:16 AM

Please tell me where to find the condemnation of Heliocentrism by the Catholic Church.
The earth is not flat, but that is another discussion. Next, someone will tell me that the
Moon is made of green cheese and the Bible says so. It's this kind of thinking that made
me lose interest in CathInfo a few years ago.
In found this statement by a good Catholic priest:
6. Is not the Bible statement that the sun stood still in the heavens (Jos. 10, 13) an example of obvious error?
No, we must remember that the Bible was written in every-day language of the time, not in scientific terms. Even to this day,
for example, we speak of sunset even though the sun is not setting anywhere and we know that the Earth is orbiting around
the Sun and not vice-versa.
You can find it here: http://drbo.org/catechism.htm#lesson12

The earth is provably not a globe. This entry you provided is based on a false notion of modern pagan science. The answer given is erroneous.

Cardinal Bellarmine assures us that the consent of the Fathers and their commentators is unanimous in holding a geocentric and geostatic view of the universe based on Holy Scripture (#6). Just how far the contemporary Church has departed from Catholic tradition is emphasized by this as well as by the other points of Cardinal Bellarmine's Letter, for he refuses to recognize the distinction, rejected also in our times by Benedict XV and Leo XIII, between references to physical things and supernatural facts (#7) as dividing truth from possible error in Holy Scripture. Fr. Jerome Langford is of the modernist mentality and reads the Decree of Trentaccording to Galileo: "... the Fathers had to affirm, explicitly or implicitly, that the text under consideration pertained to a matter of faith or morals."(20) But as we have already shown, this is not what Trent said nor could have so said because both Benedict XV and Leo XIII have emphatically reaffirmed the integrity of Holy Scripture in all its parts and all its meanings, both physical and spiritual, both natural and supernatural.
Galileo and the heliocentrists or Copernicans attacked a truth of faith, namely, that Holy Scripture is inspired and inerrant in all its parts and that we may not depart from the common agreement of the Fathers in our interpretations.
Besides these distinctions, there is the authority of the Church as the one guardian and only true interpreter of Holy Scripture. Vatican I,Canons and Decrees, Chapter III: Of Faith, says:
... all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God,, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary teaching (magisterium),proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed. ... ... although faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason; since the same God Who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, and God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. The false appearance of such a contradiction is mainly due, either to the dogmas of faith not having been understood and expounded according to the mind of the Church, or to the inventions of opinion having been taken for the verdicts of reason. We define, therefore, that every assertion contrary to a truth of enlightened faith is utterly false. Further, the Church, which together with the apostolic office of teaching, has received a charge to guard the deposit of faith, derives from God the right and the duty of proscribing false science, lest any should be deceived by philosophy and vain deceit (can.ii) Therefore all faithful Christians are not only forbidden to defend as legitimate conclusions of science such opinions as are known to be contrary to the doctrines of faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, but are altogether bound to account them as errors which put on the fallacious appearance of truth. (D1797-8)

After giving the text of Galileo's abjuration, Fr. Langford says: "The condemnation of Galileo was now complete. The scientist had tried to batter down the old view of the universe and the traditional exegesis of Scripture by beating his head against a wall of conservatism and mocking those who felt that it should not be torn down ... "(29) Thus have the truths of faith, i.e., that the Scriptures are inerrant and that the Church can rule upon their meaning -- for all time -- these truths have been cast by Fr. Langford and most of his contemporaries, into the ephemerally temporal political category of a stiff-necked conservatism. But the Decree of the Holy Office against Galileo has never been abrogated -- nor can it be. The wording is quite absolute. It is otherwise with the Index of Forbidden Books, as we shall see presently.
Living in the midst of triumphant modernism as we do today (in the1990's), it is easy to recognize in the Decree against Galileo what is perhaps the first specific condemnation of a primary modernist tenet: "that any opinion may be held and defended as probable [even] after it has been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture." The modernists of today do this all the time. Galileo's Heresy --Paula Haigh

Spiritus Paraclitus (Sept. 15, 1920):
... by these precepts and limits [set by the Fathers of the Church] the opinion of the more recent critics is not restrained, who, after introducing a distinction between the primary or religious element of Scripture, and the secondary or profane, wish, indeed, that inspiration itself pertain to all the ideas, rather even to the individual words of the Bible, but that its effects and especially immunity from error and absolute truth be contracted and narrowed to the primary or religious element. For their belief is that that only which concerns religion is intended and is taught by God in the Scriptures; but that the rest, which pertains to the profane disciplines and serves revealed doctrine as a kind of external cloak of divine truth, is only permitted and is left to the feebleness of the writer. It is not surprising then, if in physical, historical, and other similar affairs a great many things occur in the Bible, which cannot at all be reconciled with the progress of the fine arts of this age. There are those who contend that these fabrications of opinions are not in opposition to the prescriptions of our predecessor [Leo XIII] since he declared that the sacred writer in matters of nature speaks according to external appearance, surely fallacious. But how rashly, how falsely this is affirmed, is plainly evident from the very words of the Pontiff.

In March 1616, in connection with the Galileo Affair, the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation of the Index issued a decree suspending De revolutionibus until it could be "corrected," on the grounds of ensuring that Copernicanism, which it described as a "false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture," would not "creep any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth."

Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus (1893), paragraph numbers 124-127.(16)
It may also happen that the sense of a passage remains ambiguous, and in this case good hermeneutical methods will greatly assist in clearing up the obscurity. But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture or to admit that the sacred author has erred. As to the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think,) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it -- this system cannot be tolerated.

This link to the book below, written by a Catholic priest, explains that the decrees issued in the Galileo Affair were binding.

The Pontifical decrees against the doctrine of the earth's movement and the Ultramontane defence on them by William Roberts
http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Roberts.pdf

The Pontifical Decrees Against the Doctrine of The Earth’s Movement and the Ultramontane Defence of Them By Rev. William W. Roberts (1885) Introductory commentary by a Catholic layman in 2002 1543 Nicolaus Copernicus published De Revolutionibus Orbium Cœlestium (On the Revolutions of Spheres). 1534-1549 Reign of Pope Paul III, who was quite aware of Fr. Copernicus’ work. The two were actually friends. 1605-1621 Reign of Pope Paul V, who issued a 1616 decree condemning pro-heliocentricity work of Galileo Galilei. 1623-1644 Reign of Pope Urban VIII, who issued a 2nd decree [1633] condemning Copernicanism. 1655-1657 Reign of Pope Alexander VII, who issued a Bull [1664] reinforcing that Copernicanism was heretical.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: forlorn on April 25, 2018, 02:02:41 PM

Quote from: happenby on April 25, 2018, 12:57:16 PM

The earth is provably not a globe. This entry you provided is based on a false notion of modern pagan science. The answer given is erroneous.

The Church condemned Galileo for heliocentrism, not globe-earthism you tool. The Church at the time, including St. Bellarmine and the Pope, believed in a geocentrism and a globe-Earth.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: klasG4e on April 25, 2018, 03:50:23 PM

Quote from: King Wenceslas on April 25, 2018, 01:04:33 PM

Another push button issue that the devil uses to divide and exterminate the Traditionalist movement. Ah yes the devil is having a field day. Keep it up you are doing the devil's work for him.

This thread constitutes a debate of sorts over some rather critical issues which the Novus Ordo and a good number of Trads would like to ignore. Why? Because the truth (no lover of human respect) which the devil, the father of lies, hates can be a real game changer in inconveniently upsetting some modernist status quo apple carts.

As for your post I challenge you to offer any evidence, any solid evidence at all, that what you say here is true.

So what exactly is your evidence to support your assertions that:
     !.) Whatever you are referring to is "Another push button issue that the devil uses to divide and exterminate the Traditionalist movement."
     2.) "Ah yes the devil is having a field day."
     3.) "...you are doing the devil's work for him."

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on April 25, 2018, 03:57:14 PM

Quote from: forlorn on April 25, 2018, 02:02:41 PM

The Church condemned Galileo for heliocentrism, not globe-earthism you tool. The Church at the time, including St. Bellarmine and the Pope, believed in a geocentrism and a globe-Earth.

The Church insists the Bible is without error and the globe earth does not work with Scripture AT ALL. Literally 100% of the Fathers that weighed in with TEACHINGS on this subject, taught flat earth. Geocentric flat earth. Calling me names won't change that. Besides, the Church condemned the Pythagorean Doctrine/Copernican Doctrine altogether while She specified moving earth and stationary sun. But that is where Scripture, the Fathers, and science come in. And all are in agreement. Also, 100% of the time, Pythagorean Doctrine, the doctrine of demons, promotes the globe. As does NASA, the Freemasonic arm of hellions determined to overthrow Scripture and Tradition as the basis for anything scientific. The earth is not a globe.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on April 25, 2018, 04:08:23 PM

The Mystical City of God was condemned for 5 reasons, one of which was globe earth. Two thirds voted to condemn it and their reasons are listed.

Regarding the condemnation of the Mystical City of God by Mary of Agreda

1. It violated the decree of Pope Urban VIII (March 13, 1625)
2. It narrated apocryphal stories.
3. It presented opinions of the Duns Scotus theological school as divine revelation.
4. Mary of Agreda pictured the earth in the form of an egg, i.e. that the earth had a spherical shape.
5. It exaggerated the cult of Our Lady to the extent of obscuring the great Mystery of the Incarnation.

152 Masters of the Sorbonne discussed the Mystical City on thirty-two sessions, July 2-14, 1696. 102 of the 152 Masters voted against the book.

At all events, Blessed Innocent signed the condemnation on June 26, 1681.

In favor of Mary of Agreda, her views of creation probably only referred to the Globus cruciger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globus_cruciger) which reflected the Catholic view of the cosmos. That is, that the universe, not the earth was the shape of a globe.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Jaynek on April 25, 2018, 04:26:15 PM

Quote from: happenby on April 25, 2018, 04:08:23 PM

The Mystical City of God was condemned for 5 reasons, one of which was globe earth. Two thirds voted to condemn it and their reasons are listed.

This is false which I proved with suitable references the first time that happenby asserted it. As usual, she ignores facts that refute her ideas and continues to make false claims.

The problem that some had with Mystical City of God was that Sor Maria saw the earth as egg-shaped rather than a perfect sphere as was accepted by most Catholics.

For more details, see my earlier post on the subject: https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/pope-urban-viii-makes-condemnation-because-of-spherical-earth/msg603009/#msg603009 (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/pope-urban-viii-makes-condemnation-because-of-spherical-earth/msg603009/#msg603009)

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on April 25, 2018, 05:15:57 PM

Quote from: Jaynek on April 25, 2018, 04:26:15 PM

This is false which I proved with suitable references the first time that happenby asserted it. As usual, she ignores facts that refute her ideas and continues to make false claims.

The problem that some had with Mystical City of God was that Sor Maria saw the earth as egg-shaped rather than a perfect sphere as was accepted by most Catholics.

For more details, see my earlier post on the subject: https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/pope-urban-viii-makes-condemnation-because-of-spherical-earth/msg603009/#msg603009 (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/pope-urban-viii-makes-condemnation-because-of-spherical-earth/msg603009/#msg603009)

Sorry, the five reasons are not false. The published book was in favor of Mary of Agreda and they still printed it because the condemnation reasons are true. Just because you find someone to intervene with information to the contrary doesn't mean what they (or you) say is true. Just the fact that you say that Columbus proved earth a globe shows the deceit in the statement. Either by you, or the writer. Either way, not good enough Jayne.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: forlorn on April 25, 2018, 05:24:18 PM

Quote from: happenby on April 25, 2018, 05:15:57 PM

Sorry, the five reasons are not false. The published book was in favor of Mary of Agreda and they still printed it because the condemnation reasons are true. Just because you find someone to intervene with information to the contrary doesn't mean what they (or you) say is true. Just the fact that you say that Columbus proved earth a globe shows the deceit in the statement. Either by you, or the writer. Either way, not good enough Jayne.

No one said the 5 reasons are false, but the "i.e. that the earth had a spherical shape." part was adding by yourself. Her model was condemned for being an egg shape rather than a perfect sphere, not for being a globe.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on April 25, 2018, 05:26:57 PM

Quote from: forlorn on April 25, 2018, 05:24:18 PM

No one said the 5 reasons are false, but the "i.e. that the earth had a spherical shape." part was adding by yourself. Her model was condemned for being an egg shape rather than a perfect sphere, not for being a globe.

Lol. As if egg and globe aren't the same as opposed to flat. :facepalm:

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Jaynek on April 25, 2018, 07:18:33 PM

Quote from: forlorn on April 25, 2018, 05:24:18 PM

No one said the 5 reasons are false, but the "i.e. that the earth had a spherical shape." part was adding by yourself. Her model was condemned for being an egg shape rather than a perfect sphere, not for being a globe.

Actually, happenby did not add the "that the earth had a spherical shape" comment. It was in her source - written by a farmer with a devotion to Sor Maria rather than by a scholar. However, I located what seems to be the source's source, a scholarly historical work, and it is not there.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Jaynek on April 25, 2018, 07:26:26 PM

Quote from: happenby on April 25, 2018, 05:15:57 PM

Sorry, the five reasons are not false. The published book was in favor of Mary of Agreda and they still printed it because the condemnation reasons are true. Just because you find someone to intervene with information to the contrary doesn't mean what they (or you) say is true. Just the fact that you say that Columbus proved earth a globe shows the deceit in the statement. Either by you, or the writer. Either way, not good enough Jayne.

There are relatively objective means of determining the credibility of sources. You seem to base your judgment of sources on whether or not they say what you want them too. One cannot arrive at the truth this way; it merely confirms what one already believes.

Since I do not think that Columbus proved that the earth is a globe, it is highly unlikely that I ever said so. What I have posted is that all educated people at the time of Columbus already believed the earth is a globe so there was nothing for him to prove in that regard. It is usually part of an anti-Catholic insult to say that people believed the earth was flat then and that he proved them wrong.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: cassini on April 26, 2018, 06:17:41 AM

I have just added to this debate by posting here:

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/pope-urban-viii-makes-condemnation-because-of-spherical-earth/new/#new (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/pope-urban-viii-makes-condemnation-because-of-spherical-earth/new/#new)

In a nutshell, Domenico Cassini (1625-1712) confirmed Mary of Agreda (1602-1665)'s shape of the Earth as EGG-SHAPED in 1720. Story above.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: forlorn on April 26, 2018, 10:55:18 AM

Quote from: happenby on April 25, 2018, 05:26:57 PM

Lol. As if egg and globe aren't the same as opposed to flat. :facepalm:

There was no "as opposed to flat". No one was so moronic as to believe in a flat earth. It was condemned for depicting an egg shaped earth AS OPPOSED TO A PERFECT SPHERE.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Meg on April 26, 2018, 11:02:40 AM

Quote from: happenby on April 25, 2018, 05:26:57 PM

Lol. As if egg and globe aren't the same as opposed to flat. :facepalm:

Exactly!

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on April 26, 2018, 11:03:11 AM

Quote from: forlorn on April 26, 2018, 10:55:18 AM

There was no "as opposed to flat". No one was so moronic as to believe in a flat earth. It was condemned for depicting an egg shaped earth AS OPPOSED TO A PERFECT SPHERE.

Sorry, not possible. Catholics believed in the dome or firmament (also described as an arch, as well as a tent in scripture) that sits above the earth and separates the water of the oceans from the waters above the dome. Can't have a dome, arch or tent over a sphere...nor an egg. It would have to be another circular encasement to fully surround the earth lest the poor blokes in Australia would have been left without. Again and again these globalists continue to obfuscate and promote personal theory in favor of the modern science of the Freemasons over Scripture.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on April 26, 2018, 11:05:55 AM

Laughingly, back in the day it was supposedly an egg. Then it became a perfect sphere. And today, scientists tell us earth is pear shaped. Which is it guys? The cgi pictures provided by NASA show a perfect sphere in contrast to their claim that earth is pear shaped. The globalists can't even keep track of their own lies.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: forlorn on April 26, 2018, 11:42:19 AM

Quote from: happenby on April 26, 2018, 11:03:11 AM

Sorry, not possible. Catholics believed in the dome or firmament (also described as an arch, as well as a tent in scripture) that sits above the earth and separates the water of the oceans from the waters above the dome. Can't have a dome, arch or tent over a sphere...nor an egg. It would have to be another circular encasement to fully surround the earth lest the poor blokes in Australia would have been left without. Again and again these globalists continue to obfuscate and promote personal theory in favor of the modern science of the Freemasons over Scripture.

You have no sources to suggest they believed that.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on April 26, 2018, 11:51:15 AM

Quote from: forlorn on April 26, 2018, 11:42:19 AM

You have no sources to suggest they believed that.

You should never step into a thread guns blazing, calling people names, without having obtained understanding of the subject in advance, or reading related threads. There are more proofs than what I provided here but your statement (above) is proven false.

Origen called the firmament "without doubt firm and solid" (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71).

St. Ambrose, commenting on Gen 1:6, said, 'the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant' (Hexameron, FC 42.60).

St. Augustine said the word firmament was used 'to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassable boundary between the waters above and the waters below' (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ACW 41.1.61)." - p. 236

Saint Basil: “Now we must say something about the nature of the firmament, and why it received the order to hold the middle place between the waters. Scripture constantly makes use of the word firmament to express extraordinary strength....‘I made firm her pillars [Ps. 75:3].’ ‘Praise ye Him in the firmament of His power [Ps. 150:1].’ It is the custom of Scripture to call firmament all that is strong and unyielding. It even uses the word to denote the condensation of the air. God says, ‘For, behold, I am He that strengthens the thunder [Amos 4:13].’ Scripture means by the strengthening of the thunder, the strength and resistance of the wind, which, enclosed in the hollows of the clouds, produces the noise of thunder when it breaks through with violence. Here then, according to me, is a firm substance, capable of retaining the fluid and unstable element water; and as, according to the common acceptation, it appears that the firmament owes its origin to water, we must not believe that it resembles frozen water or any other matter produced by the filtration of water. For I am taught by Scripture not to allow my imagination to wander too far afield. But do not let us forget to remark that, after these divine words, ‘Let there be a firmament [Gen. 1:6],’ it is not said ‘and the firmament was made’ but, ‘God made the firmament, and God divided between the water that was under the firmament and between the water that was above the firmament [Gen. 1:7].’. Saint Basil, “Hom. III(9),” Hexaemeron, NPNF, 2nd Ser., Vol. VIII.

Sorry for the size of the font, can't seem to get it to size down.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Meg on April 26, 2018, 02:03:55 PM

Quote from: happenby on April 26, 2018, 11:51:15 AM

You should never step into a thread guns blazing, calling people names, without having obtained understanding of the subject in advance, or reading related threads. There are more proofs than what I provided here but your statement (above) is proven false.

Origen called the firmament "without doubt firm and solid" (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71).

St. Ambrose, commenting on Gen 1:6, said, 'the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant' (Hexameron, FC 42.60).

St. Augustine said the word firmament was used 'to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassable boundary between the waters above and the waters below' (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ACW 41.1.61)." - p. 236

Saint Basil: “Now we must say something about the nature of the firmament, and why it received the order to hold the middle place between the waters. Scripture constantly makes use of the word firmament to express extraordinary strength....‘I made firm her pillars [Ps. 75:3].’ ‘Praise ye Him in the firmament of His power [Ps. 150:1].’ It is the custom of Scripture to call firmament all that is strong and unyielding. It even uses the word to denote the condensation of the air. God says, ‘For, behold, I am He that strengthens the thunder [Amos 4:13].’ Scripture means by the strengthening of the thunder, the strength and resistance of the wind, which, enclosed in the hollows of the clouds, produces the noise of thunder when it breaks through with violence. Here then, according to me, is a firm substance, capable of retaining the fluid and unstable element water; and as, according to the common acceptation, it appears that the firmament owes its origin to water, we must not believe that it resembles frozen water or any other matter produced by the filtration of water. For I am taught by Scripture not to allow my imagination to wander too far afield. But do not let us forget to remark that, after these divine words, ‘Let there be a firmament [Gen. 1:6],’ it is not said ‘and the firmament was made’ but, ‘God made the firmament, and God divided between the water that was under the firmament and between the water that was above the firmament [Gen. 1:7].’. Saint Basil, “Hom. III(9),” Hexaemeron, NPNF, 2nd Ser., Vol. VIII.

Sorry for the size of the font, can't seem to get it to size down.

Good quotes above. I notice that Forlorn hasn't yet commented them.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: forlorn on April 26, 2018, 02:31:50 PM

Quote from: Meg on April 26, 2018, 02:03:55 PM

Good quotes above. I notice that Forlorn hasn't yet commented them.

I responded in the other thread "Are globers Catholic?" with many citations to prove that medieval Catholics unanimously believed in a ball earth. His quotes are from the Patrisic period and I never denied that a minority believed in a flat earth at the time, but by the middle ages every saint believed in a ball earth and Catholic universities taught a ball earth. See the other thread.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Jaynek on April 26, 2018, 02:34:54 PM

Quote from: Meg on April 26, 2018, 02:03:55 PM

Good quotes above. I notice that Forlorn hasn't yet commented them.

Since Forlorn was obviously making a comment about Catholics at the time of Mary of Agreda (the topic under discussion at that point) a bunch of quotes from more than a thousand years earlier than that are clearly irrelevant.

If one produced quotes from Catholics during the 1500s it might address his point. The quotes given by happenby did not.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Meg on April 26, 2018, 03:33:32 PM

Quote from: forlorn on April 26, 2018, 02:31:50 PM

I responded in the other thread "Are globers Catholic?" with many citations to prove that medieval Catholics unanimously believed in a ball earth. His quotes are from the Patrisic period and I never denied that a minority believed in a flat earth at the time, but by the middle ages every saint believed in a ball earth and Catholic universities taught a ball earth. See the other thread.

You said that Happenby had no sources for the belief that Catholics believed in a dome or firmament. She provided the sources.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Meg on April 26, 2018, 03:36:43 PM

Quote from: happenby on April 26, 2018, 11:51:15 AM

You should never step into a thread guns blazing, calling people names, without having obtained understanding of the subject in advance, or reading related threads. There are more proofs than what I provided here but your statement (above) is proven false.

Origen called the firmament "without doubt firm and solid" (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71).

St. Ambrose, commenting on Gen 1:6, said, 'the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant' (Hexameron, FC 42.60).

St. Augustine said the word firmament was used 'to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassable boundary between the waters above and the waters below' (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ACW 41.1.61)." - p. 236

Saint Basil: “Now we must say something about the nature of the firmament, and why it received the order to hold the middle place between the waters. Scripture constantly makes use of the word firmament to express extraordinary strength....‘I made firm her pillars [Ps. 75:3].’ ‘Praise ye Him in the firmament of His power [Ps. 150:1].’ It is the custom of Scripture to call firmament all that is strong and unyielding. It even uses the word to denote the condensation of the air. God says, ‘For, behold, I am He that strengthens the thunder [Amos 4:13].’ Scripture means by the strengthening of the thunder, the strength and resistance of the wind, which, enclosed in the hollows of the clouds, produces the noise of thunder when it breaks through with violence. Here then, according to me, is a firm substance, capable of retaining the fluid and unstable element water; and as, according to the common acceptation, it appears that the firmament owes its origin to water, we must not believe that it resembles frozen water or any other matter produced by the filtration of water. For I am taught by Scripture not to allow my imagination to wander too far afield. But do not let us forget to remark that, after these divine words, ‘Let there be a firmament [Gen. 1:6],’ it is not said ‘and the firmament was made’ but, ‘God made the firmament, and God divided between the water that was under the firmament and between the water that was above the firmament [Gen. 1:7].’. Saint Basil, “Hom. III(9),” Hexaemeron, NPNF, 2nd Ser., Vol. VIII.

Sorry for the size of the font, can't seem to get it to size down.

Here are the sources again, forlorn. Just in case you didn't pay any attention to the original post.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Jaynek on April 26, 2018, 03:48:13 PM

Quote from: Meg on April 26, 2018, 03:33:32 PM

You said that Happenby had no sources for the belief that Catholics believed in a dome or firmament. She provided the sources.

It was clear that he meant Catholics during the time period under discussion. Taking words out of context to twist their meaning, as you are doing, is intellectual dishonesty.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: forlorn on April 26, 2018, 04:22:44 PM

Quote from: Meg on April 26, 2018, 03:33:32 PM

You said that Happenby had no sources for the belief that Catholics believed in a dome or firmament. She provided the sources.

The claim that I disputed was that the Church and the faithful believed in the Flat Earth until Copernicus. I refuted that in the other thread and all Happenby has provided are quotes from over 1,000 years before Copernicus.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on April 26, 2018, 07:11:20 PM

Quote from: cassini on April 25, 2018, 07:10:29 AM

Second. I say: Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

I took two days off to think.

This statement from St. Robert Bellarmine says that the ones who have spoken (the Church Fathers)
consider it a mater of faith that one must believe in Geocentrism.

OK, they have given their opinions. Their opinions do NOT make it a doctrine of the Church.
A doctrine much be declared to be so by a Pope, when speaking ex-Cathedra on a matter of faith and morals.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on April 26, 2018, 07:40:29 PM

Quote from: cassini on April 25, 2018, 07:10:29 AM

Do you, and a history of like-minded heliocentrists, feel you are more informed or blessed theologians than St Robert in that you know better and biblical geocentrism is a matter for or of science and not of faith? AND THAT IS HOW CONTRADICTING SCRIPTURE by preferring to believe in a fixed-sun solar system, IS HERESY, just as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ.

A Catholic council is always called by and presided over by a pope. Unless that pope, or popes if it goes on after one or more dies, declares it is not an infallible council, such as Vatican II, then it is infallible by means of the pope who called and presided over its decrees.

St. Robert Bellarmine lived in the 17th century. I think, we in the 21st century know more about the workings of the solar system, then scientists
did in the 17th century, except for Galileo and Copernicus.

Contradicting Scripture? Heliocentrism does not contradict Scripture. It is merely your opinion and others' opinions that Geocentrism is Scripture
based. I don't care if all the Church Fathers had the opinion that Geocentrism is Scripture based. I am not required to believe it as a Catholic.

About whether that council is infallible or not, read the following article, taken from:
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/the-1633-decree-is-not-a-papal-docuмent-is-not-infallible-and-therefore-is-reformable/

The 1633 Decree is not a Papal Docuмent, is not Infallible, and Therefore is Reformable

Even more of an exaggeration comes from the geocentrists who continue to insist that the 1633 decree was a “papal decree”, backed up explicitly by the authority of the pope. But it bears repeating here what I have demonstrated in detail elsewhere (http://thepalmhq.blogspot.com/2010/12/alexander-vii-and-speculatores-domus.html), namely, that the 1633 decree of the Holy Office is not a papal docuмent. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, “The sentence, passed upon him in consequence, clearly implied a condemnation of Copernicanism, but it made no formal decree on the subject, and did not receive the pope’s signature.” (Galileo (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm))

As I have written previously (http://thepalmhq.blogspot.com/2010/12/alexander-vii-and-speculatores-domus.html), some Vatican docuмents are reviewed by the Pope and ordered to be published by him, but they only carry the authority of the curial dicastery that actually wrote the docuмent and do not carry the authority of a papal docuмent or act. Such docuмents are referred to as having been approved in forma communi. Other docuмents are reviewed by the Pope and approved by him in a special way such that they are officially made “his own” and therefore acquire the full authority of a formal papal act. Such docuмents are referred to as having been approved in forma specifica. When a Pope wants to elevate the weight and authority of a docuмent from in forma communi to in forma specifica all he must do is to sign it with the Latin phrase in forma specifica approbavit (Consecrated Phrases: a Latin Theological Dictionary (http://books.google.com/books?id=jduLeQnA2doC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Consecrated+Phrases:++a+Latin+Theological+Dictionary&source=bl&ots=695eLRzYxW&sig=DzyLpQ9ZGcsz7iYvXEB5DGfO3LA&hl=en&ei=0RxMTbuTKor2gAf59sgg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false), p. 62).

But the fact is that the 1633 decree against Galileo was never approved by the pope in forma specifica. Therefore it is not a papal decree, period. Fr. Brian hαɾɾιson was correct when he wrote that, “Rome’s 17th-century insistence on geocentrism ... was never promulgated directly and personally by any Pope”.

We are left with a disciplinary decree of a Roman congregation which, while authoritative, could not bind the Catholic Church to a doctrine as an article of faith and is not infallible.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on April 26, 2018, 07:56:53 PM

Taken from (GeocentrismDebunked.com)

"In 1820, the Catholic Church officially closed the debate: Catholics are perfectly free to accept and teach modern cosmological views concerning the motion of the earth while rejecting geocentrism. In 1822, the Church went even further and declared penalties for not allowing the publication of books that present the motion of the earth as a logical conclusion of science."

"In the early 1800s a Catholic astronomer, Canon Giuseppe Settele wrote a book presenting a non-geocentric view—and specifically the motion of the earth on its axis and around the sun—as a clear and logical conclusion from the scientific evidence. Fr. Filippo Anfossi, the Master of the Sacred Palace and hence chief censor for Rome at the time, denied this book an imprimatur on the ground that such a view violates the 1633 decree against Galileo.

"When Canon Settele appealed directly to Pope Pius VII, the question was examined by the Holy Office (the same church body that issued the decree against Galileo), and as result the question of whether it is permitted for Catholics to believe in the mobility of the earth was answered officially in two decrees. Here is the first:

Decree
[Rome], 1820 VIII 16
Vol. I, fol. 174v (Bruni, scribe)

The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe Settele, Professor of Optics and Astronomy at La Sapienza University, regarding permission to publish his work Elements of Astronomy in which he espouses the common opinion of the astronomers of our time regarding the earth’s daily and yearly motions, to His Holiness through Divine Providence, Pope Pius VII. Previously, His Holiness had referred this request to the Supreme Sacred Congregation and concurrently to the consideration of the Most Eminent and Most Reverend General Cardinal Inquisitor. His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today, even by Catholic authors. He has, moreover, suggested the insertion of several notations into this work, aimed at demonstrating that the above mentioned affirmation [of Copernicus], as it has come to be understood, does not present any difficulties; difficulties that existed in times past, prior to the subsequent astronomical observations that have now occurred. [Pope Pius VII] has also recommended that the implementation [of these decisions] be given to the Cardinal Secretary of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace. He is now appointed the task of bringing to an end any concerns and criticisms regarding the printing of this book, and, at the same time, ensuring that in the future, regarding the publication of such works, permission is sought from the Cardinal Vicar whose signature will not be given without the authorization of the Superior of his Order. [1]

It’s hard to overstate the importance of this decree. Unlike the 1633 decree against Galileo, this decree explicitly invokes the pope’s authority and does not address a single individual but makes a broader decision on the matter. And it rules that there are “no obstacles” and “no difficulties” for Catholics to hold to modern cosmological views, which include both the rotational and translational motion of the earth. It is little wonder, then, that in a 1992 address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, Pope John Paul II stated, “the debate which had not ceased to evolve thereafter, was closed in 1820 with the imprimatur given to the work of Canon Settele” [2].

In 1822 the Holy Office issued a follow-up decree, which actually applies penalties for not allowing the publication of books that present the motion of the earth as a logical conclusion of science:

The most excellent [cardinals] have decreed that there must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the earth and of the immobility of the sun, according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme [Holy Office] of 1820; and that those who would show themselves to be reluctant or would disobey, should be forced under punishments at the choice of [this] Sacred Congregation, with derogation of [their] claimed privileges, where necessary.[3]
This decree, too, was approved by Pope Pius VII."

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on April 26, 2018, 08:09:00 PM

Sorry for the large font size in the last reply. When I try to reduce it, other problems occur, like putting things in quotes (orange) that should not be.

I have a comment about the wording in the Bible in the Psalms, when David is speaking. David says, "The earth shall not be moved".
I think it is Solomon who talks about the pillars of the earth and the foundation. What is missing in David's wording is shown below
in red.

"The earth shall not be moved from its foundations."

There is a lot of discussion about foundations (e.g. the mountains shall be moved from their foundations).
It certainly appears that David and Solomon thought the earth had a foundation as if it were a flat earth on pillars.

So. to say that this is divine revelation that the earth is the center of the solar system and does not rotate,
is a huge stretch of the imagination.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on April 26, 2018, 10:32:46 PM

Quote from: apollo on April 26, 2018, 08:09:00 PM

Sorry for the large font size in the last reply. When I try to reduce it, other problems occur, like putting things in quotes (orange) that should not be.

I have a comment about the wording in the Bible in the Psalms, when David is speaking. David says, "The earth shall not be moved".
I think it is Solomon who talks about the pillars of the earth and the foundation. What is missing in David's wording is shown below
in red.

"The earth shall not be moved from its foundations."

There is a lot of discussion about foundations (e.g. the mountains shall be moved from their foundations).
It certainly appears that David and Solomon thought the earth had a foundation as if it were a flat earth on pillars.

So. to say that this is divine revelation that the earth is the center of the solar system and does not rotate,
is a huge stretch of the imagination.

An even bigger stretch of the imagination is to try to make Scripture's words fit the globe. It is never really done because the globe just doesn't fit the descriptions. The list below provides some of Scripture's descriptions of earth. Fascinating that the globe is always promoted by the pagan globalists, yet those of us who are Catholic have no problem accepting their paradigm while refusing to study Scripture long enough and well enough to get the real picture. Most would rather just trust modern global science and controlling governments because they never lie to us that much. People have the gall to suggest that Scripture describes a sphere with corners, pillars, a face, a dome, ends, bounds, that when God says circle, He meant ball, that when Scripture describes seeing to the ends of the earth, such ends are found on a sphere.

:sleep:

Scriptures concerning the nature of the heavens/sky above and their relationship to the earth:

Job 9:8 Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.
Job 22:14 (HCSB) Clouds veil Him so that He cannot see, as He walks on the circle of the sky.
Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?
Genesis 1:
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Psalm 104:
1 Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
3 Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:
Proverbs 8:27 (ESV) When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep.
Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Isaiah 44:24 Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
Isaiah 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
Isaiah 48:13 Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.
Isaiah 66:1 Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?
Ezekiel 1:26 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.
Amos 9:6 (NASB) The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth,
He who calls for the waters of the sea And pours them out on the face of the earth, The Lord is His name.
Ezekiel 1:26 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.

Amos 9:6 It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name.
Amos 9:6 (ASV) it is he that buildeth his chambers in the heavens, and hath founded his vault upon the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth; Jehovah is his name.
Amos 9:6 (ESV) it is he that buildeth his chambers in the heaven, and hath founded his vault upon the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea and poureth them out upon the face of the earth; the LORD is his name.
Amos 9:6 (Darby) It is he that buildeth his upper chambers in the heavens, and hath founded his vault upon the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: Jehovah is his name.
Amos 9:6 (NASB) The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth,
He who calls for the waters of the sea And pours them out on the face of the earth, The Lord is His name.

Job 26:10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.

Job 28:24 For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven;

Job 37:3 He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends of the earth.

Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

1 Samuel 2:8 He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them.

2 Samuel 22:16 And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the Lord, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.
1 Chronicles 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
Psalm 18:15 Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.
Psalm 75:3 The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah.
Psalm 93:1 The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

Isaiah 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Isaiah 43:6 I'll say to the north, 'Give them up'! and to the south, 'Don't keep them back!' Bring my sons from far away and my daughters from the ends of the earth—
Daniel 4:
10 Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
Revelation 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
Revelation 20:8 He will go out to deceive Gog and Magog, the nations at the four corners of the earth, and gather them for war. They are as numerous as the sands of the seashore.

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” --St. Thomas Aquinas

.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on April 26, 2018, 11:49:36 PM

Well, you can quote Scripture all you want, but that does not change the fact that
Geocentrism has never been defined as a doctrine of the Faith, ex-Cathedra,
on the basis of faith and morals in an infallible way.

You seem to be missing that point. You can believe either way: Geocentrism or
Heliocentrism, but you cannot say that Heliocentrism is heresy (and be correct).
If all modern pagan men believe in Heliocentrism, that does not make it a heresy.

I'm not choosing between modern scientists and the Bible. I'm accepting the Bible
as the word of God and allowing the Church to define how it should be interpreted.

I'm not accepting modern science with blind faith. I have studied astronomy, math
and physics, and have formed my own opinion about the solar system. After
studying all things, I have chosen Heliocentrism, which makes a heck of a lot more
sense than Geocentrism. In fact, Geocentrism seems like a joke now. Nobody
can explain it simply, like one can do with Heliocentrism.

BTW, I was told that St. Thomas Aquinas was opposed to the idea that Mary was
conceived without original sin until after it was declared a doctrine of the Faith. So
I don't think he was as perfect as you think.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on April 27, 2018, 12:25:09 AM

Quote from: happenby on April 26, 2018, 10:32:46 PM

An even bigger stretch of the imagination is to try to make Scripture's words fit the globe. .

I don't try to make Scripture's words fit the globe concept. I view Scripture as words spoken by prophets
of ancient times speaking in a way that ancient people could relate to. And, I don't view the Bible as a
science textbook, per se. If it were a science textbook, it would have talked about gravity, velocity, mass
and acceleration as pertaining to the Sun and Earth.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on April 27, 2018, 12:34:16 AM

(http://www.apocalypseangel.com/Maryrays.jpeg)

Suddenly Our Lady appeared to Catherine.
At first Mary appeared standing on a globe and dressed in white having with a long white veil which fell to her feet.
The Virgin held in her hands, at the height of her shoulders, a golden ball which she seemed to be offering to
God as she raised her eyes to heaven. Her fingers were covered with rings whose precious jewels sparkled brilliantly
and showered down innumerable rays of light on the globe beneath her feet, almost obscuring the view of her feet.

Mary lowered her eyes and looked directly at Catherine. Mary said nothing, but Catherine heard this message, "The ball
which you see represents the world, especially France, and each person in particular. These rays symbolize the graces
I shed upon those who ask for them. The jewels which give no rays symbolize the graces that are not given because they
are not asked for.

Then the apparition changed.
Our Lady appeared with a white dress, a blue mantle, and a white veil which draped back over her shoulders. She was still
standing on the globe, and had one foot on the head of a serpent which lay at her feet. (http://www.apocalypseangel.com/babylon.html) The 1830 was marked on the globe.
The Virgin had her arms and hands pointed downwards, and a cascade of rays was falling down from both hands onto the globe.
(http://www.apocalypseangel.com/promise.html)
Quoted From:
St. Catherine Labouré and the Miraculous Medal (http://www.marys-touch.com/Saints/medal/medal.htm)

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Jaynek on April 27, 2018, 06:24:47 AM

Quote from: happenby on April 26, 2018, 10:32:46 PM

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” --St. Thomas Aquinas

It is rather ironic to see happenby quoting St. Thomas Aquinas. Not only did he believe that the earth is a sphere, he was willing to accept the Church's interpretation of Scripture over his own opinion. If only happenby followed his example instead of merely quoting his words.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Jaynek on April 27, 2018, 06:29:14 AM

Quote from: apollo on April 26, 2018, 11:49:36 PM

In fact, Geocentrism seems like a joke now. Nobody can explain it simply, like one can do with Heliocentrism.

I think that geocentrism ought to be treated with respect, even if one does not believe it. It was the traditional view of Catholics for a very long time. Our ancestors were not fools and had good reasons for holding that view. (The same holds true for spherical earth, also the view of Catholics for most of our history.)

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: aryzia on April 27, 2018, 08:54:41 AM

Quote from: apollo on April 26, 2018, 11:49:36 PM

Well, you can quote Scripture all you want, but that does not change the fact that
Geocentrism has never been defined as a doctrine of the Faith, ex-Cathedra,
on the basis of faith and morals in an infallible way.

You seem to be missing that point. You can believe either way: Geocentrism or
Heliocentrism, but you cannot say that Heliocentrism is heresy (and be correct).
If all modern pagan men believe in Heliocentrism, that does not make it a heresy.

I'm not choosing between modern scientists and the Bible. I'm accepting the Bible
as the word of God and allowing the Church to define how it should be interpreted.

I'm not accepting modern science with blind faith. I have studied astronomy, math
and physics, and have formed my own opinion about the solar system. After
studying all things, I have chosen Heliocentrism, which makes a heck of a lot more
sense than Geocentrism. In fact, Geocentrism seems like a joke now. Nobody
can explain it simply, like one can do with Heliocentrism.

BTW, I was told that St. Thomas Aquinas was opposed to the idea that Mary was
conceived without original sin until after it was declared a doctrine of the Faith. So
I don't think he was as perfect as you think.

So what? Scripture declares in its descriptions earth is not a ball. Get a clue.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: aryzia on April 27, 2018, 08:55:37 AM

Quote from: Jaynek on April 27, 2018, 06:29:14 AM

I think that geocentrism ought to be treated with respect, even if one does not believe it. It was the traditional view of Catholics for a very long time. Our ancestors were not fools and had good reasons for holding that view. (The same holds true for spherical earth, also the view of Catholics for most of our history.)

Well, at least that's a nice change in the right direction.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: aryzia on April 27, 2018, 08:57:00 AM

Quote from: Jaynek on April 27, 2018, 06:24:47 AM

It is rather ironic to see happenby quoting St. Thomas Aquinas. Not only did he believe that the earth is a sphere, he was willing to accept the Church's interpretation of Scripture over his own opinion. If only happenby followed his example instead of merely quoting his words.

Aquinas really never says he believes earth is a ball.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: aryzia on April 27, 2018, 09:00:45 AM

Quote from: apollo on April 27, 2018, 12:34:16 AM

(http://www.apocalypseangel.com/Maryrays.jpeg)

Suddenly Our Lady appeared to Catherine.
At first Mary appeared standing on a globe and dressed in white having with a long white veil which fell to her feet.
The Virgin held in her hands, at the height of her shoulders, a golden ball which she seemed to be offering to
God as she raised her eyes to heaven. Her fingers were covered with rings whose precious jewels sparkled brilliantly
and showered down innumerable rays of light on the globe beneath her feet, almost obscuring the view of her feet.

Mary lowered her eyes and looked directly at Catherine. Mary said nothing, but Catherine heard this message, "The ball
which you see represents the world, especially France, and each person in particular. These rays symbolize the graces
I shed upon those who ask for them. The jewels which give no rays symbolize the graces that are not given because they
are not asked for.

Then the apparition changed.
Our Lady appeared with a white dress, a blue mantle, and a white veil which draped back over her shoulders. She was still
standing on the globe, and had one foot on the head of a serpent which lay at her feet. (http://www.apocalypseangel.com/babylon.html) The 1830 was marked on the globe.
The Virgin had her arms and hands pointed downwards, and a cascade of rays was falling down from both hands onto the globe.
(http://www.apocalypseangel.com/promise.html)
Quoted From:
St. Catherine Labouré and the Miraculous Medal (http://www.marys-touch.com/Saints/medal/medal.htm)

Lol. Like others have said many times, the translation may have been influenced by a ball earther but any one with a brain can see that It Lady stands on the firmament dome and not a ball.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: aryzia on April 27, 2018, 09:02:33 AM

Quote from: apollo on April 27, 2018, 12:25:09 AM

I don't try to make Scripture's words fit the globe concept. I view Scripture as words spoken by prophets
of ancient times speaking in a way that ancient people could relate to. And, I don't view the Bible as a
science textbook, per se. If it were a science textbook, it would have talked about gravity, velocity, mass
and acceleration as pertaining to the Sun and Earth.

The bible is clear and cannot be interpreted in other than the obvious. But the bible is not the only Catholic source that teaches earth is not a globe.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 09:08:55 AM

Quote from: aryzia on April 27, 2018, 08:54:41 AM

So what? Scripture declares in its descriptions earth is not a ball. Get a clue.

Glad to see you know more about the Bible than the last thousand years of Popes and clergymen.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Jaynek on April 27, 2018, 10:17:24 AM

Quote from: aryzia on April 27, 2018, 08:57:00 AM

Aquinas really never says he believes earth is a ball.

There is no ambiguity in the original Latin due to his use of the indicative mood of the verb. He believes the earth is a ball.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Meg on April 27, 2018, 10:21:16 AM

Quote from: aryzia on April 27, 2018, 09:02:33 AM

The bible is clear and cannot be interpreted in other than the obvious. But the bible is not the only Catholic source that teaches earth is not a globe.

You're right. The Bible does describe a flat earth, even though it does not use the terms "flat earth." The globers on this thread are never going to allow you to believe that though. They're too far gone.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 10:29:51 AM

Quote from: Meg on April 27, 2018, 10:21:16 AM

You're right. The Bible does describe a flat earth, even though it does not use the terms "flat earth." The globers on this thread are never going to allow you to believe that though. They're too far gone.

It's sad that just about every Pope the last thousand years was too far gone then.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: aryzia on April 27, 2018, 10:40:15 AM

Quote from: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 09:08:55 AM

Glad to see you know more about the Bible than the last thousand years of Popes and clergymen.

100% of the Fathers of the Church who taught about the shape of the earth taught flat geocentric earth.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: aryzia on April 27, 2018, 10:40:40 AM

Quote from: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 10:29:51 AM

It's sad that just about every Pope the last thousand years was too far gone then.

Ask Francis

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: aryzia on April 27, 2018, 10:42:18 AM

Quote from: Jaynek on April 27, 2018, 10:17:24 AM

There is no ambiguity in the original Latin due to his use of the indicative mood of the verb. He believes the earth is a ball.

He uses it as an example but never says what he believes. Also, that is a passage I have yet to examine in the original Latin.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Meg on April 27, 2018, 10:43:07 AM

Quote from: aryzia on April 27, 2018, 10:40:15 AM

100% of the Fathers of the Church who taught about the shape of the earth taught flat geocentric earth.

And it can be added that no Pope has taught that the earth is a globe.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on April 27, 2018, 11:02:50 AM

Quote from: apollo on April 27, 2018, 12:25:09 AM

I don't try to make Scripture's words fit the globe concept. I view Scripture as words spoken by prophets
of ancient times speaking in a way that ancient people could relate to. And, I don't view the Bible as a
science textbook, per se. If it were a science textbook, it would have talked about gravity, velocity, mass
and acceleration as pertaining to the Sun and Earth.

The notion that the Bible is for ancient peoples, or is too ambiguous to understand is against Church teaching. It doesn't have to be a science book in order for us to glean what it says about the earth. Besides, as has been said and proven multiple times: all the Church Fathers who taught anything about the shape of the earth say its not spherical, but they teach that earth: sits like a disk in the waters, that it is shaped like a Church, or two story house, with the upper story being heaven, and below that is earth and below earth is hell. More reasons to "look up", the place to where we hope to "rise", and that heaven rests above the impassable (for those in the body) dome. I could go on, but I'll let it go there. Its all been said before and although much of this bears repeating, casting pearls is discouraged.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 11:06:08 AM

Quote from: Meg on April 27, 2018, 10:43:07 AM

And it can be added that no Pope has taught that the earth is a globe.

Except by approving of every single Catholic university on the continent teaching it to their students. And we have historical evidence that Pope Sylvester II taught it, the man having used armiliary spheres (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Sandro_Botticelli_052.jpg/800px-Sandro_Botticelli_052.jpg) and charting the course of the planets.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: klasG4e on April 27, 2018, 11:09:43 AM

http://flatearthdeception.com/

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Meg on April 27, 2018, 11:12:53 AM

Quote from: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 11:06:08 AM

Except by approving of every single Catholic university on the continent teaching it to their students. And we have historical evidence that Pope Sylvester II taught it, the man having used armiliary spheres (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Sandro_Botticelli_052.jpg/800px-Sandro_Botticelli_052.jpg) and charting the course of the planets.

No pope has taught that the earth is a globe.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 11:34:33 AM

Quote from: aryzia on April 27, 2018, 10:40:15 AM

100% of the Fathers of the Church who taught about the shape of the earth taught flat geocentric earth.

Yet more pernicious lies of the flat earthers.
Anatolius of Alexandria: Eudemus relates in his Astrologies that Enopides found out the circle of the zodiac and the cycle “of the great year. And Thales discovered the eclipse of the sun and its period in the tropics in its constant inequality. And Anaximander discovered that the earth is poised in space, and moves round the axis of the universe. And Anaximenes discovered that the moon has her light from the sun, and found out also the way in which she suffers eclipse. And the rest of the mathematicians have also made additions to these discoveries. We may instance the facts–that the fixed stars move round the axis passing through the poles, while the planets remove from each other round the perpendicular axis of the zodiac; and that the axis of the fixed stars and the planets is the side of a pente-decagon with four-and-twenty parts. (XVII)

Augustine: Let not the philosophers, then, think to upset our faith with arguments from the weight of bodies; for I don’t care to inquire why they cannot believe an earthly body can be in heaven, while the whole earth is suspended on nothing. For perhaps the world keeps its central place by the same law that attracts to its center all heavy bodies. (City of God, Bk XIII, Ch 18 )

Gregory of Nyssa: “…on whatever side the sun’s rays may fall on some particular point of the globe, if we follow a straight diameter, we shall find shadow upon the opposite point, and so, continuously, at the opposite end of the direct line of the rays shadow moves round that globe, keeping pace with the sun, so that equally in their turn both the upper half and the under half of the earth are in light and darkness…” (On the Soul and Resurrection)
Irenaeus: The sun also, who runs through his orbit in twelve months, and then returns to the same point in the circle (Against Heresies, Bk I, Ch XVII, 1)

Eusebius: “The sun and the moon have their settled course. The stars move in no uncertain orbits round this terrestrial globe. The revolution of the seasons recurs according to unerring laws. The solid fabric of the earth was established by the word: the winds receive their impulse at appointed times; and the course of the waters continues with ceaseless flow, the ocean is circuмscribed by an immovable barrier, and whatever is comprehended within the compass of earth and sea, is all contrived for wondrous and important ends.”

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 11:35:46 AM

Quote from: Meg on April 27, 2018, 11:12:53 AM

No pope has taught that the earth is a globe.

No Pope has taught that the earth is flat. And the flat earth model also defies scripture by your logic. As the Bible refers to corners of the earth, whereas the only flat earth model that allows circuмnavigation is the flat-circle one, and circles don't have corners.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Meg on April 27, 2018, 11:38:25 AM

Quote from: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 11:35:46 AM

No Pope has taught that the earth is flat. And the flat earth model also defies scripture by your logic. As the Bible refers to corners of the earth, whereas the only flat earth model that allows circuмnavigation is the flat-circle one, and circles don't have corners.

I've never made the claim that any pope has taught that the earth is flat. Duh.

And it still stands that you cannot say that any popes have taught that the earth is a globe either.

The methodology of the way sedes think is to distract away from what is being currently discussed.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on April 27, 2018, 11:42:37 AM

Quote from: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 11:06:08 AM

Except by approving of every single Catholic university on the continent teaching it to their students. And we have historical evidence that Pope Sylvester II taught it, the man having used armiliary spheres (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Sandro_Botticelli_052.jpg/800px-Sandro_Botticelli_052.jpg) and charting the course of the planets.

Well, this is one reason why spherical earth has gained ground. People assume the earth is a globe. Pope Sylvester II (Gerbert) was a flat earther evidenced in his description of this "hollow sphere", which represents the universe, not the earth. From Wiki: (in blue)

"Richer also revealed how Gerbert made the planets more easily observable in his armillary sphere:"
"Furthermore, Gerbert instructed Constantine that the north pole could be measured with the upper and lower sighting tubes, the Arctic Circle through another tube, the Tropic of Cancer through another tube, the equator through another tube, and the Tropic of Capricorn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropic_of_Capricorn) through another tube.[29]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Sylvester_II#cite_note-darlington_470-31)
^{This proves beyond a doubt that such measurements are made with the line of sight. This is impossible if earth were a globe.}
Now, while an armillary sphere can be turned about is if to represent earth as a globe and is represented as such, it can also make the sun stationary when its mechanics are changed. However, by design of the armillary sphere, its quite clear the sun is not at the center of the universe.

An armillary sphere (variations are known as spherical astrolabe, armilla, or armil) is a model of objects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_object) in the sky (on the celestial sphere (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_sphere)).

This instrument was designed to show why some stars cannot be seen on certain planes from certain positions, not to explain that earth is a globe.

More from Wiki:
The Chinese are quite famous for being flat earthers from ancient times and they used the armillary sphere long before Pope Sylvester II.
Throughout Chinese (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China) history, astronomers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomer) have created celestial globes (Chinese (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Chinese_characters): 浑象) to assist the observation of the stars. The Chinese also used the armillary sphere in aiding calendrical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar) computations and calculations.
According to Needham, the earliest development of the armillary sphere in China goes back to the astronomers Shi Shen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi_Shen) and Gan De (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gan_De) in the 4th century BC, as they were equipped with a primitive single-ring armillary instrument.^{[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armillary_sphere#cite_note-needham_volume_3_343-3)} This would have allowed them to measure the north polar distance (declination) a measurement that gave the position in a xiu (right ascension).^{[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armillary_sphere#cite_note-needham_volume_3_343-3)} Needham's 4th century dating, however, is rejected by British sinologist Christopher Cullen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Cullen), who traces the beginnings of these devices to the 1st century BC.^{[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armillary_sphere#cite_note-4)}

^{100% of ancient Catholic authorities who taught anything about the shape of the earth taught earth is flat.}

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 11:44:37 AM

Quote from: Meg on April 27, 2018, 11:38:25 AM

I've never made the claim that any pope has taught that the earth is flat. Duh.

And it still stands that you cannot say that any popes have taught that the earth is a globe either.

The methodology of the way sedes think is to distract away from what is being currently discussed.

You were the first one to go off on that tangent, bub. And you've proven exactly nothing. I've given examples of Popes that believed in a glob earth, I've verified that all Catholic universities and educated Catholics in the middle ages believed in the globe earth, and I've also shown you how St. Bellarmine's condemnation of Galileo NEVER mentioned Galileo's belief in a globe earth, AND I've shown you that Bellarmine believed in the Ptolemaic globe earth model as shown by his mentions of epicycles which only existed in that model.
Indeed no Pope ever issued a docuмent stating "one must believe in a globe earth" but they never did that for a flat earth either, so the point is entirely moot.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: klasG4e on April 27, 2018, 11:49:53 AM

Quote from: happenby on April 26, 2018, 10:32:46 PM

An even bigger stretch of the imagination is to try to make Scripture's words fit the globe. It is never really done because the globe just doesn't fit the descriptions. The list below provides some of Scripture's descriptions of earth. Fascinating that the globe is always promoted by the pagan globalists, yet those of us who are Catholic have no problem accepting their paradigm while refusing to study Scripture long enough and well enough to get the real picture. Most would rather just trust modern global science and controlling governments because they never lie to us that much. People have the gall to suggest that Scripture describes a sphere with corners, pillars, a face, a dome, ends, bounds, that when God says circle, He meant ball, that when Scripture describes seeing to the ends of the earth, such ends are found on a sphere.

Scriptures concerning the nature of the heavens/sky above and their relationship to the earth:

Job 9:8 Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.
Job 22:14 (HCSB) Clouds veil Him so that He cannot see, as He walks on the circle of the sky.
Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?
Genesis 1:
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Psalm 104:
1 Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
3 Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:
Proverbs 8:27 (ESV) When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep.
Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Isaiah 44:24 Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
Isaiah 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
Isaiah 48:13 Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.
Isaiah 66:1 Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?
Ezekiel 1:26 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.
Amos 9:6 (NASB) The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth,
He who calls for the waters of the sea And pours them out on the face of the earth, The Lord is His name.
Ezekiel 1:26 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.
Amos 9:6 It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name.
Amos 9:6 (ASV) it is he that buildeth his chambers in the heavens, and hath founded his vault upon the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth; Jehovah is his name.
Amos 9:6 (ESV) it is he that buildeth his chambers in the heaven, and hath founded his vault upon the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea and poureth them out upon the face of the earth; the LORD is his name.
Amos 9:6 (Darby) It is he that buildeth his upper chambers in the heavens, and hath founded his vault upon the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: Jehovah is his name.
Amos 9:6 (NASB) The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth,
He who calls for the waters of the sea And pours them out on the face of the earth, The Lord is His name.

Job 26:10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.

Job 28:24 For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven;

Job 37:3 He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends of the earth.

Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

1 Samuel 2:8 He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them.

2 Samuel 22:16 And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the Lord, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.
1 Chronicles 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
Psalm 18:15 Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.
Psalm 75:3 The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah.
Psalm 93:1 The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

Isaiah 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Isaiah 43:6 I'll say to the north, 'Give them up'! and to the south, 'Don't keep them back!' Bring my sons from far away and my daughters from the ends of the earth—
Daniel 4:
10 Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
Revelation 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
Revelation 20:8 He will go out to deceive Gog and Magog, the nations at the four corners of the earth, and gather them for war. They are as numerous as the sands of the seashore.

.

Note: Flat earthers cite that the enemy is covering up the flat earth theory, to hide the Creator.

Quote

But the domed-earth could have been created by some deity or aliens, and left as a terrarium of sorts, to allow life to grow and evolve over billions of years. So the flat earth theory really doesn’t prove that the creator is the God of the Bible.

Flat-earthers cite Isaiah 40:22 to say that the world circle (chuwg) points to a circular flat earth, not a ball.

Quote

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

The ‘he’ is our Creator. He is not sitting upon a circular flat earth. He is sitting in the heavens, where the circle of the ecliptic displays the narrative of redemption through the constellations.

Quote

The word for ‘tent‘ can be rendered as ‘tabernacle‘; so it’s saying that our Creator is sitting in the tabernacle of the stars which He created.

Let’s back up to get the context of the verse. Elohim is declaring the glory of His creation.

Quote

And to whom would you liken Ěl? And what likeness would you compare to Him? The workman moulds a graven image, and the goldsmith overspreads it with gold, and the silversmith casts silver chains. Isaiah 40:18-19

He is declaring that the works of man are nothing as compared to His creativity and power. Then He points out His Mazzoroth, the twelve signs in the circle of the Mazzoroth, which have proclaimed His plan of redemption from the beginning.

Quote

Did you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? Isaiah 40:21

Quote

Do you bring out the constellations (Mazzoroth) in its season? Or do you lead the Bear with its sons. Job 38:32

The CIRCLE in Isaiah 40:22 is the Mazzoroth in the sky above, that has 12 constellations in a circle on the ecliptic, which declare the Gospel. It is like a curtain which covers the earth, and in which the stars dwell. It’s a tabernacle (tent) in which the Father dwells.

(https://i2.wp.com/flatearthdeception.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/earth-ecliptic.gif?resize=600%2C600)

We see that Elohim tells them to look up to the circle of the stars of the Mazzoroth.

Quote

Lift up your eyes on high and see. Who has created these? He who is bringing out their host by number, He calls them all by name, by the greatness of His might and the strength of His power – not one is missing. Isaiah 40:26

Quote

“He appoints the number of the stars, He gives names to all of them.” Psalm 147:4

So one can clearly see that when Elohim referred to the circle of the Earth, He is referring to the circle of the Mazzoroth which acts as a constant witness to those on earth, about His great power, and about His redemption plan.

Quote

The same Hebrew word, chuwg, is used in Job 22:14 to describe the circuit of heaven. “Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit (chuwg) of heaven.”

Here’s a Jєωιѕн Mosaic which shows the Sun of Righteousness holding a globe earth; and it is surrounded by the 12 constellations of the Mazzoroth, the circle of stars which Isaiah was told to look up to.

Quote

Satan caused the pagans to pervert the story of the constellations and the sun god, but Messiah is the Sun of Righteousness (Malachi 4:2); and the 12 constellations proclaim the story of our redemption by Messiah. Read The Gospel In The Stars (http://narrowistheway.org/the-gospel-in-the-stars/).

(https://i2.wp.com/flatearthdeception.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Jєωιѕн-temple-zodaic.jpg?resize=641%2C960)

Job 38:4 is talking about the creation of the earth, not the physical foundation.
“Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.”
The Hebrew word yacad is a primitive root; to set (literally or figuratively); intensively, to found; reflexively, to sit down together, i.e. settle, consult:—appoint, take counsel, establish, (lay the, lay for a) found(-ation), instruct, lay, ordain, set, X sure.

Quote

So the word foundation isn’t necessarily pointing to the physical property, but the time of creation.

Proverbs 3:19 reinforces the point:

Quote

“The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens.”

Job 38:18 simply points to the width of the earth. The Hebrew word is rachab, which means: a width:—breadth, broad place. Both the flat earth and globe earth have a width.

Quote

Have you understood the breadth of the earth? Declare, if you know it all.

Job 26:10 is declaring that the land will hold the water back, not an ice wall.
I love the irony of this meme. They are declaring Job 26:10 to proclaim that the waters are compassed by the supposed ice ring that surrounds the flat earth, but the picture conveys the true intent of Scripture, that land would hold the waters back.

(https://i1.wp.com/flatearthdeception.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/job-bounds-flat-earth.jpg?resize=595%2C328)

Revelation 20:9 is talking about mountain or plateau, not a flat earth.

“And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.”
The Greek word for earth is ge, is not referring to the whole earth, but to the land of Jerusalem.

Quote

ge = which means: by extension a region, or the solid part or the whole of the terrene globe (including the occupants in each application):—country, earth(-ly), ground, land, world.

Just as the city of Jerusalem is set up on a hill, the New Jerusalem will also be set up high.

Quote

The armies of the enemies will go up to Jerusalem, to seek to attack it.

Flat earthers proclaim that Matthew 4:8 proves the flat earth.

Matthew 4:8 “Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;”
Simple logic tells us that even on a flat earth, there is no mountain in the world from which you can view all the kingdoms of the world.

Quote

So it’s either figurative language; or Satan, the prince of the air, was able to somehow show the grand places of the earth.

The word ‘pillars‘ in 1 Samuel 2:8 is referring to leaders of the earth, not physical pillars that support the flat earth.
1 Samuel 2:8 “He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD’S, and he hath set the world upon them.”
First, let’s apply logic. When constructing a large structure, a foundation is created and then the pillars are mounted on top of the foundation.

Quote

Does it make any sense to place pillars under the flat earth, since the pillars would not be mounted on top of a foundation, but rather would sit in open space?

The first part of 1 Samuel 2:8 tells you that the latter part is not talking about the creation/design of the earth.

Quote

Rather it is talking about the leaders of the earth, the pillars, who Elohim controls to uphold civil order in the world.

The previous verse is talking about raising people up in status, and bringing them down.

Quote

“The LORD maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up.” 1 Samuel 2:7

The next few verses are talking about the saints being preserve from the wicked, and the adversaries of the lord being broken to pieces.
Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible

Quote

The princes or governors of the earth, which are called the corners, or corner-stones, of a land or people, Jg 20:2; 1Sa 14:38; Zep 3:6, and are fitly called pillars, because they uphold the world, and keep it from sinking into confusion. See Ps 74:2; Jer 1:18; Re 3:12. And these are here said to be the Lord’s, by creation and constitution, because he advanceth them to their state, and preserves them in it, Pr 8:15-16, and puts the world, or the kingdoms of the world, upon them, as burdens upon their shoulders: see Isa 9:6.

John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Quote

Figuratively, the pillars of the earth may design the princes of the world, the supreme rulers of it, and civil magistrates, who are sometimes called cornerstones, and the shields of the earth, Zec 10:4, and so pillars, because they are the means of cementing, supporting, and protecting the people of the earth, and of preserving their peace and property. Likewise good men may be meant in a figurative sense, who, as they are the salt of the earth, are the pillars of it, for whose sake it was made, and is supported, and continued in being; the church is the pillar and ground of truth; and every good man is a pillar in the house of God, and especially ministers of the Gospel; see Re 3:12.

Revelation 3:12 is saying that the overcomers will be made leaders, pillars, in heaven.

Quote

“Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.”

So we can clearly see that 1 Samuel 2:8 is not talking about the physical design of the earth, but to the leaders of the earth, whom Elohim controls.
Flat earther proclaim that Genesis 1 points to the flat earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Face in Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary has many applications, so we can’t just say that it applies to a flat earth.
6440. פָּנִים paniym
Search for H6440 in KJVSL
פָּנִים paniym paw-neem’
plural (but always as singular) of an unused noun (paneh {paw-neh’}; from 6437); the face (as the part that turns); used in a great variety of applications (literally and figuratively); also (with prepositional prefix) as a preposition (before, etc.):—+ accept, a-(be- )fore(-time), against, anger, X as (long as), at, + battle, + because (of), + beseech, countenance, edge, + employ, endure, + enquire, face, favour, fear of, for, forefront(-part), form(-er time, -ward), from, front, heaviness, X him(-self), + honourable, + impudent, + in, it, look(-eth) (- s), X me, + meet, X more than, mouth, of, off, (of) old (time), X on, open, + out of, over against, the partial, person, + please, presence, propect, was purposed, by reason of, + regard, right forth, + serve, X shewbread, sight, state, straight, + street, X thee, X them(-selves), through (+ – out), till, time(-s) past, (un-)to(-ward), + upon, upside (+ down), with(- in, + -stand), X ye, X you.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Light in Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary 3974. מָאוֹר ma’owr or maor {maw-ore’}; also (in plural) feminine mpowrah {meh-o-raw’}; or morah {meh-o-raw’}; from 215; properly, a luminous body or luminary, i.e. (abstractly) light (as an element): figuratively, brightness, i.e.cheerfulness; specifically, a chandelier:—bright, light.
The moon fits that description as a luminous body, so this verse does not prove that the moon provides its own light.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Firmament – flat earthers say that this is the dome, but the Scripture is declaring that the sun and moon were set in the firmament. The firmament is the expanse of the heavens, not the dome.
The word ‘firmament’ simply means ‘expanse’.

Quote

The Hebrew word for firmament is raqiya` from 7554; properly, an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:—firmament.

Quote

They point to the root word raqa, but it is simply describing something that is spread out, an expanse.

The Scriptures (ISR98) is a better translation than the King James, and it uses the word ‘expanse’ instead of ‘firmament’.

Quote

And Elohim said, “Let an expanse come to be in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” And Elohim made the expanse, and separated the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse. And it came to be so. And Elohim called the expanse ‘heavens.’ And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, the second day.

Once again the ISR98 renders the proper word, expanse, in Genesis 1:14-18.

Quote

Let lights come to be in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and appointed times, and for days and years, and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth. And it came to be so. And Elohim made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, and the stars. And Elohim set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And Elohim saw that it was good.

Job 37:18 is simply declaring the glory of a clear sky, which allows you to see the many stars, which reflects the glory of Elohim’s creation.

Quote

Did you, with Him, spread out the clouds, strong as a hard mirror? ISR 98

Psalm 19:1-6 is talking about the 12 constellations of the Mazzaroth which encircle the earth on the ecliptic, and in which the Sun travels to tell the redemption story.

Quote

“Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.“

Psalm 148:4 simply points to how the water cycle of the earth causes great stores of water to collect in the clouds, vapors, air, leading to rain, snow and hail.

Quote

Praise Him, heavens of heavens, And you waters above the heavens!

Isaiah 40
They say that there is a glass dome above the Earth
They base that on Job 37:18, Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?

Quote

Logic would say that a glass dome would reflect the sunlight and cause glares all over the earth.
It’s proclaiming that the sky is spread out and clear.

They didn’t have molten glass back then, so it is pointing to a mirror; which back then would have been made of polished brass.

Quote

The ISR98 Bible renders it, Did you, with Him, spread out the clouds, strong as a hard mirror?

They point to Daniel 4:10 to proclaim there is a center of their flat earth.
Daniel 4:10 “Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.”
This is just another example of them taking a verse completely out of context to try to prove their agenda. This passage is not talking about the design of the earth or the place that is the center.

Quote

The ‘tree in the midst of the earth‘ that Daniel was describing was king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, who reigned over the kingdoms of the earth.

Quote

He was humbled more than any man, and made to eat grass as the cattle of the field, which at the end of his punishment, caused him to praise his Creator.

How flat-earthers don’t bother to read the rest of the chapter, I cannot understand. Verses 20-22 tell you who the tree represents.

Quote

The tree that thou sawest, which grew, and was strong, whose height reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to all the earth; whose leaves were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was food for all; under which the beasts of the field dwelt, and upon whose branches the birds of the heavens had their habitation: it is thou, O king, that art grown and become strong; for thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth.

Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible: A tree: those that write of the language of the East tell us that a tree denote some excellent man. Thus the prophet Ezekiel, Ezekiel 31 throughout, describes the king of Assyria, and Pharaoh king of Egypt, in their flourish, height, and great fall, comparing them to huge cedars.
And besides that, everyone on the flat earth can’t see the sun, which is supposedly 3,000 miles high, so how would they all see a giant tree?
Flat Earthers say that Scripture declares that the moon creates its own light.
“For the stars of the heavens and their constellations do not give off their light. The sun shall be dark at its rising, and the moon not send out its light.” ~ Isaiah 13:10

Quote

Though stars make their own light, this verse shows the direct relationship between the moon not giving light after the sun is darkened. This cause and effect is seen in other verses, which state that the sun is darkened and thus the moon is darkened too.

The verse is not pointing to the physical sun, moon and stars; rather it is pointing to the overthrow of the Babylonian kingdom. The ‘sun, moon and stars’ are symbolic of earthly dignitaries, great political authorities and great lights in the political or religious heavens.

Quote

We know this because in Genesis 37:8-10, Joseph had a dream, ..”And this time, the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars bowed down to me. So he told it to his father and his brothers; and his father rebuked him and said to him, “What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall your mother and I and your brothers indeed come to bow down to the earth before you?” It was symbolic of the power structure.

Isaiah 13:10 is referring to the Babylonian leaders being removed from power by the Medo-Persians; not to the literal heavenly bodies.

Quote

“For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.“

Quote

Isaiah 13:17 confirms this with, “Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them,”

Isaiah 30:26 again is not referring to the literal heavenly bodies:

Quote

“And the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that יהוה binds up the breach of His people, and heals the wound of His blows.”

By moon, sun, light, are to be understood the abundance of spiritual and temporal felicity with which Elohim should bless them in the days of the Messiah, which should be sevenfold, i.e. vastly exceed all that they had ever before possessed.
Messiah is the Sun, His followers are the Moon, who reflect His light.
And once again Matthew 24:29 is pointing to the political leadership of the Jews.

Quote

“And immediately after the distress of those days the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give its light, and the stars shall fall from the heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.”

This is about the High Priest (sun) and the Sanhedrin (moon) and other priests (stars) being cast down from power by the Romans in 70 A.D. Read The Sun, Moon And Stars (http://theolivetdiscourse.com/the-sun-moon-and-stars-of-matthew-24-29/)
Revelation 6:13-14 symbolizes the decline of the mighty Roman Empire, when there was great political upheaval. Read Revelation 6 – 6th Seal Earthquake (http://revelationtimelinedecoded.com/the-sixth-seal-of-revelation-6/)

Quote

And the stars of the heaven fell to the earth, as a fig tree drops its unripe figs, being shaken by a strong wind. And heaven departed like a scroll being rolled up, and every mountain and island was moved out of its place.

They cite Revelation 1:7 to say that only on a flat earth could everyone see Messiah return.

Quote

See, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye shall see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth shall mourn because of Him. Yes, Amĕn.

But that doesn’t prove the flat earth, because there is no place on the flat earth where Messiah could return, that every person in every country could see. Can you see the sky over Jerusalem from where you live? No!
They cite Revelation 9:1 to say that only a flat earth can have a bottomless pit.

Quote

And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.

Revelation 9:1 is pointing to the rise of Islam from the bottomless pit of Satan’s deceptions, which has deceived many people. It’s not describing a real pit of the earth.
The earth is immovable, which may point to the geocentric position of the earth, but it does not prove that the earth is flat.
1 Chronicles 16:30 is simply saying that the kingdom of Elohim will never be moved.

Quote

Tremble before Him, all the earth. The world also is firmly established, immovable.

Psalm 93:1 is echoing the statement of 1 Chronicles 16:30. They simply are not passages that are talking about the design of the earth, but rather about the mighty power of Elohim.

Quote

יהוה shall reign, He shall put on excellency; יהוה shall put on strength; He shall gird Himself. Indeed, the world is established, immovable.

Psalm 93:2 says, Your throne is established from of old; You are from everlasting.
Flat earthers wrongly proclaim that Psalm 96:10 declares a fixed earth position.
Flat earthers post memes like this that say that the Bible proclaims a flat earth, but what they are doing is taking Scripture out of context to make it seem like it is proclaiming a flat earth.

(https://i2.wp.com/flatearthdeception.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/fe-psalm-96-10.jpg?resize=390%2C395)

Read Psalm 96. Does it have anything to do with the creation of the earth or the design of the earth? No!

Quote

It a Psalm of David, a prophecy of the coming of the Messiah, and of the calling of the Gentiles that believe in him:

This meme cites Psalm 96:10, but they either changed the words, or are using a modern bible version.

Quote

The King James read, “Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.“

The word for world is tebel = the earth (as moist and therefore inhabited); by extension, the globe; by implication, its inhabitants; specifically, a particular land, as Babylonia, Palestine:—habitable part, world.

Quote

What is the particular land of Scripture? Jerusalem, mount Zion.

The next verse talks about the earth, that it should be glad. Should we take that to mean the physical earth should be glad? No!

Quote

“Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad; let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof.” Psalm 96:11

Psalm 96 is not declaring a fixed earth. It’s saying that the kingdom of Elohim, made up of those who have a covenant relationship with Him through the Son, will not be moved. And that they will rejoice at His righteous judgment.
Psalm 104:5 is talking about the design of Earth and the heavens, “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…”
The King James does not include the word ‘fixed’, “For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
The globe earth is fixed and immovable in relation to its orbit around the sun.

Quote

I’m open to the geocentric position of the globe Earth, but even if the heliocentric explanation is valid; nothing but Elohim can move the Earth from it’s circular path around the Sun.

Verses that indicate that the sun moves, which may point to the geocentric position of the earth, but it does not prove that the earth is flat.
Joshua 10:12-13, So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself upon their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Yashar? Thus the sun stopped in the midst of the heavens, and did not hasten to go down for an entire day.
Isaiah 38:8, See, I am bringing the shadow on the sundial, which has gone down with the sun on the sundial of Aḥaz, ten degrees backward.” And the sun returned ten degrees on the dial by which it had gone down.
Flattening the Flat Earth Theory (The Earth is NOT Flat) by Doug Hamp
Below is a list of 200 verses from Nathan Roberts (http://flatearthdeception.com/rebuttal-of-nathan-roberts-author-of-the-doctrine-of-the-shape-of-the-earth/), who proclaims that they prove that the earth is flat.
Nathan Roberts wrote a flat earth book called, “The Doctrine of the Shape of the Earth: A Comprehensive Biblical Perspective”; he has a YouTube channel named YourCurvelessEarth; and a website called FlatEarthDoctrine.com.
Keep in mind that he is proclaiming that ALL of these verses prove that the Earth is flat. You will see that in fact, NONE of them prove that the Earth is flat; and most of them have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth at all.
Earth Created Before the Sun: Genesis 1:1-19

Quote

The Earth being created before the sun may point to a geocentric Earth, but it does not prove that the Earth is flat.

Universe is Complete: Genesis 2:1

Quote

The heavens and earth being compete is not about the shape of the Earth.

Earth Measurements Unknown: Job 38:4-5, Jeremiah 31:37, Proverbs 25:3

Quote

Job 38:4-5 is not declaring that the Earth can’t be measured; but it is pointing to the One who did measure it all out during its creation.

Quote

Jeremiah 31:37 is about the heavens being measured, not Earth.

Quote

Proverbs 25:3 says that the height of heaven is unsearchable. On the flat domed Earth, the height of the heaven is limited; but not on the globe Earth.

Earth is a Disk/Circle, not a ball: Isaiah 40:22, Job 38:13-14

Quote

Isaiah 40:22 is pointing up to the circle of the ecliptic, on which the constellations travel around the globe earth; to tell the story of our redemption. The Creator does not sit on the flat earth; so the circle is not pointing to the flat earth, but to the ecliptic in the heavens, which are a tabernacle of stars, on which the Creator sits.

Quote

Job 38:13-14 is declaring that the Earth is turning (spinning) toward the rising Sun, “It is turned as clay to the seal”. The Earth is changed, it is transformed, as the sun (the seal) removes the darkness.

Earth Measured with a Line, not a curve: Job 38:4-5

Quote

The word ‘line’ is pointing to a cord that is used for measuring. A cord can be placed on a curved surface, to measure the total distance. A line is not always straight.

Paths are Straight, not curved: 1 Samuel 6:12, Psalm 5:8, Psalm 27:11, Isaiah 40:3, Jeremiah 31:9, Matthew 3:3, Mark 1:3, Luke 3:4, John 1:23, Acts 16:11, Acts 21:1, Hebrews 12:13
Proclaiming that all paths are straight, does not prove that the earth is flat.

Quote

The irony is that if you travel East or West on the supposed flat earth map, your path is not straight, as East and West curve around the North Pole.

These verses are obviously not talking about the form of the Earth. And the fact that they are declaring to make the path straight, tells us that paths are normally not straight.

Quote

“And the kine took the straight way to the way of Bethshemesh, and went along the highway, lowing as they went, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left; and the lords of the Philistines went after them unto the border of Bethshemesh.” 1 Samuel 6:12
“Lead me, O LORD, in thy righteousness because of mine enemies; make thy way straight before my face.” Psalm 5:8
“Teach me thy way, O LORD, and lead me in a plain path, because of mine enemies.” Psalm 27:11
“The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.” Isaiah 40:3
“They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.” Jeremiah 31:9
“For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” Matthew 3:3
“The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” Mark 1:3
“As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.“ Luke 3:4
“He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.” John 1:23
“Therefore loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis;” Acts 16:11
“And it came to pass, that after we were gotten from them, and had launched, we came with a straight course unto Coos, and the day following unto Rhodes, and from thence unto Patara:” Acts 21:1
“And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.” Hebrews 12:13

Nathan cites them so that he can claim that there are hundreds of verses which proclaim that the Earth is flat; but he is taking them out of context, as we can clearly see.
Waters are Straight, not curved: Job 37:10

Quote

“By the breath of God frost is given: and the breadth of the waters is straitened.”
The previous verses in Job proclaimed cold winds coming out of the North.
The word ‘frost’ can be rendered as ‘ice’; and the waters become solid ice, instead of moving with the winds.

Once again, Nathan is taking the meaning of the verse out of context, as it is not declaring that all water on Earth is straight.
Earthquakes shake Earth, and does not move: 2 Samuel 22:8, Isaiah 13:13, Revelation 6:12-13
These verses do not prove that the Earth is flat.

Quote

2 Samuel 22:3 simply says that the Earth shook and trembled, “Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations of heaven moved and shook, because he was wroth.”
Isaiah 13:13 says that the Earth shall remove OUT OF HER PLACE, “Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.”

Quote

Earthquakes in the prophecy can represent great political upheavals. The earthquake of Revelation 6:12-13 was pointing to political upheaval in the declaring Roman Empire; as a result of the first five seal judgments.
Eastern Emperor Constantine defeated Diocletian’s army in 312 A.D., which ended the persecutions. Diocletian (the Sun) was so panic stricken, he died insane. Constantine defeated emperors Maxentius and Licinius to become sole ruler of both west and east by 324 A.D. The Roman leaders (stars) fell and their power receded as a scroll. The mountains and islands that were moved out of place, were the countries and people that were affected by this political change. Read Revelation 6 – 6th Seal Earthquake (http://revelationtimelinedecoded.com/the-sixth-seal-of-revelation-6/)

Earth is fixed and immovable: Psalm 33:9, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Psalm 119:89-90, Isaiah 45:18, Zechariah 1:11, 1 Chronicles 16:30
One can argue that these verses point to a stationary, geocentric Earth; but they say nothing about its shape, so they are not proofs that it is flat.

Quote

“For he spake, and it was (done); he commanded, and it stood fast.” Psalm 33:9
“The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.” Psalm 93:1
“Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.” Psalm 96:10
“Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.” Psalm 104:5
“For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.” Psalm 119:89-90
“For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.” Isaiah 45:18
“And they answered the angel of the LORD that stood among the myrtle trees, and said, We have walked to and fro through the earth, and, behold, all the earth sitteth still, and is at rest.” Zechariah 1:11
“Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.” 1 Chronicles 16:30

“Be still, and know that I am God”: Psalm 46:10
How is that a proof that the Earth is flat?
Earth has Pillars, and hangs on nothing: 1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6, Job 26:7, Psalm 75:3, 2 Peter 3:5
Flat earthers proclaim that the flat earth is mounted on top of pillars, which makes no sense, because in architecture, pillars set on top of the building foundation. What are the supporting pillars of the flat earth sitting on? Nothing!
The first part of 1 Samuel 2:8 tells you that the latter part is not talking about the creation/design of the earth.

Quote

Rather it is talking about the leaders of the earth, the pillars, who Elohim controls to uphold civil order in the world.

The previous verse is talking about raising people up in status, and bringing them down.

Quote

“The LORD maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up.” 1 Samuel 2:7

“Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.” Job 9:6
“He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.” Job 26:7 The north pole is the top of the globe Earth, so it makes sense to mention it, as it’s the logical place to hang a ball (such as a Christmas ornament) from. The earth hanging from nothing does not prove that it’s flat.
“The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah.” Psalm 75:3. Was the earth really dissolved? No! It’s speaking of judgment on a wicked world, and the righteous men (pillars) being held up by the Father.
“For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:” 2 Peter 3:5 I’m not sure how this proves that the Earth is flat, or even a globe for that matter.
Earth has a Face (a geometrical flat surface): Genesis 1:29, Genesis 4:14, Genesis 6:1, Genesis 6:7, Genesis 7:3, Genesis 7:4, Genesis 8:9, Genesis 11:8, Genesis 11:9, Genesis 41:56, Exodus 32:12, Exodus 33:16, Numbers 12:3, Deuteronomy 6:15, Deuteronomy 7:6, 1 Samuel 20:15, 1 Kings 13:34, Job 37:12, Psalm 104:30, Jeremiah 25:26, Jeremiah 28:16, Ezekiel 34:6, Ezekiel 38:20, Ezekiel 39:14, Amos 9:6, Amos 9:8, Zechariah 5:3
A ball has a face too. The face of the moon is the side that is facing us. So these verses do not prove that the Earth is flat.
The Hebrew word for ‘face’ in Genesis 1:29 is 6440 paniym – plural (but always as singular) of an unused noun (paneh {paw-neh’}; from 6437); the face (as the part that turns);
Waters have a Face (a geometrical flat surface): Genesis 1:2, Genesis 7:18, Job 38:30
The word ‘face’ is simply pointing to the surface of the water, so it doesn’t prove that the Earth is flat.
“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Genesis 1:2
“And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.” Genesis 7:18
“The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.” Job 38:30
Earth has Ends: Deuteronomy 28:49, Deuteronomy 28:64, Deuteronomy 33:17, 1 Samuel 2:10, Job 37:3, Job 38:13, Psalm 46:9, Psalm 48:10, Psalm 59:13, Psalm 61:2, Psalm 65:5, Psalm 67:7, Psalm 72:8, Psalm 98:3, Psalm 135:7, Proverbs 8:29, Proverbs 17:24, Proverbs 30:4, Isaiah 5:26, Isaiah 26:15, Isaiah 40:28, Isaiah 41:5, Isaiah 41:9, Isaiah 42:10, Isaiah 43:6, Isaiah 45:22, Isaiah 48:20, Isaiah 49:6, Isaiah 52:10, Jeremiah 10:13, Jeremiah 16:19, Jeremiah 25:31, Jeremiah 25:33, Jeremiah 51:16, Daniel 4:22, Micah 5:4, Zechariah 9:10, Acts 13:47
The irony of course is that flat earthers have no photos of the supposed end of the Earth, at the ice wall.
The word ‘ends’ can mean farthest and uttermost.

Quote

Deuteronomy 28:49 foretold that the Babylonians and Romans would come from afar, to desolate Jerusalem. Did they come from the ice wall? No!

Quote

Deuteronomy 28:64 says that the Father scattered the Israelites from one end of the earth even until the other. Did He put some on one side of the ice wall, and others on the other side of the Earth on the ice wall? No!

Quote

Deuteronomy 33:17, “with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth:” describes the Father causing the Israelites to push the Canaanites to the end of the land of Canaan; not to some ice wall.

Quote

1 Samuel 2:10, “The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall he thunder upon them: the LORD shall judge the ends of the earth” is not about the Father judging the ice wall of the flat earth.

Do you see how ridiculous these examples are? They are not pointing to the edge of the supposed flat Earth, to an ice wall.
Earth has Corners: Isaiah 11:12, Revelation 7:1
Flat earthers teach that the flat earth is a circle, which of course has no corners. So to make these verses work, they add corners to the outside edges, which are outside of the dome. That makes no sense!
Were the outcasts of Israel and the dispersed of Judah living outside the dome, on the corners of the flat earth? No, that is absurd!

Quote

“And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.” Isaiah 11:12

The four corners are outside the flat earth dome, so does it make sense that the angels are holding back the four winds outside of the dome? No!

Quote

“And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.” Revelation 7:1

Firmament/Dome: Genesis 1:6-8, Genesis 1:14-18, Genesis 1:20, Genesis 7:11, Genesis 8:2, Job 37:18, Psalm 19:1, Psalm 150:1, Isaiah 40:22, Ezekiel 1:22-26, Ezekiel 10:1, Daniel 12:3
Genesis 1:8 tells us that the firmament is called ‘heaven’. “And God called the firmament Heaven.”
Genesis 1:14-18 tells us that the sun and moon are in the heavens.
Genesis 1:20 tells us that birds fly in the heavens.
Genesis 7:11 points to the moisture, which was collected in the atmosphere, in clouds in the heavens, which was poured out in the Earth.
Genesis 8:2 simply says that it stopped raining.
Job 37:18 is a key verse, which they proclaim points to a glass dome. They did not have glass mirrors in Job’s day, so they beat metal into sheets and polished it, to be able to see their reflection. The King James translators were describing a mirror, as they had glass in their days. It’s simply pointing to the heavens which shine down on us, reflecting the glory of creation. “Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?”
Psalm 19:1 declares the glory of the stars in heaven.
Psalm 150:1 declares that we should praise the Creator of the starry heavens.
Isaiah 40:22 declares that the Creator is sitting upon the circle of the Earth. Is he actually sitting on the Earth? No! It is declaring that He is sitting in the heavens, in the tabernacle of stars which surround the Earth (as a tent), in the midst of the 12 constellations which are on the circular ecliptic (the circle of the Earth), which have proclaimed the redemption story since creation.

Quote

“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:”

Ezekiel 1:22-26 is not describing the heavens that we see, with the sun and moon in it; but rather another expanse around the throne of our Creator.
Ezekiel 10:1 Like Ezekiel 1, it is not describing the heavens that we see, with the sun and moon in it; but rather another expanse around the throne of our Creator.
Daniel 12:3 The saints are portrayed as stars, which shine in the heaven of our Creator.
Sun Moves, not the Earth: Genesis 15:12, Genesis 15:17, Genesis 19:23, Genesis 32:31, Exodus 17:12, Exodus 22:3, Exodus 22:26, Leviticus 22:7, Numbers 2:3, Numbers 21:11, Numbers 34:15, Deuteronomy 4:41, Deuteronomy 4:47, Deuteronomy 11:30, Deuteronomy 16:6, Deuteronomy 23:11, Deuteronomy 24:13, Deuteronomy 24:15, Joshua 1:15, Joshua 8:29, Joshua 10:27, Joshua 12:1, Joshua 13:5, Joshua 19:12, Joshua 19:27, Joshua 19:34, Judges 8:13, Judges 9:33, Judges 14:18, Judges 19:14, Judges 20:43, 2 Samuel 2:24, 2 Samuel 3:35, 2 Samuel 23:4, 1 Kings 22:36, 2 Chronicles 18:34, Psalm 50:1, Psalm 113:3, Ecclesiastes 1:5, Isaiah 41:25, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 59:19, Jeremiah 15:9, Daniel 6:14, Amos 8:9, Jonah 4:8, Micah 3:6, Nahum 3:17, Malachi 1:11, Matthew 5:45, Mark 16:2, Ephesians 4:26, James 1:11
All of these verses describe the sun rising up or going down. Does the sun ever ‘rise up’ or ‘go down’ on the flat Earth model? No! They proclaim that it moves in a circle above the flat surface; so the words rise up and goes down cannot apply to the flat Earth model sun.

Quote

“And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.” Genesis 15:12
“And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.” Genesis 15:17

“For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles;” Malachi 1:11

As for the sun moving and not the Earth, the same thing can be explained on a geocentric globe earth, so it doesn’t prove that the Earth is flat.
Sun STOPS moving: Isaiah 60:20, Job 9:7, Joshua 10:12-14, Habakkuk 3:11

Quote

The same thing could happen on a geocentric globe earth, so it doesn’t prove that the Earth is flat.

Sun moves BACKWARDS: 2 Kings 20:8-11

Quote

The same thing could happen on a geocentric globe earth, so it doesn’t prove that the Earth is flat.

Moon has its own Light: Genesis 1:16, Isaiah 13:10, Isaiah 30:26, Isaiah 60:19-20, Jeremiah 31:35, Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:24, Ezekiel 32:7, Revelation 21:23
Flat earthers have to dismiss that the sun illuminates the moon, because it causes problems on their flat earth model. The irony here is that they cannot explain how the moon illuminates itself, or how it displays the evolving phases.

Quote

And we can clearly see the direct relationship of the New Moon being located near the setting sun; and for the next 14 days, the moon is 1/14th further away from the sun at sunset, and it is 1 1/4th more illuminated. After 7 days, the waxing half moon is directly overhead at sunset. After 14 days, the full moon is rising in the East at sunset. It’s not rocket science, the sun clearly illuminates the moon!

In each of these verses, the sun being dimmed, results in the moon also being dimmed; showing the direct relationship, as the sun illuminates the moon. Just as the Sun of Righteousness, Messiah, illuminates us and shines through us.

Quote

Isaiah 13:10 is not speaking literally, but metaphorically of the leaders of the tribe of Judah, the High Priest (sun) and Sanhedrin (moon) being removed from power, as they incurred the anger and wrath of the Father.
Isaiah 30:26 is not speaking literally, but is a hyperbolical expression, of the most glorious and comfortable condition of God’s church, far surpassing what it was in former ages. Messiah is our Sun of Righteousness, our High Priest; which is far superior to the Israelite High Priest.
Isaiah 60:19-20 speaks of the day when the Father and Son will illuminate the New Jerusalem.
Jeremiah 31:35 says that the moon and stars are given for lights at night. It does not say that the moon provides it’s own light. Just like the stars, it reflects the sun light.
Matthew 24:29 and Luke 13:24 are talking about the Jєωιѕн political leaders; the High Priest (Sun), the Sanhedrin (the moon) and the priest system (the stars); being removed from power (dimmed) in 70 A.D., when the Roman army desolated the temple, city and Jerusalem. Read The Sun, Moon And Stars (http://theolivetdiscourse.com/the-sun-moon-and-stars-of-matthew-24-29/)
Ezekiel 32:7 says that He will cover the sun and the moon will not give it’s light; so we see the direct relationship. It did not say that He would cover the moon, just the sun. And by covering the sun, the moon cannot reflect the light of the sun.
Revelation 21:23 simply says that there will be no need for the sun and moon to shine in New Jerusalem, as the Father and Son will illuminate it. It is not declaring that the moon had provided its own light.

High Altitude Perspectives: Daniel 4:11, Daniel 4:20, Matthew 4:8
Nathan thinks that a high altitude perspective proves that the Earth is flat; but the verses prove that is not true.

Quote

Daniel 4:22 declares that the giant tree of Daniel 4:11, 20; symbolizes king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, so it’s not talking about a real giant tree,“It is thou, O king, that art grown and become strong: for thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth.”
For Matthew 4:8, when Satan took Messiah to a high mountain and showed Him all of the kingdoms of the world; there is no mountain on Earth which can see all of the kingdoms of the world, so it doesn’t prove that the Earth is flat.
He was either pointing to that region of the Earth, Judea and the surrounding nations, which were controlled by the mighty Roman Empire. Or he was able to give a kind of visionary representation of all of the nations of the Earth.

Everyone Sees Jesus: Revelation 1:7
:See, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye shall see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth shall mourn because of Him. Yes, Amĕn.:

Quote

But that doesn’t prove the flat earth, because there is no place on the flat earth where Messiah could return, that every person in every country could see. Can you see the sky over Jerusalem from where you live? No!

New Jerusalem, the HUGE cube: Revelation 21:15-17
The shape of New Jerusalem has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.
“Breadth”, spread out FLAT, of the Earth: Revelation 20:9
“And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.”
The Greek word for earth is ge, is not referring to the whole earth, but to the land of Jerusalem.

Quote

ge = which means: by extension a region, or the solid part or the whole of the terrene globe (including the occupants in each application):—country, earth(-ly), ground, land, world.

Just as the city of Jerusalem is set up on a hill, the New Jerusalem will also be set up high.

Quote

The armies of the enemies will go up to Jerusalem, to seek to attack it.

Matthews Bible from 1537 says “Flat Earth”: 2 Samuel 11:11
The King James say ‘open fields’, “And Uriah said unto David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing.”

Quote

The verse isn’t about the shape of the earth, but that they encamped on a flat area in the open fields. The fact that it had to clarify that the area was flat, tells you that most of the land around it was not flat.

Creation Worshippers: Deuteronomy 4:19, Deuteronomy 17:3, 2 Kings 23:5, Jeremiah 8:2
The focus of the verses is about the pagan god worship of the sun, moon and stars. Those heavenly bodies exist on the supposed flat earth model too, so those verses have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.
God’s Word is ALWAYS Faithful and True: Jeremiah 42:5, Revelation 3:14, Revelation 19:11, Revelation 21:5, Revelation 22:6
Yes He is, but as you’ve seen, the verses that Nathan’s cited do not declare that the Earth is flat; so these verses don’t prove anything in regard to the shape of the Earth.
Additional Resources: https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/ (https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/)

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on April 27, 2018, 11:50:03 AM

Here are 2 simple calculations which can determine the most sensible
explanation of the Sun-Earth controversy (which one is in orbit).

Question. What keeps the Sun in orbit around the Earth ?

Does it have fins like a rocket that keep it turning in a circular direction?
Does the gravitational pull of the Earth keep the Sun in orbit? Like with
the Moon? Would the Sun go in a straight line if the Earth did not have
gravity?

The only feasible answer is: the gravity of the Earth. I know about the
pseudo forces that Robert Sungenis talks about. But let's limit this discussion
to what we can measure.

OK then the Sun is 93,000,000 miles from Earth. We can measure that.
The Sun "orbits" the Earth in 24 hours.

So, 93,000,000 miles x 2 x 3.1416 / 24 hours = 24,347,400 miles per hour.
The Sun is traveling about 24 million miles per hour.

Don't you think there would be a trail of fire following behind the Sun, like
comets have a trail of some kind?

If the Earth were orbiting the Sun ...
93,000,000 miles x 2 x 3.1416 / 365 days / 24 hrs = 66,705 miles per hour.
The Earth would be going 66,705 miles per hour.

Which has more gravity? The Sun. Therefore it makes more sense that the
Earth is orbiting the Sun. It's total lunacy to think the Earth has enough
gravity to keep the Sun (going 24 million MPH) in orbit around the Earth.

For the Moon ...
252,000 miles (at most) x 2 x 3.1416 / 28 days / 24 hours = 2,356 MPH.

If the Moon were going 24 million MPH, do you think it would still be orbiting
the Earth? No way. It would be far away in outer space.

Then how could the Sun still be orbiting the Earth. It would take some kind
of astronomical force to keep it circling the Earth.

Conclusion. Geocentrism only makes sense when you can find some kind of
unbelievable force not understandable to humans. Imagine how fast the
nearest star is traveling ... faster than the speed of light.

I dare say that Geocentrism is a mere fantasy of people who try to make the
Bible a science textbook, using a view of the universe which was popular in
the time of David (in the old Testament), using vague terminology such as,
"shall not be moved".

Like I said before, not many people's brain can function in the world of math
and astronomy. I don't mean to be condescending, but the arguments for
Geocentrism really require a person to believe in magic.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 11:52:40 AM

Quote from: happenby on April 27, 2018, 11:42:37 AM

Well, this is one reason why spherical earth has gained ground. People assume the earth is a globe. Pope Sylvester II (Gerbert) was a flat earther evidenced in his description of this "hollow sphere", which represents the universe, not the earth.
"Richer also revealed how Gerbert made the planets more easily observable in his armillary sphere:"
"Furthermore, Gerbert instructed Constantine that the north pole could be measured with the upper and lower sighting tubes, the Arctic Circle through another tube, the Tropic of Cancer through another tube, the equator through another tube, and the Tropic of Capricorn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropic_of_Capricorn) through another tube.^{[29]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Sylvester_II#cite_note-darlington_470-31)}
^{This proves beyond a doubt that such measurements are made with the line of sight. This is impossible if earth were a globe.}
Now, while an armillary sphere can be turned about is if to represent earth as a globe and is represented as such, it can also make the sun stationary when its mechanics are changed. However, by design of the armillary sphere, its quite clear the sun is not at the center of the universe.
An armillary sphere (variations are known as spherical astrolabe, armilla, or armil) is a model of objects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_object) in the sky (on the celestial sphere (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_sphere)).
This instrument was designed to show why some stars cannot be seen on certain planes from certain positions, not to explain that earth is a globe.
The Chinese are quite famous for being flat earthers from ancient times and they used the armillary sphere long before Pope Sylvester II.
Throughout Chinese (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China) history, astronomers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomer) have created celestial globes (Chinese (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Chinese_characters): 浑象) to assist the observation of the stars. The Chinese also used the armillary sphere in aiding calendrical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar) computations and calculations.
According to Needham, the earliest development of the armillary sphere in China goes back to the astronomers Shi Shen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi_Shen) and Gan De (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gan_De) in the 4th century BC, as they were equipped with a primitive single-ring armillary instrument.^{[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armillary_sphere#cite_note-needham_volume_3_343-3)} This would have allowed them to measure the north polar distance (declination) a measurement that gave the position in a xiu (right ascension).^{[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armillary_sphere#cite_note-needham_volume_3_343-3)} Needham's 4th century dating, however, is rejected by British sinologist Christopher Cullen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Cullen), who traces the beginnings of these devices to the 1st century BC.^{[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armillary_sphere#cite_note-4)}

^{100% of Catholic authorities who taught anything about the shape of the earth taught earth is flat.}

Medieval Europe's foremost astronomical textbook:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_sphaera_mundi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_sphaera_mundi)
This book(written by a Catholic monk) which taught a SPHERICAL EARTH was written in 1230 and was used as a textbook in universities(which were, again, run by Catholic monks) for hundreds of years. Never were the universities told to stop using the book, never was the book banned, never did the Church contradict or condemn the book. Instead it taught it in its universities for hundreds of years.

Saint Thomas also believed in a spherical earth and assumed the reader did too, remarking on how all the different types of professionals and educated had their own ways of observing the roundness of the earth. In Summa Theologiae he wrote: "The physicist proves the earth to be round by one means, the astronomer by another: for the latter proves this by means of mathematics, e. g. by the shapes of eclipses, or something of the sort; while the former proves it by means of physics, e. g. by the movement of heavy bodies towards the center, and so forth."

It's clear from St. Thomas' writings that the globe earth the predominant view, and he never mentions the flat earth once. If, as you say, the Church taught a flat earth, then why did St. Thomas never mention it? Why did he spread "heretical" views about a globe earth if the Church actually taught a flat earth? Are you calling St. Thomas a heretic?

We also have Gautier de Metz from the 1200s happily teaching a globe earth, seemingly unaware of Happenby's exclusive knowledge that the Church taught a flat earth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautier_de_Metz

If we go back about a century further to the 1100s we see Blessed Hildegaard teaching a globe earth:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildegard_of_Bingen
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/Hildegard_von_Bingen-_%27Werk_Gottes%27%2C_12._Jh..jpg/220px-Hildegard_von_Bingen-_%27Werk_Gottes%27%2C_12._Jh..jpg

And again, in the condemnation of Galileo, his beliefs in a globe earth are never mentioned or condemned. They surely would have been if the Church believed in a flat earth.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Meg on April 27, 2018, 11:57:35 AM

Quote from: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 11:44:37 AM

You were the first one to go off on that tangent, bub. And you've proven exactly nothing. I've given examples of Popes that believed in a glob earth, I've verified that all Catholic universities and educated Catholics in the middle ages believed in the globe earth, and I've also shown you how St. Bellarmine's condemnation of Galileo NEVER mentioned Galileo's belief in a globe earth, AND I've shown you that Bellarmine believed in the Ptolemaic globe earth model as shown by his mentions of epicycles which only existed in that model.
Indeed no Pope ever issued a docuмent stating "one must believe in a globe earth" but they never did that for a flat earth either, so the point is entirely moot.

You've given no examples at all of the popes teaching that the earth is a globe. You seem to have difficulty sticking with the subject at hand.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: klasG4e on April 27, 2018, 12:02:41 PM

Quote from: apollo on April 27, 2018, 11:50:03 AM

the arguments for Geocentrism really require a person to believe in magic.

Wow! What an amazing find! May we quote you on that?

I guess a whole lot of pre-Vatican II saints were magicians. I wonder if they even realized they were. Maybe the devil just tricked them into it without their knowing it.

(The тαℓмυd, the Jew's greatest holy book informs us that Jesus was a magician.)

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on April 27, 2018, 12:04:05 PM

Quote from: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 11:44:37 AM

You were the first one to go off on that tangent, bub. And you've proven exactly nothing. I've given examples of Popes that believed in a glob earth, I've verified that all Catholic universities and educated Catholics in the middle ages believed in the globe earth, and I've also shown you how St. Bellarmine's condemnation of Galileo NEVER mentioned Galileo's belief in a globe earth, AND I've shown you that Bellarmine believed in the Ptolemaic globe earth model as shown by his mentions of epicycles which only existed in that model.
Indeed no Pope ever issued a docuмent stating "one must believe in a globe earth" but they never did that for a flat earth either, so the point is entirely moot.

It does matter, because one is the truth and one is a lie. You can't have it both ways.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 12:07:22 PM

Quote from: Meg on April 27, 2018, 11:57:35 AM

You've given no examples at all of the popes teaching that the earth is a globe. You seem to have difficulty sticking with the subject at hand.

Where are your examples of a Pope teaching that the earth is flat? I said that no Pope has ever taught the earth being a globe is a matter of faith. I have openly admitted that. Yet you still bang on about a complete non-point(as you are incapable of showing that any Pope has taught to the contrary) because you cannot address my arguments.

I'll say it again: NO POPE HAS TAUGHT THE EARTH IS A GLOBE AS A MATTER OF FAITH(neither has any Pope taught that 2+2=4), and no Pope has done so for the flat earth either. So it in no way proves that flat earth.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 12:08:46 PM

Quote from: happenby on April 27, 2018, 12:04:05 PM

It does matter, because one is the truth and one is a lie. You can't have it both ways.

What is a lie? I'm not trying to have anything both ways you dunce. You can't prove the earth is flat by a lack of a Pope teaching it being a globe, when no Pope has ever taught it was flat either.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on April 27, 2018, 12:12:03 PM

Quote from: klasG4e on April 27, 2018, 12:02:41 PM

Wow! What an amazing find! May we quote you on that?
I guess a whole lot of pre-Vatican II saints were magicians. I wonder if they even realized they were. Maybe the devil just tricked them into it without their knowing it.
(The тαℓмυd, the Jew's greatest holy book informs us that Jesus was a magician.)

OK, then tell me what keeps the Sun in orbit around the Earth.
It's going over 24,000,000 miles per hour in the Geocentric model.
The Earth is going 67,000 miles per hour in the Heliocentric model.
I'll bet you $10,000 that the Earth orbits the Sun.
Why do we have keep talking about the Church Fathers?
Why can't we just do some simple calculations? Or is that
too difficult for Catholics?
The Church Fathers' OPINIONS do NOT determine doctrines.
End of the debate.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on April 27, 2018, 12:12:51 PM

Quote from: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 11:34:33 AM

Yet more pernicious lies of the flat earthers.
Anatolius of Alexandria: Eudemus relates in his Astrologies that Enopides found out the circle of the zodiac and the cycle “of the great year. And Thales discovered the eclipse of the sun and its period in the tropics in its constant inequality. And Anaximander discovered that the earth is poised in space, and moves round the axis of the universe. And Anaximenes discovered that the moon has her light from the sun, and found out also the way in which she suffers eclipse. And the rest of the mathematicians have also made additions to these discoveries. We may instance the facts–that the fixed stars move round the axis passing through the poles, while the planets remove from each other round the perpendicular axis of the zodiac; and that the axis of the fixed stars and the planets is the side of a pente-decagon with four-and-twenty parts. (XVII)

Augustine: Let not the philosophers, then, think to upset our faith with arguments from the weight of bodies; for I don’t care to inquire why they cannot believe an earthly body can be in heaven, while the whole earth is suspended on nothing. For perhaps the world keeps its central place by the same law that attracts to its center all heavy bodies. (City of God, Bk XIII, Ch 18 )

Gregory of Nyssa: “…on whatever side the sun’s rays may fall on some particular point of the globe, if we follow a straight diameter, we shall find shadow upon the opposite point, and so, continuously, at the opposite end of the direct line of the rays shadow moves round that globe, keeping pace with the sun, so that equally in their turn both the upper half and the under half of the earth are in light and darkness…” (On the Soul and Resurrection)
Irenaeus: The sun also, who runs through his orbit in twelve months, and then returns to the same point in the circle (Against Heresies, Bk I, Ch XVII, 1)

Eusebius: “The sun and the moon have their settled course. The stars move in no uncertain orbits round this terrestrial globe. The revolution of the seasons recurs according to unerring laws. The solid fabric of the earth was established by the word: the winds receive their impulse at appointed times; and the course of the waters continues with ceaseless flow, the ocean is circuмscribed by an immovable barrier, and whatever is comprehended within the compass of earth and sea, is all contrived for wondrous and important ends.”

The first paragraph is about pagans and does not qualify for Fathers of the Church.
The second does not say earth is a globe, but that it is suspended on nothing and is at the bottom of creation, according to Catholic Fathers.
The third shows Gregory of Nyssa was a flat earther, speaking of the armillary sphere. This is evidenced by "and then it returns to the same point in the CIRCLE."
Eusebius was also a flat earther. This is evidenced elsewhere, but also here in the sentence when he says "the ocean is circuмscribed by an immovable barrier..."
Again, if you are unfamiliar with the subject and attempt to prove a point in ignorance, you will be proven wrong publicly. Go study and come back when you know more.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Meg on April 27, 2018, 12:15:36 PM

Quote from: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 12:07:22 PM

Where are your examples of a Pope teaching that the earth is flat? I said that no Pope has ever taught the earth being a globe is a matter of faith. I have openly admitted that. Yet you still bang on about a complete non-point(as you are incapable of showing that any Pope has taught to the contrary) because you cannot address my arguments.

I'll say it again: NO POPE HAS TAUGHT THE EARTH IS A GLOBE AS A MATTER OF FAITH(neither has any Pope taught that 2+2=4), and no Pope has done so for the flat earth either. So it in no way proves that flat earth.

Ummm.... we've been over this before. I never said that any pope has taught that the earth is flat. There wasn't really a need to teach that the earth is flat, until after the Reformation, when the pagan global model really took off. And now NASA would have us believe that there is no God, and that the earth doesn't hold a privileged place in the universe (God's creation). The Church hasn't really been interested in countering the pagan science model, unfortunately. Although Pope St. Pius X did try, but I'm not sure that anyone really paid attention.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 12:18:39 PM

Quote from: Meg on April 27, 2018, 12:15:36 PM

Ummm.... we've been over this before. I never said that any pope has taught that the earth is flat. There wasn't really a need to, until after the Reformation, when the pagan global model really took off. And now NASA would have us believe that there is no God, and that the earth doesn't hold a privileged place in the universe (God's creation). The Church hasn't really been interested in countering the pagan science model, unfortunately. Although Pope St. Pius X did try, but I'm not sure that anyone really paid attention.

Pope St. Pius X was also a globe earther.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Meg on April 27, 2018, 12:20:01 PM

Quote from: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 12:18:39 PM

Pope St. Pius X was also a globe earther.

What does that have to do with what I wrote? Do you have any ability at all to stay on topic? I don't suppose you have ADD, do you?

You sound a lot like a banned forum member who was named DZPlease.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 12:22:05 PM

Quote from: Meg on April 27, 2018, 12:20:01 PM

What does that have to do with what I wrote? Do you have any ability at all to stay on topic? I don't suppose you have ADD, do you?

You brought him up, not me, silly woman.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Meg on April 27, 2018, 12:23:42 PM

Quote from: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 12:22:05 PM

You brought him up, not me, silly woman.

I think you are DZPlease, who was banned. No use debating with a nutbar.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on April 27, 2018, 12:28:10 PM

Quote from: apollo on April 27, 2018, 12:12:03 PM

OK, then tell me what keeps the Sun in orbit around the Earth.
It's going over 24,000,000 miles per hour.
I'll bet you $10,000 that the Earth orbits the Sun.
Why do we have keep talking about the Church Fathers?
Why can't we just do some simple calculations? Or is that
too difficult for Catholics?
The Church Fathers' OPINIONS do NOT determine doctrines.
End of the debate.

The sun is a light, of a celestial nature, and Enoch says the angels push the celestial objects around. Beyond that, we do not know. But neither does modern science.
The sun is provably not going 24,000,000 mph. The estimate by empirical evidence is about 1000 mph. How else could an airplane follow it and stay within sight of it for hours?
The Church Fathers talked about this having sourced evidence from Scripture.
The Church's Father's opinions do not determine the doctrines, but when they are in agreement with each other and Scripture, we can be pretty darn sure they are right. Further, false modern science (represented today by NASA) has promoted a completely godless heliocentric model for centuries, which is now accepted by the majority of people. This is just one sign of the great apostasy. St. Nilus predicted science would go off the rails when planes can fly. Scripture predicted it too, and also warned us not to be taken by science falsely so-called. Yet, you treat the Father's opinions as nothing. Go believe your pagan science, but don't attempt to pass it off here without opposition.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on April 27, 2018, 12:53:54 PM

Quote from: happenby on April 27, 2018, 12:28:10 PM

1. The sun is a light, of a celestial nature, and Enoch says the angels push the celestial objects around.
2. Beyond that, we do not know. But neither does modern science.
3. The sun is provably not going 24,000,000 mph. The estimate by empirical evidence is about 1000 mph.
How else could an airplane follow it and stay within sight of it for hours?
4. The Church's Father's opinions do not determine the doctrines, but when they are in agreement with each
other and Scripture, we can be pretty darn sure they are right. Further, false modern science (represented
today by NASA) has promoted a completely godless heliocentric model for centuries, which is now accepted by
the majority of people. Yet, you treat the Father's opinions as nothing.
5. Go believe your pagan science, but don't attempt to pass it off here without opposition.

1. The angels pushing the celestial objects? Do you really believe this?
2. Sorry, but you need to come up to date on astronomy.
3. By what proof, if we do not know? Empirical evidence? The 1000 mph number is exactly the speed of the
rotation of the Earth at the equator and that airplane is a lot closer to the Earth than the Sun is. If that airplane
were near the Sun or in the Sun's orbit (following the Sun), then it would be a quite different number for its speed,
which would be real close to 24,000,000 mph. Can you multiply and divide? Try it. You'll get about 24 million mph.
4. Scripture does not demonstrate divine revelation in the case of Geocentrism. Did you just enter this discussion
on page 8? You missed some important points.
5. If I were a pagan and you were trying to convert me to Christianity with Geocentrism being an article of the Faith,
I would remain a pagan.

Maybe there is no such thing as pagan gravity and it really is the angels pushing down on us, so we don't fly off into
outer space. Oh, I just realized that you are a female. That explains a lot. :)

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Jaynek on April 27, 2018, 01:11:40 PM

Quote from: aryzia on April 27, 2018, 10:40:15 AM

100% of the Fathers of the Church who taught about the shape of the earth taught flat geocentric earth.

Not true.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on April 27, 2018, 01:15:15 PM

Quote from: apollo on April 27, 2018, 12:53:54 PM

1. The angels pushing the celestial objects? Do you really believe this?
2. Sorry, but you need to come up to date on astronomy.
3. By what proof, if we do not know? Empirical evidence? The 1000 mph number is exactly the speed of the
rotation of the Earth at the equator and that airplane is a lot closer to the Earth than the Sun is. If that airplane
were near the Sun or in the Sun's orbit (following the Sun), then it would be a quite different number for its speed,
which would be real close to 24,000,000 mph. Can you multiply and divide? Try it. You'll get about 24 million mph.
4. Scripture does not demonstrate divine revelation in the case of Geocentrism. Did you just enter this discussion
on page 8? You missed some important points.
5. If I were a pagan and you were trying to convert me to Christianity with Geocentrism being an article of the Faith,
I would remain a pagan.

Maybe there is no such thing as pagan gravity and it really is the angels pushing down on us, so we don't fly off into
outer space. Oh, I just realized that you are a female. That explains a lot. :)

Right. And by the looks of your answers devoid of reason, proof or sense, its obvious that you couldn't lick the boots of this gal if you had a ladder.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Jaynek on April 27, 2018, 01:17:01 PM

Quote from: aryzia on April 27, 2018, 10:42:18 AM

He uses it as an example but never says what he believes. Also, that is a passage I have yet to examine in the original Latin.

That was my point about Latin grammar. The verb is written in the indicative mood which shows that the example is something he believes to be true. If he did not believe it, the verb would have been in the subjunctive.

Examine the passage in the original Latin and you will see that I am right.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on April 27, 2018, 01:26:24 PM

Quote from: Jaynek on April 27, 2018, 01:11:40 PM

Not true.

Oh goodie. Please provide the teachings of a Father of the Church that actually teaches the globe, using Scriptural references, not just assumed earth a globe in his writings, nor who's talking about the universe in total, but who you think is talking about the terra globus. :popcorn:
By the way, if such a man exists, his teachings are contrary to the majority of the rest.
Naturally, terra globus doesn't exist but I typed it into a search engine and lo! and behold! Look what I found. A poem after your own heart, Jayne.
Madre Terra Globus
Antica dea
Madre che crea
Gaia virtu
Persa nel blu

Caos e armonia
Verde alchimia
Casualita
Senza pieta

Sabbia e marea
Fuoco e follia
Tempo che fu
Che non e più

Terra poesia
Lenta odissea
Buia luminosita
Persa nell'immensita

Terra poesia
Lenta odissea
Buia luminosita
Persa nell'immensita

Batte in te
Di fuoco un cuore
Che riscaldera
L'umanita
Translated:

Ancient goddess
Mother who creates
Gaia virtu
Lost in the blue

Chaos and harmony
Green alchemy
randomness
Mercilessly

Sand and tide
Fire and madness
Time that was
What's not anymore

Earth poetry
Slow odyssey
Dark luminosity
Lost in the immensity

Earth poetry
Slow odyssey
Dark luminosity
Lost in the immensity

It beats in you
Fire a heart
That will heat up
humanity

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Jaynek on April 27, 2018, 01:49:11 PM

Quote from: happenby on April 27, 2018, 12:12:51 PM

The third shows Gregory of Nyssa was a flat earther, speaking of the armillary sphere. This is evidenced by "and then it returns to the same point in the CIRCLE."

Gregory of Nyssa believed in a spherical earth and it is silly to to try explain the quote away by claiming it is about an armillary sphere because such spheres have a sphere representing the earth in the center.

You may be interested in this excerpt from Robert Sungenis's book about Fathers of the Church who believed in spherical earth: https://www.scribd.com/docuмent/19644342/The-Consensus-of-Church-Fathers-on-a-Spherical-Earth (https://www.scribd.com/docuмent/19644342/The-Consensus-of-Church-Fathers-on-a-Spherical-Earth)

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on April 27, 2018, 01:51:34 PM

Quote from: Jaynek on April 27, 2018, 01:17:01 PM

That was my point about Latin grammar. The verb is written in the indicative mood which shows that the example is something he believes to be true. If he did not believe it, the verb would have been in the subjunctive.

Examine the passage in the original Latin and you will see that I am right.

Thomas Aquinas may have been cajoled into thinking earth was a globe, as many are today, but the great saint certainly did not teach it. Not to mention that the Church attached anathema to anyone who might believe Aquinas or Augustine (or any saint) over the Church, or over the more unanimous opinion of the Fathers. Its the unanimity of the opinion of the Fathers', as well as such opinions held over time, that assists in determining doctrines more in need of being fleshed out. And regarding the verbiage of the Latin (above), that is only one aspect of making a determination about whether the quote is viewed correctly.

In the meantime, your arguments against flat earth are taking on the note of minutia. You could have been spared much (and spared us much) had you just asked questions, rather than running rough-shod over the people representing the geocentric flat earth.

The flat earth is not only not a psyop or nor is it stupid, it was well entertained in antiquity, favored by Scripture, and even taught by Fathers of the Church. It is also scientifically and mathematically viable, empirically provable by even simple tests, but also at the deepest levels, and it removes all stupid contradictions like "level means curve" when globalists speak of the surface of the oceans bending around a globe.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on April 27, 2018, 02:00:30 PM

Quote from: Jaynek on April 27, 2018, 01:49:11 PM

Gregory of Nyssa believed in a spherical earth and it is silly to to try explain the quote away by claiming it is about an armillary sphere because such spheres have a sphere representing the earth in the center.

You may be interested in this excerpt from Robert Sungenis's book about Fathers of the Church who believed in spherical earth: https://www.scribd.com/docuмent/19644342/The-Consensus-of-Church-Fathers-on-a-Spherical-Earth (https://www.scribd.com/docuмent/19644342/The-Consensus-of-Church-Fathers-on-a-Spherical-Earth)

Holy Baloney!
Well, it isn't holy... it's just wholly baloney!
Funny how SUNgenis fails to include the Church Fathers' quotes who used Scripture to teach earth has the characteristics of a flat plane. ::)
Seems you missed that smoking gun.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Jaynek on April 27, 2018, 02:13:02 PM

Quote from: happenby on April 27, 2018, 01:51:34 PM

Thomas Aquinas may have been cajoled into thinking earth was a globe, as many are today, but the great saint certainly did not teach it. Not to mention that the Church attached anathema to anyone who might believe Aquinas or Augustine (or any saint) over the Church, or over the more unanimous opinion of the Fathers. Its the unanimity of the opinion of the Fathers', as well as such opinions held over time, that assists in determining doctrines more in need of being fleshed out. And regarding the verbiage of the Latin (above), that is only one aspect of making a determination about whether the quote is viewed correctly.

Other Saints did teach it. for example, St. Albert the Great and St. Bede. (And, since St. Albert was the teacher of St. Thomas, that is further evidence that St. Thomas believed in spherical earth.)

There is no anathema for believing in spherical earth and there is no unanimous opinion of the Fathers that the earth is flat. One might make a case that the majority believed it (although most of the arguments I've seen here have been mere cherry-picking) but there is certainly no case to be made that the opinion was held over time. Belief in flat earth had virtually disappeared well before the time of St. Bede writing his proof of spherical earth, around 800AD.

It is telling that you see yourself as cleverly seeing past the trickery that fooled that St. Thomas. You apparently think that you understand Scripture and the Fathers and the mind of the Church better than he did. Can't you see how unlikely that is?While not infallible, he was one of the most brilliant men in history.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Jaynek on April 27, 2018, 02:22:35 PM

Quote from: happenby on April 27, 2018, 02:00:30 PM

Funny how SUNgenis fails to include the Church Fathers' quotes who used Scripture to teach earth has the characteristics of a flat plane. ::)
Seems you missed that smoking gun.

You never seem to have a problem with cherry picking quotes when they support your position. It is good to see that you can understand that a list of quotes does not necessarily prove anything.

What I would like to see is a comprehensive list of quotes from Church Fathers on the topic regardless of which position it supported. And while I am wishing, I would like all of them linked to their source docuмents in both the original language and English translation.
:ready-to-eat:

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on April 27, 2018, 03:04:22 PM

Quote from: Jaynek on April 27, 2018, 02:13:02 PM

Other Saints did teach it. for example, St. Albert the Great and St. Bede. (And, since St. Albert was the teacher of St. Thomas, that is further evidence that St. Thomas believed in spherical earth.)

There is no anathema for believing in spherical earth and there is no unanimous opinion of the Fathers that the earth is flat. One might make a case that the majority believed it (although most of the arguments I've seen here have been mere cherry-picking) but there is certainly no case to be made that the opinion was held over time. Belief in flat earth had virtually disappeared well before the time of St. Bede writing his proof of spherical earth, around 800AD.

It is telling that you see yourself as cleverly seeing past the trickery that fooled that St. Thomas. You apparently think that you understand Scripture and the Fathers and the mind of the Church better than he did. Can't you see how unlikely that is?While not infallible, he was one of the most brilliant men in history.

As far as St. Thomas is concerned, trickery happens. All humans are subject, saints included. However, I do not equate myself in any way with such a great man in saying earth is flat or that the Church teaches it (albeit in a subdued way), but rather, I have a huge advantage with around 800 YEARS of information and evidence he didn't have access to. Scripture alludes to this saying: Luke 10:24 For I say to you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see the things that you see, and have not seen them; and to hear the things that you hear, and have not heard them.

There is no anathema for believing in spherical earth. But the evidence is persuasive to avoid the idea, and especially for reasons of Faith.

As far as saints teaching spherical earth, that is somewhat debatable because while a few saints had some explanations for their beliefs, they were hypothesizing about the sphere earth without the backing of the Church in a sense. I say that because they didn't reference any Fatherly source, nor Scripture. Not to say they did what they did sinfully, they just assumed science proved otherwise.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 03:18:31 PM

Quote from: happenby on April 27, 2018, 03:04:22 PM

As far as St. Thomas is concerned, trickery happens. All humans are subject, saints included. However, I do not equate myself in any way with such a great man in saying earth is flat or that the Church teaches it (albeit in a subdued way), but rather, I have a huge advantage with around 800 YEARS of information and evidence he didn't have access to. Scripture alludes to this saying: Luke 10:24 For I say to you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see the things that you see, and have not seen them; and to hear the things that you hear, and have not heard them.

There is no anathema for believing in spherical earth. But the evidence is persuasive to avoid the idea, and especially for reasons of Faith.

As far as saints teaching spherical earth, that is somewhat debatable because while a few saints had some explanations for their beliefs, they were hypothesizing about the sphere earth without the backing of the Church in a sense. I say that because they didn't reference any Fatherly source, nor Scripture. Not to say they did what they did sinfully, they just assumed science proved otherwise.

Your quotes from the Fathers also contradict Scripture by your logic. St. Augustine said the Earth rests on no foundation, whereas Scripture says it does(and even mentions pillars). Other Fathers said it rested on the waters. Scripture mentions the corners of the Earth, but some Church Fathers believed the Earth was shaped like a plate or a bowl.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on April 27, 2018, 03:51:50 PM

Quote from: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 03:18:31 PM

Your quotes from the Fathers also contradict Scripture by your logic. St. Augustine said the Earth rests on no foundation, whereas Scripture says it does(and even mentions pillars). Other Fathers said it rested on the waters. Scripture mentions the corners of the Earth, but some Church Fathers believed the Earth was shaped like a plate or a bowl.

Please don't insult me saying I contradict, or the Fathers contradict Scripture, even if you don't understand. You have called me all kinds of names so I'm without much concern for answering this, but the Fathers and Scripture agree that the earth is supported by pillars, attributed to earth's foundation. In fact, the Church building is a microcosm of earth and the Church's doctrines are also known in scripture as the pillar and ground of truth, so there's a very real connection between the earth and the Church. There is much to meditate on here but you'll have to read Christian Topography by Cosmas in order to see what the Fathers are saying. Finally, the land masses we live on rest on the waters (oceans). If you read the Fathers, it leads to understanding that there is a land/water/land situation going, apparently. Land below (the physical bounds of hell) waters above that which makes up the oceans, and land resting on the oceans where we live. Above that, is the firmament and above the firmament is heaven. Literally. This is the general consensus among the Fathers.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 03:57:30 PM

Quote from: happenby on April 27, 2018, 03:51:50 PM

Please don't insult me saying I contradict, or the Fathers contradict Scripture, even if you don't understand. You have called me all kinds of names so I'm without much concern for answering this, but the Fathers and Scripture agree that the earth is supported by pillars, attributed to earth's foundation. In fact, the Church building is a microcosm of earth and the Church's doctrines are also known in scripture as the pillar and ground of truth, so there's a very real connection between the earth and the Church. There is much to meditate on here but you'll have to read Christian Topography by Cosmas in order to see what the Fathers are saying. Finally, the land masses we live on rest on the waters (oceans). If you read the Fathers, it leads to understanding that there is a land/water/land situation going, apparently. Land below (the physical bounds of hell) waters above that which makes up the oceans, and land resting on the oceans where we live. Above that, is the firmament and above the firmament is heaven. Literally. This is the general consensus among the Fathers.

I didn't say that the Church Fathers contradicted Scripture, I said they do according to your view that nothing is a figure of speech. Most people assume phrases like "corners of the earth" to be expressions rather than references to literal corners. And you accused globe earthers of contradicting Scripture first so don't get so indignant at the same line being turned back at you.
If you read the St. Augustine quote I posted, you'll see that he and other Church Fathers taught there was NOTHING under the earth.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: aryzia on April 27, 2018, 04:04:32 PM

Quote from: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 03:57:30 PM

I didn't say that the Church Fathers contradicted Scripture, I said they do according to your view that nothing is a figure of speech. Most people assume phrases like "corners of the earth" to be expressions rather than references to literal corners. And you accused globe earthers of contradicting Scripture first so don't get so indignant at the same line being turned back at you.
If you read the St. Augustine quote I posted, you'll see that he and other Church Fathers taught there was NOTHING under the earth.

Yea, earth is at the bottom with nothing under it.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on April 27, 2018, 04:06:27 PM

Quote from: happenby on April 27, 2018, 01:51:34 PM

The flat earth is not only not a psyop or nor is it stupid, it was well entertained in antiquity, favored by Scripture, and even taught by Fathers of the Church. It is also scientifically and mathematically viable, empirically provable by even simple tests, but also at the deepest levels, and it removes all stupid contradictions like "level means curve" when globalists speak of the surface of the oceans bending around a globe.

Scientifically and mathematically viable, by what science?
How can the sun keep the equator warm and not the North pole if both are on a flat surface?
How can it be dark in the Philippines and light in New York if the earth is flat?
I would like to see some photos of the edge of the flat earth, where you step off into outer
space.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 04:12:29 PM

Quote from: aryzia on April 27, 2018, 04:04:32 PM

Yea, earth is at the bottom with nothing under it.

Except Scripture tells us it has pillars under it.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: aryzia on April 27, 2018, 04:30:41 PM

Quote from: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 04:12:29 PM

Except Scripture tells us it has pillars under it.

The pillars are in and part of the foundation.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Jaynek on April 27, 2018, 05:22:32 PM

Quote from: happenby on April 27, 2018, 03:51:50 PM

There is much to meditate on here but you'll have to read Christian Topography by Cosmas in order to see what the Fathers are saying.

Cosmas is not a Church Father. He has unique ideas about the shape of the earth that do not represent the ideas of those Church Fathers who believed in a flat earth. (And obviously he does not represent the Fathers who believed in a spherical earth.) Reading Christian Topography does not show "what the Fathers are saying" but one might find it amusing.

His writing shows the opinions of a random 6th century monk. It has no authority and little significance.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Smedley Butler on April 27, 2018, 06:02:27 PM

Quote from: happenby on April 27, 2018, 11:42:37 AM

Well, this is one reason why spherical earth has gained ground. People assume the earth is a globe. Pope Sylvester II (Gerbert) was a flat earther evidenced in his description of this "hollow sphere", which represents the universe, not the earth. From Wiki: (in blue)

"Richer also revealed how Gerbert made the planets more easily observable in his armillary sphere:"
"Furthermore, Gerbert instructed Constantine that the north pole could be measured with the upper and lower sighting tubes, the Arctic Circle through another tube, the Tropic of Cancer through another tube, the equator through another tube, and the Tropic of Capricorn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropic_of_Capricorn) through another tube.[29]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Sylvester_II#cite_note-darlington_470-31)
^{This proves beyond a doubt that such measurements are made with the line of sight. This is impossible if earth were a globe.}
Now, while an armillary sphere can be turned about is if to represent earth as a globe and is represented as such, it can also make the sun stationary when its mechanics are changed. However, by design of the armillary sphere, its quite clear the sun is not at the center of the universe.

An armillary sphere (variations are known as spherical astrolabe, armilla, or armil) is a model of objects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_object) in the sky (on the celestial sphere (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_sphere)).

This instrument was designed to show why some stars cannot be seen on certain planes from certain positions, not to explain that earth is a globe.

More from Wiki:
The Chinese are quite famous for being flat earthers from ancient times and they used the armillary sphere long before Pope Sylvester II.
Throughout Chinese (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China) history, astronomers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomer) have created celestial globes (Chinese (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Chinese_characters): 浑象) to assist the observation of the stars. The Chinese also used the armillary sphere in aiding calendrical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar) computations and calculations.
According to Needham, the earliest development of the armillary sphere in China goes back to the astronomers Shi Shen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi_Shen) and Gan De (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gan_De) in the 4th century BC, as they were equipped with a primitive single-ring armillary instrument.^{[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armillary_sphere#cite_note-needham_volume_3_343-3)} This would have allowed them to measure the north polar distance (declination) a measurement that gave the position in a xiu (right ascension).^{[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armillary_sphere#cite_note-needham_volume_3_343-3)} Needham's 4th century dating, however, is rejected by British sinologist Christopher Cullen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Cullen), who traces the beginnings of these devices to the 1st century BC.^{[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armillary_sphere#cite_note-4)}

^{100% of ancient Catholic authorities who taught anything about the shape of the earth taught earth is flat.}

Good job.
Those spheres of the heavens have ZERO to do with the flat earth and everything to do the law of perspective
Happenby, Meg, and aryzia have been exceptionally patient with apollo and forlorn's boring posts, which have been answered ad nauseam.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: klasG4e on April 27, 2018, 07:38:20 PM

Quote from: apollo on April 27, 2018, 11:50:03 AM

Geocentrism really require a person to believe in magic.

Did apollo really say that? Yes, he actually did!

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on April 27, 2018, 08:05:00 PM

Quote from: apollo on April 27, 2018, 04:06:27 PM

Scientifically and mathematically viable, by what science?
How can the sun keep the equator warm and not the North pole if both are on a flat surface?
How can it be dark in the Philippines and light in New York if the earth is flat?
I would like to see some photos of the edge of the flat earth, where you step off into outer
space.

Viable certainly not by NASA pagan modern science that pretends man went to the moon and took pictures of the ball earth.
You'll need to look up some flat earth videos because I'm not answering all these questions in order for you to dis my answers.
You'll get photos of the edges of flat earth when I get photos of the ball earth.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on April 27, 2018, 08:08:04 PM

Quote from: Jaynek on April 27, 2018, 05:22:32 PM

Cosmas is not a Church Father. He has unique ideas about the shape of the earth that do not represent the ideas of those Church Fathers who believed in a flat earth. (And obviously he does not represent the Fathers who believed in a spherical earth.) Reading Christian Topography does not show "what the Fathers are saying" but one might find it amusing.

His writing shows the opinions of a random 6th century monk. It has no authority and little significance.

Now this is rich. You have no idea what the Church Fathers have said, nor what Cosmas has said about the flat earth, except that I've provided you information.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Jaynek on April 27, 2018, 08:38:10 PM

Quote from: happenby on April 27, 2018, 08:08:04 PM

Now this is rich. You have no idea what the Church Fathers have said, nor what Cosmas has said about the flat earth, except that I've provided you information.

Why would you be my only source of information? All this information is available online and accessible by anyone with even rudimentary research skills. I have read many articles on this topic and tried to check original sources as much as possible. Of course I know what Cosmas wrote. When I claim something, it means that I have done enough research to be confident that my statement is true.

The best collection that I have found of quotes from the Fathers on flat earth (among other relevant information) is this: http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/flat_earth_myth_ch5.html (http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/flat_earth_myth_ch5.html) This author does his best to be objective and assembles quotes both for and against flat earth. I also like the chronological arrangement.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: klasG4e on April 28, 2018, 01:15:39 AM

http://flatearthdeception.com/ (http://flatearthdeception.com/)

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 28, 2018, 02:15:18 AM

Quote from: klasG4e on April 28, 2018, 01:15:39 AM

http://flatearthdeception.com/ (http://flatearthdeception.com/)

.
Interesting website, klas. They show a video with two cargo ships, one some distance away from the camera, probably a few miles, and another far out at sea, likely 30 or more miles away. Very powerful telephoto lens on the Nikon P900 gives crisp detail on the distant containers of the far-away ship the foremast of which is visible and the bow but the rest of the hull is below the hump in earth's curvature so the water surface (which curves with the earth) covers up the hull of the distant ship. At first you might think it's a city skyline you're seeing there because it sort of resembles tall buildings but look closely and you'll see it's really stacked containers on the cargo ship's deck! After the first 45 seconds the distant ship is hidden by the closer ship but reappears at 1:50, with tall foremast and the point of the bow at the left end, visible for a few seconds.
.
https://youtu.be/dKF7D7XsyTA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=134&v=dKF7D7XsyTA

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Jaynek on April 28, 2018, 07:28:24 AM

Speaking of researching Cosmas, happenby apparently does not realize that scholars who have studied his writings identify many different ideas characteristic of Nestorianism. It is generally recognized that Cosmas was either a Nestorian himself or, at best, heavily influenced by the Nestorian heresy. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia article on him mentions this.

Rather than holding him up as an example of orthodox Christian thought and spokesman for the Fathers, as happenby does, we ought to view everything he writes with suspicion. He is tainted with heterodoxy.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Smedley Butler on April 28, 2018, 08:49:34 AM

No, the Novus Ordo is tainted with heterodoxy.

The same Novus Ordo that taught you your belief in evolution, heliocentrism, ecuмenism, etc.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: forlorn on April 28, 2018, 09:57:36 AM

Quote from: Smedley Butler on April 28, 2018, 08:49:34 AM

No, the Novus Ordo is tainted with heterodoxy.

The same Novus Ordo that taught you your belief in evolution, heliocentrism, ecuмenism, etc.

Heliocentrism in the Church predates Novus Ordo by about 200 years.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on April 28, 2018, 10:16:29 AM

Quote from: forlorn on April 28, 2018, 09:57:36 AM

Heliocentrism in the Church predates Novus Ordo by about 200 years.

Again, do some research bud. Heliocentrism to some degree existed in Noah's time. According to WIKI "a fully developed heliocentric model was developed by Aristarchus of Samos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos) in the 3rd century BC" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: forlorn on April 28, 2018, 10:34:58 AM

Quote from: happenby on April 28, 2018, 10:16:29 AM

Again, do some research bud. Heliocentrism to some degree existed in Noah's time. According to WIKI "a fully developed heliocentric model was developed by Aristarchus of Samos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos) in the 3rd century BC" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism

I said in the Church, you illiterate buffoon. It was in the mid-1700s that the Vatican stopped banning new Heliocentric works, and when many Catholic clergymen began to assume it in their theses without issue.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Jaynek on April 28, 2018, 11:02:06 AM

Quote from: forlorn on April 28, 2018, 09:57:36 AM

Heliocentrism in the Church predates Novus Ordo by about 200 years.

For the record, my general understanding of how Catholics should understand the relationship between science and Scripture is primarily based on the encyclical Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII in 1893. However, on the specific question of whether Catholics are permitted to believe heliocentrism, I base my conclusion (that we are) on Paul VII's decree of 1820.

I don't actually identify myself as a heliocentrist, since I do not know enough science to hold an opinion. As I understand it, the current view promoted by secular science is, strictly speaking, Cosmological Special Relativity rather than heliocentrism. I would need to understand CSR far better than I do in order to agree or disagree with it.

As I said in another recent post, I do hold geocentrism in respect because that is the tradtional view of the Church for most of our history. This traditional geocentrism clearly included the belief that the earth is a sphere.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on April 28, 2018, 11:40:50 AM

Quote from: Jaynek on April 28, 2018, 07:28:24 AM

Speaking of researching Cosmas, happenby apparently does not realize that scholars who have studied his writings identify many different ideas characteristic of Nestorianism. It is generally recognized that Cosmas was either a Nestorian himself or, at best, heavily influenced by the Nestorian heresy. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia article on him mentions this.

Rather than holding him up as an example of orthodox Christian thought and spokesman for the Fathers, as happenby does, we ought to view everything he writes with suspicion. He is tainted with heterodoxy.

Many of us know she's been malicious, but this is just rotten. Had she read the book, or done research to include whether or not this calumny against Cosmas had any truth to it before she cast aspersions she would have saved herself more embarrassment. Both philosophically and cartographically, Cosmas' ideas were strictly dictated by his literal interpretation of the Bible; and for his incredible humility and genius, he was highly esteemed in Christendom. Cosmas' Christian Topography has been preserved in two copies: one a parchment manuscript of the 10th century belonging to the Laurentian Library in Florence, containing the whole work except the last leaf; the other, a very fine manuscript of the 8th or 9th century, belonging to the Vatican Library. The Christian Topography contains, in all probability, the oldest Christian maps known. His writings were highly revered in Christendom for 700 years. No doubt Cosmas's comparison of the first tabernacle to the earth contributed to hundreds of years of Church architecture highlighting high altars with their star-representing candlesticks, enormous granite pillars, and vaulted domes with frescoes of angels and saints in heaven, above. Cosmas' description of the liturgy in relation to the form of the earth is nothing less than inspired, and its a crime more Catholics aren't aware of the typology to help them understand the Mass in relation to the Old Testament as well as the fulfillment in the New Testament. The accusation of Cosmas being a Nestorian came from the fact that poor Cosmas had Nestorian friends. Such a thing cannot prove one is a heretic. Another piece of information sheds more light. Nestorians refused to recognize Mary as the mother of God, yet Cosmas glowingly referred to Our Lady as "Theotokos", "Mother of God". So much for nice tries. This pathetic attempt to defame Cosmas exposes an intentional failure to examine more closely the facts, and the failure to examine the morons who, contradicting Cosmas, attempt to lie, cheat and steal in order to erase history, beat on God's messengers and lead people astray with false notions of creation. I say this is intentional because, without fail, this woman hails the religion of globalism to the point of worship, praises its high-priest scientists, sings off-key with her choir of anti-Catholic supporters who consistently get a pass from her, while everything Catholic is disparaged.
:heretic:

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Meg on April 28, 2018, 11:45:19 AM

Quote from: happenby on April 28, 2018, 11:40:50 AM

Many of us know she's been malicious, but this is just rotten. Had she read the book, or done research to include whether or not this calumny against Cosmas had any truth to it before she cast aspersions she would have saved herself more embarrassment. Both philosophically and cartographically, Cosmas' ideas were strictly dictated by his literal interpretation of the Bible; and for his incredible humility and genius, he was highly esteemed in Christendom. Cosmas' Christian Topography has been preserved in two copies: one a parchment manuscript of the 10th century belonging to the Laurentian Library in Florence, containing the whole work except the last leaf; the other, a very fine manuscript of the 8th or 9th century, belonging to the Vatican Library. The Christian Topography contains, in all probability, the oldest Christian maps known. His writings were highly revered in Christendom for 700 years. No doubt Cosmas's comparison of the first tabernacle to the earth contributed to hundreds of years of Church architecture highlighting high altars with their star-representing candlesticks, enormous granite pillars, and vaulted domes with frescoes of angels and saints in heaven, above. Cosmas' description of the liturgy in relation to the form of the earth is nothing less than inspired, and its a crime more Catholics aren't aware of the typology to help them understand the Mass in relation to the Old Testament as well as the fulfillment in the New Testament. The accusation of Cosmas being a Nestorian came from the fact that poor Cosmas had Nestorian friends. Such a thing cannot prove one is a heretic. Another piece of information sheds more light. Nestorians refused to recognize Mary as the mother of God, yet Cosmas glowingly referred to Our Lady as "Theotokos", "Mother of God". So much for nice tries. This pathetic attempt to defame Cosmas exposes an intentional failure to examine more closely the facts, and the failure to examine the morons who, contradicting Cosmas, attempt to lie, cheat and steal in order to erase history, beat on God's messengers and lead people astray with false notions of creation. I say this is intentional because, without fail, this woman hails the religion of globalism to the point of worship, praises its high-priest scientists, sings off-key with her choir of anti-Catholic supporters who consistently get a pass from her, while everything Catholic is disparaged.
:heretic:

Jayne likes to use Catholic Encyclopedia, but it's hardly a traditional resource. Rather, it is owned by Novus Ordo people, I think.

And Cosmas' literal interpretation of the Bible is not going to be allowed by the globers. Therefore, he has to be maligned by them.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Jaynek on April 28, 2018, 12:03:25 PM

Quote from: happenby on April 28, 2018, 11:40:50 AM

The accusation of Cosmas being a Nestorian came from the fact that poor Cosmas had Nestorian friends. Such a thing cannot prove one is a heretic. Another piece of information sheds more light. Nestorians refused to recognize Mary as the mother of God, yet Cosmas glowingly referred to Our Lady as "Theotokos", "Mother of God".

Anyone can do a search on "cosmas indicopleustes nestorian" and see many articles that make arguments for him being a Nestorian. They are based on the ideas contained in his writing, not on a friendship with Nestorius. These articles tend to address the issue that he referred to Our Lady as Theotokos. This is why some view him as influenced by Nestorianism rather fully a heretic. Even so, it would seem imprudent to treat him as an exemplar of Christian orthodoxy.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Jaynek on April 28, 2018, 12:07:09 PM

Quote from: Meg on April 28, 2018, 11:45:19 AM

Jayne likes to use Catholic Encyclopedia, but it's hardly a traditional resource. Rather, it is owned by Novus Ordo people, I think.

And Cosmas' literal interpretation of the Bible is not going to be allowed by the globers. Therefore, he has to be maligned by them.

Actually Catholic Encyclopedia claims that he seems to have been an orthodox Christian at the time of writing Christian Topography whatever the evidence of heresy before that.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: aryzia on April 28, 2018, 12:15:14 PM

Quote from: Meg on April 28, 2018, 11:45:19 AM

Jayne likes to use Catholic Encyclopedia, but it's hardly a traditional resource. Rather, it is owned by Novus Ordo people, I think.

And Cosmas' literal interpretation of the Bible is not going to be allowed by the globers. Therefore, he has to be maligned by them.

It's a consistency to persist in error that points to maliciousness. Non believers will always exist, but it isn't because they aren't informed. Ignore is a big part of ignorance.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: aryzia on April 28, 2018, 12:17:11 PM

Quote from: Jaynek on April 28, 2018, 12:03:25 PM

Anyone can do a search on "cosmas indicopleustes nestorian" and see many articles that make arguments for him being a Nestorian. They are based on the ideas contained in his writing, not on a friendship with Nestorius. These articles tend to address the issue that he referred to Our Lady as Theotokos. This is why some view him as influenced by Nestorianism rather fully a heretic. Even so, it would seem imprudent to treat him as an exemplar of Christian orthodoxy.

She continues without substantiation.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Jaynek on April 28, 2018, 12:31:45 PM

Quote from: aryzia on April 28, 2018, 12:17:11 PM

She continues without substantiation.

Any one of you can do the search I suggested and see for yourself that what I am saying is true. Here, I'll get you started: https://www.google.ca/search?q=cosmas+indicopleustes+nestorian&oq=cosmas+indicopleustes+&aqs=chrome.1.69i59l2j0j69i57j0l2.12414j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (https://www.google.ca/search?q=cosmas+indicopleustes+nestorian&oq=cosmas+indicopleustes+&aqs=chrome.1.69i59l2j0j69i57j0l2.12414j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: aryzia on April 28, 2018, 02:03:45 PM

Quote from: Jaynek on April 28, 2018, 12:31:45 PM

Any one of you can do the search I suggested and see for yourself that what I am saying is true. Here, I'll get you started: https://www.google.ca/search?q=cosmas+indicopleustes+nestorian&oq=cosmas+indicopleustes+&aqs=chrome.1.69i59l2j0j69i57j0l2.12414j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (https://www.google.ca/search?q=cosmas+indicopleustes+nestorian&oq=cosmas+indicopleustes+&aqs=chrome.1.69i59l2j0j69i57j0l2.12414j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

We all know what it says. The problem for you is that you didn't check further before dumping on a noble Catholic. Most people assume when they watch the evening news they are getting the truth, yet they are getting almost no truth. Skimming won't do.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: cassini on April 28, 2018, 02:26:27 PM

Quote from: apollo on April 26, 2018, 07:11:20 PM

'Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the prophets and apostles.’ --- Cardinal Bellarmine, Letter to Foscarini.

I took two days off to think.

This statement from St. Robert Bellarmine says that the ones who have spoken (the Church Fathers)
consider it a mater of faith that one must believe in Geocentrism.

OK, they have given their opinions. Their opinions do NOT make it a doctrine of the Church.
A doctrine much be declared to be so by a Pope, when speaking ex-Cathedra on a matter of faith and morals.

Oh my god, Are you serious, it took you TWO DAYS to figure out Bellarmine meant the Fathers? THE ONES WHO HAVE SPOKEN ARE THE WRITERS OF SCRIPTURE, INSPIRED BY GOD TO WRITE WHAT HE WANTED THEM TO WRITE.

Pope Paul V defined geocentrism and declared it a dogma in 1616. That decree has never been challenged as not of the magisterium, nor not of Faith.Indeed quite the opposite. In 1820 the Holy Office admitted it was irreversable.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: klasG4e on April 28, 2018, 04:52:43 PM

Quote from: Neil Obstat on April 28, 2018, 02:15:18 AM

.
Interesting website, klas. They show a video with two cargo ships, one some distance away from the camera, probably a few miles, and another far out at sea, likely 30 or more miles away. Very powerful telephoto lens on the Nikon P900 gives crisp detail on the distant containers of the far-away ship the foremast of which is visible and the bow but the rest of the hull is below the hump in earth's curvature so the water surface (which curves with the earth) covers up the hull of the distant ship. At first you might think it's a city skyline you're seeing there because it sort of resembles tall buildings but look closely and you'll see it's really stacked containers on the cargo ship's deck! After the first 45 seconds the distant ship is hidden by the closer ship but reappears at 1:50, with tall foremast and the point of the bow at the left end, visible for a few seconds.
.
https://youtu.be/dKF7D7XsyTA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=134&v=dKF7D7XsyTA

I ask that the Flat Earthers post what they consider their best Flat Earth website. I don't know if this is the best Flat Earth Rebuttal website, but I have found it to be a very powerful one and I, as a firm believer that the heavenly body which we all call Earth is a globe, challenge the Flat Earthers to post a website which will go up against :boxer: this one: http://flatearthdeception.com/ (http://flatearthdeception.com/)

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: forlorn on April 28, 2018, 04:58:38 PM

Quote from: cassini on April 28, 2018, 02:26:27 PM

Oh my god, Are you serious, it took you TWO DAYS to figure out Bellarmine meant the Fathers? THE ONES WHO HAVE SPOKEN ARE THE WRITERS OF SCRIPTURE, INSPIRED BY GOD TO WRITE WHAT HE WANTED THEM TO WRITE.

Pope Paul V defined geocentrism and declared it a dogma in 1616. That decree has never been challenged as not of the magisterium, nor not of Faith.Indeed quite the opposite. In 1820 the Holy Office admitted it was irreversable.

And yet morons in this thread still argue for flat earth.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: aryzia on April 28, 2018, 07:49:00 PM

Quote from: forlorn on April 28, 2018, 04:58:38 PM

And yet morons in this thread still argue for flat earth.

That's flat geocentric earth.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: forlorn on April 29, 2018, 07:50:16 AM

Quote from: aryzia on April 28, 2018, 07:49:00 PM

That's flat geocentric earth.

Show me where Galileo was condemned for globe earthism.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Smedley Butler on April 29, 2018, 11:32:59 AM

Quote from: klasG4e on April 28, 2018, 04:52:43 PM

I ask that the Flat Earthers post what they consider their best Flat Earth website. I don't know if this is the best Flat Earth Rebuttal website, but I have found it to be a very powerful one and I, as a firm believer that the heavenly body which we all call Earth is a globe, challenge the Flat Earthers to post a website which will go up against :boxer: this one: http://flatearthdeception.com/ (http://flatearthdeception.com/)

Earth is NOT a heavenly body.
We are NOT in tbe heavens.
Earth is a terrestrial body, not a celestial one.
Even the Bible makes this distinction.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: klasG4e on April 29, 2018, 01:00:48 PM

Quote from: Smedley Butler on April 29, 2018, 11:32:59 AM

Earth is NOT a heavenly body.
We are NOT in tbe heavens.
Earth is a terrestrial body, not a celestial one.
Even the Bible makes this distinction.

Still waiting for your best website to do battle :boxer: with http://flatearthdeception.com/ (http://flatearthdeception.com/)

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: klasG4e on April 29, 2018, 01:54:14 PM

Quote from: Smedley Butler on April 29, 2018, 11:32:59 AM

Earth is NOT a heavenly body.
We are NOT in tbe heavens.
Earth is a terrestrial body, not a celestial one.
Even the Bible makes this distinction.

Yes, of course! Correction noted. Thanks.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: forlorn on April 29, 2018, 03:12:07 PM

Quote from: Smedley Butler on April 29, 2018, 11:32:59 AM

Earth is NOT a heavenly body.
We are NOT in tbe heavens.
Earth is a terrestrial body, not a celestial one.
Even the Bible makes this distinction.

Terrestrial literally means of or relating to the Earth. Calling the Earth a terrestrial body is like calling the Sun a solar body.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Theosist on May 07, 2018, 02:03:17 PM

Quote from: forlorn on April 28, 2018, 04:58:38 PM

And yet morons in this thread still argue for flat earth.

Still waiting for a explanation of how a flat plane can be the centre of a three dimensional space.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: aryzia on May 07, 2018, 04:48:43 PM

Quote from: Theosist on May 07, 2018, 02:03:17 PM

Still waiting for a explanation of how a flat plane can be the centre of a three dimensional space.

Luke... go farther.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: cosmas on May 14, 2018, 10:32:46 AM

POPE ALEXANDER VII ISSUED A PAPAL BULL CONDEMNING HELIOCENTRISM ! JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE THAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE CHURCH OVER THE CENTURY'S MODERNISTS HAVE INFILTRATED THE CHURCH AND GOTTEN THE PAPACY TO SOFTEN THEIR STANCES ON DIFFERENT THINGS. THEY ALLOW THE DOOR OPEN A CRACK AND THE ENEMY TAKES ADVANTAGE AND FLOODS THROUGH WITH THEIR ERRONEOUS IDEAS ,LIKE HELIOCENTRISM .

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: cosmas on May 14, 2018, 11:25:18 AM

OKAY, YOUR POINT ?

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Jaynek on May 14, 2018, 11:33:30 AM

Quote from: cosmas on May 14, 2018, 10:32:46 AM

POPE ALEXANDER VII ISSUED A PAPAL BULL CONDEMNING HELIOCENTRISM !

This is a mischaracterization of the bull Speculatores Domus Israel, which is presumably the bull to which you refer. It accompanied the reissusing of the Index of Forbidden Books. While this did include some works promoting heliocentrism, the point was to reinforce the authority of the Index. It was about what books Catholics were permitted to read, not heliocentrism in itself.

Since all the books which promoted heliocentrism were later removed from the Index, this bull very clearly does not represent a timeless condemnation of heliocentrism.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: cosmas on May 14, 2018, 05:36:29 PM

Pope Alexander VII issued the bull Speculatories Domus Israel which he affixed to a new Index condemning all books in any way teaching heliocentrism, commanding and enjoining by his Apolistic Authority "all persons everywhere to yield to this Index a constant and complete obedience. The importance of this docuмent cannot be minimised,it included and reaffirmed not onlt the previous condemnations, but "all the relevant decrees up to the present time, that have been issued since the Index of our predecessor Clement. The creationist scholar Paula Haigh rightly concludes from this that "The evidence for Papal Infallibility in the Galileo case rests, then, upon the Bull of Alexander VII in 1664. "

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Jaynek on May 14, 2018, 06:37:15 PM

Quote from: cosmas on May 14, 2018, 05:36:29 PM

Pope Alexander VII issued the bull Speculatories Domus Israel which he affixed to a new Index condemning all books in any way teaching heliocentrism, commanding and enjoining by his Apolistic Authority "all persons everywhere to yield to this Index a constant and complete obedience. The importance of this docuмent cannot be minimised,it included and reaffirmed not onlt the previous condemnations, but "all the relevant decrees up to the present time, that have been issued since the Index of our predecessor Clement. The creationist scholar Paula Haigh rightly concludes from this that "The evidence for Papal Infallibility in the Galileo case rests, then, upon the Bull of Alexander VII in 1664. "

A bull about the necessity of obeying the Index is not an infallible teaching against heliocentrism . The Index was constantly changing with new works added or removed every time it was issued .
If the infallibility of the condemnation of Galileo rests on this then it is certain that it was not infallible . The fact that a later Pope explicitly allowed for teaching heliocentrism is also a big clue .

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: cosmas on May 14, 2018, 07:07:39 PM

Future Popes allowed it as a theory, the Modernists ran with it When Pope Benedict XVI opened the floodgates by permitting the false theory to be taught as theory in schools, and in 1822 Pius VII " bowing to the general opinion of modern astromeners ," began gradually removing books on heliocentrism from the Index. When Gregory XVI finally removed them all in 1835 , the sequel was not hard to predict. Galileo's views on Bibilical exegesis became the norm, and the Bible no longer figured as a scientific authority. The Holy Ghost had to make way for the dictatorial new scholarship.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Jaynek on May 14, 2018, 07:13:57 PM

Quote from: cosmas on May 14, 2018, 07:07:39 PM

Future Popes allowed it as a theory, the Modernists ran with it When Pope Benedict XVI opened the floodgates by permitting the false theory to be taught as theory in schools, and in 1822 Pius VII " bowing to the general opinion of modern astromeners ," began gradually removing books on heliocentrism from the Index. When Gregory XVI finally removed them all in 1835 , the sequel was not hard to predict. Galileo's views on Bibilical exegesis became the norm, and the Bible no longer figured as a scientific authority. The Holy Ghost had to make way for the dictatorial new scholarship.

So when a pope says something you like it is infallible but when it is something you don't like it is ignorable. This is a somewhat unconventional view of papal authority.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: cosmas on May 14, 2018, 09:36:18 PM

You must be speaking of the heliocentrics because that is exactly what they did. Didn't like what the Pope said.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Jaynek on May 15, 2018, 08:46:25 AM

Quote from: cosmas on May 14, 2018, 09:36:18 PM

You must be speaking of the heliocentrics because that is exactly what they did. Didn't like what the Pope said.

Which pope? There are at least as many popes teaching that heliocentrism is acceptable as teaching that it is not.

I think that traditional (spherical earth) geocentrism is a reasonable position for Catholics to take, since it is the dominant view throughout the history of the Church. There is, however, no basis for claiming it was an infallible teaching. Unless, I suppose, one adopts some sort of sedevacantism that says the Chair has been empty since around 1700.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Mr G on May 15, 2018, 01:44:35 PM

Quote from: An even Seven on May 15, 2018, 08:54:00 AM

If one subscribes to the R&R position, one is free to accept and reject whichever teaching of a Pope one wants. Also, since the R&R position allows for a manifest heretic to be a Pope, there would be no problem with a Pope uttering the "heresy" of Heliocentrism.

Sorry this is off topic of "Heliocentric Hoax", but related to the comment above: Do sedevacantists reject Pope Pius XII's demands when they (sedevacantists) refuse to implement the liturgical changes of 1955?
Back on topic, when the Popes made allowance for Heliocentric writings was it based on verifiable factual information from unbiased sources?

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Mr G on May 15, 2018, 02:32:14 PM

Quote from: An even Seven on May 15, 2018, 02:10:10 PM

Changes made to a liturgy by a Pope cannot contain anything which would be harmful to the faith and the worship of God.I would assume it's based on the fact that a topic like this, so long as the authority of Scripture isn't threatened, is something that may be changed given the advancement of science; i.e. the topic of whether the Earth is the physical center of the Solar system, the shape of the Earth, etc... are matters which are not important for our salvation.

Thanks for your reply. So the sedevacantists in this case, would recognize Pius XII as a valid Pope but resist or reject his harmful changes.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Jaynek on May 15, 2018, 02:41:44 PM

Quote from: Mr G on May 15, 2018, 01:44:35 PM

Back on topic, when the Popes made allowance for Heliocentric writings was it based on verifiable factual information from unbiased sources?

Galileo did not have enough science evidence to support his theories. He tried to make his case stronger by pressuring the Church to reinterpret Scripture. He totally deserved his condemnation. Later heliocentrism was less objectionable, so I can understand the popes softening their views. I can't think of any docuмentation for what their motives were.

Here is the Wikipedia summary:

Quote

In 1758 the Catholic Church dropped the general prohibition of books advocating heliocentrism from the Index of Forbidden Books (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum).^{[73] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#cite_note-Heilbron_2005,_p.307-73)} It did not, however, explicitly rescind the decisions issued by the Inquisition in its judgement of 1633 against Galileo, or lift the prohibition of uncensored versions of Copernicus's De Revolutionibus or Galileo's Dialogue.^{[73] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#cite_note-Heilbron_2005,_p.307-73)}The issue finally came to a head in 1820 when the Master of the Sacred Palace (the Church's chief censor), Filippo Anfossi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Anfossi), refused to license a book by a Catholic canon, Giuseppe Settele, because it openly treated heliocentrism as a physical fact.^{[74] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#cite_note-Heilbron_2005,_pp.279,_312-74)} Settele appealed to pope Pius VII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pius_VII). After the matter had been reconsidered by the Congregation of the Index and the Holy Office, Anfossi's decision was overturned.^{[74] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#cite_note-Heilbron_2005,_pp.279,_312-74)} Copernicus's De Revolutionibus and Galileo's Dialogue were then subsequently omitted from the next edition of the Index when it appeared in 1835.^{[75]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#cite_note-75)}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair)

Here is an English translation of the 1820 decree:

Quote

The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe Settele, Professor of Optics and Astronomy at La Sapienza University, regarding permission to publish his work Elements of Astronomy in which he espouses the common opinion of the astronomers of our time regarding the earth’s daily and yearly motions, to His Holiness through Divine Providence, Pope Pius VII. Previously, His Holiness had referred this request to the Supreme Sacred Congregation and concurrently to the consideration of the Most Eminent and Most Reverend General Cardinal Inquisitor. His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today, even by Catholic authors. He has, moreover, suggested the insertion of several notations into this work, aimed at demonstrating that the above mentioned affirmation [of Copernicus], as it is has come to be understood, does not present any difficulties; difficulties that existed in times past, prior to the subsequent astronomical observations that have now occurred. [Pope Pius VII] has also recommended that the implementation [of these decisions] be given to the Cardinal Secretary of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace. He is now appointed the task of bringing to an end any concerns and criticisms regarding the printing of this book, and, at the same time, ensuring that in the future, regarding the publication of such works, permission is sought from the Cardinal Vicar whose signature will not be given without the authorization of the Superior of his Order.

http://inters.org/approval-Settele-heliocentric (http://inters.org/approval-Settele-heliocentric)

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: klasG4e on May 15, 2018, 06:24:42 PM

Quote from: Jaynek on May 15, 2018, 02:41:44 PM

Later heliocentrism was less objectionable, so I can understand the popes softening their views. I can't think of any docuмentation for what their motives were.

Here is the Wikipedia summary:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair)

Here is an English translation of the 1820 decree:http://inters.org/approval-Settele-heliocentric (http://inters.org/approval-Settele-heliocentric)

Dr. Robert Sungenis presents an excellent treatment on the above matter (the unofficial Church softening on Galileo and related matters) on pages 65-66 at http://www.robertsungenis.com/gww/features/Catholic%20Traditionalist%20Struggles%20with%20Geocentrism.pdf (http://www.robertsungenis.com/gww/features/Catholic%20Traditionalist%20Struggles%20with%20Geocentrism.pdf)

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: cassini on May 18, 2018, 06:59:55 AM

Quote from: cosmas on May 14, 2018, 10:32:46 AM

POPE ALEXANDER VII ISSUED A PAPAL BULL CONDEMNING HELIOCENTRISM ! JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE THAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE CHURCH OVER THE CENTURY'S MODERNISTS HAVE INFILTRATED THE CHURCH AND GOTTEN THE PAPACY TO SOFTEN THEIR STANCES ON DIFFERENT THINGS. THEY ALLOW THE DOOR OPEN A CRACK AND THE ENEMY TAKES ADVANTAGE AND FLOODS THROUGH WITH THEIR ERRONEOUS IDEAS ,LIKE HELIOCENTRISM .

The irreversable decree defining a fixed sun as formal heresy because it contradicted the revelation of Scripture and because it contradicted the reading of Scripture by ALL the Fathers was the 1616 decree. All decrees after that came as a result of the 1616 decree and were based on it. The 1633 trial of Galileo was based on the 1616 decree and the 1664 bull is explained by Fr Roberts below.

‘Towards the end of his Pontificate, it occurred to Alexander VII that it was his duty, as guardian of the household of Israel, to compose and place before the faithful a new Index of prohibited books that should be complete up to his time, and be more conveniently arranged than former indices. Whereupon he set to work with a specially chosen number of Cardinals and in the March of 1664 there issued from the Vatican press a book entitled Index Librorum prohibitorum Alexandri VII. Pontificis Maximi jussu editus. It was prefaced by a Bull wherein the Pope describes this composition of his Index and gives reasons for putting it forth…

BULLARIUM ROMANUM 1664.

Super observatione Indicis librorum prohibitorum noviter impressi.

Alexander Papa VII, ad perpetuam rei memoriam

“For this purpose,” pursues the Pontiff, “we have caused the Tridentine and Clementine Indices to be added to this general Index, and also all the relevant decrees up to the present time, that have been issued since the Index of our predecessor Clement, that nothing profitable to the faithful interested in such matters might seem omitted…. we, having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm, and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and: command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield this Index a constant and complete obedience.”

Turning to this Index, we find among the decrees the Pope caused to be added thereto, the following: the “Quia ad notitiam” of 1616; the “monitum” of 1620, declaring the principles advocated by Copernicus on the position and movement of the Earth to be “repugnant to Scripture and to its true and catholic interpretation;” the edict signed by Cardinal Bellarmine prohibiting and condemning Kepler’s Epitome Astronomiæ Copernicanæ, the edict of August, 1634, prohibiting and condemning the Dialogo di Galileo Galilei; and under the heading “Libri,” we find: “Libri omnes docentes mobilitatem terræ, et immobilitatem solis, in decree 5 Martii, 1616.” These, therefore, were some of the things the Pope confirmed and approved with apostolic authority by the tenor of his Bull. It is clear, therefore, that the condemnation of Copernicanism was ratified and approved by the Pope himself, not merely behind the scenes, but publicly in the face of the whole Church, by the authority of a Bull addressed to all the faithful. Nay, more - and I call particular attention to this point - the Index to which the decrees in question were attached, was confirmed and approved by the Pope, not as a thing external to the Bull, but as though actually in it, “quem præsentibus nostris pro inserto haberi volumus;” and therefore it, and all it contained, came to the Church directly from the Pope himself, speaking to her as her Head, “as guardian of the household of Israel, as the shepherd who had to take care of the Lord’s flock, to protect it from the evils that threatened it, to see that the sheep redeemed by the precious blood of the Saviour were not led astray from the path of truth.”’ --- Fr Roberts, The Pontifical Decrees, p.92-3.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: cassini on May 18, 2018, 08:54:11 AM

Quote from: An even Seven on May 14, 2018, 10:52:35 AM

You are not talking about something that can be softened. If, as you say, a Pope condemned Heliocentrism in an infallible way, the Pope who doubted that condemnation, was teaching or believing heresy...manifestly. Like this quote below.

Pope Benedict XV, IN PRAECLARA SUMMORUM: ...and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ.

Pope Benedict here, is definitely doubting an article of faith according to you.

The Heliocentric heresy is no doubt a most complicated one. It was Cardinal Bellarmine who pointed out that the heresy was AGAINST THOSE THAT HAD SPOKEN. What he meant by this was that every word of Scripture was dictated by the Holy Ghost, no MATTER WHAT THE SUBJECT WAS, and to deny the truth of that subject matter, one that was held by all the Fathers and Tradition since the Church was founded, was the HERESY. He compared this denial of a moving sun to denying THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRIST, for only in the Scriptures is this physical possibility revealed.

Thus to contradict the revelations in Scripture of a moving sun was to deny the word of God. This is probably one of the most interesting aspects of the whole Galileo case. Once it was believed the Church of 1616 got it wrong ON THE SUBJECT MATTER, Catholic exegesis and hermeneutics was forced to TOTALLY CHANGE WITHIN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

First of all the 'infallibility' of the 1616 decree (then called the 'irreversibility' of the decrees) was DENIED by thousands of churchmen, theologians and philosophers, BUT NOT BY ONE SINGLE POPE. This is PROOF that the Good Lord will not allow popes to officially deny what a previous pope has decreed infallibly. In 1820 the Holy Office had to face this dilemma, an 'irreversible' dercree that was THOUGHT to be an error on the basis of scientific assertions. But by sheer genius, the Holy Office managed to have their Catholic cake (irreversible decree) and eat it (allow a new type of heliocentrism). The removal of all books advocating advocating heresy from the Index means nothing, as Pope Paul VI removed the INDEX ALTOGETHER but every heresy in them remains heresy.

As regards the REFORMATION of CATHOLIC EXEGESIS AND HERMENEUTICs, well in order to make the 1616 decree look INSIGNIFICANT they undid St Robert Bellarmine's hermeneutics and said that the 1616 decree was a matter of science (the subject matter) and that no scientific matter or matter of natural philosophy was here TAUGHT by the Holy Ghost. The whole credibility of the Catholic Church as a divinely guided religion DEPENDED NOW ON DENYING IN PUBLIC THAT THE 1616 DECREE WAS BACKED UP IN ANY WAY BY DIVINE GUIDANCE. Now with popes HAVING to go along with this REFORMATION, in order to save the Church from a 1616 decree they believed was proven false, endless contradictions came into being and Biblical understanding came under attack from all quarters from HUMAN REASONING. Accordingly Pope Leo XIII brought out the first encyclical on how the Bible should be understood and read in 1893. In it he allowed changes to some interpretations in LINE WITH THE FINDINGS OF MODERN SCIENCE. So the reformation continued. Now if we bring this to a natural conclusion, you cannot feed five thousand on five loaves of bread and two fishes, can you, so who can deny there was a caravan of bread and fishes nearby and that is what fed them. No miracle there, is there? Or is it a matter of faith God did it with five loaves and two fishes?

In 1920 Pope Benedict XV of course had to write another encyclical on biblical reading because of the CHAOS of Catholic exegesis. In it he said EVERY WORD OF THE BIBLE IS TRUE. Now we had a situation where every word of the bible is true, yet, according to Galileo's reformation, only supernatural things need be believed as revealed or taught or true. This was a great encyclical, but how can one pope 'CORRECT' a previous pope's encyclical? As for his 'MAY NOT BE THE CENTER OF THE WORLD' in his Dante Letter, well he was a victim of Einsteinianism that allowed heliocentrism and geocentrism. So Poper Benedict XV was NOT DENYING THE 1616 DECREE OR GEOCENTRISM, merely giving the opinion of science at the time.

So on went the reinterpreting according to modern science. Finally Pope Pius XII in 1943 opened the Bible up to Big Bang theistic evolution. Now the Bible is little more than a story-book as regards all the natural philosophy and facts in it that we are told is the word of God that cannot be used to support anything in nature today.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: cassini on May 18, 2018, 09:13:56 AM

Quote from: Jaynek on May 15, 2018, 02:41:44 PM

Galileo did not have enough science evidence to support his theories. He tried to make his case stronger by pressuring the Church to reinterpret Scripture. He totally deserved his condemnation. Later heliocentrism was less objectionable, so I can understand the popes softening their views. I can't think of any docuмentation for what their motives were.

Here is the Wikipedia summary:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair)

Here is an English translation of the 1820 decree:http://inters.org/approval-Settele-heliocentric (http://inters.org/approval-Settele-heliocentric)

'Less objectionable' is one way of putting it Jaynek, believed as proven true is the fact of it, but not by all churchmen. There were champions of the irreversible 1616 decree in the Holy Office of the time. They insisted it was an infallible decree, in other words it had to be a truth. Olivieri had to concede, yes he said, it was irreversible. So how can you have an irreversible false decree, yet allow heliocentrism to be belieed.?

Thankfully, we now have copies of the docuмents that spell out all the arguments put forward in 1741 and 1820 in order to get popes to repeal the ban on heliocentric books.

I found them all translated in Maurice A. Finocchiaro's RETRYING GALILEO 2007.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: cosmas on May 18, 2018, 09:58:18 AM

I thought this was an interesting observation , at Fatima THE BLESSED MOTHER had the sun come hurtling down toward the Earth. Why not have the Earth hurtle toward the sun ? A mystery we'll find out someday.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: klasG4e on May 18, 2018, 02:44:23 PM

Quote from: cassini on May 18, 2018, 09:13:56 AM

'Less objectionable' is one way of putting it Jaynek, believed as proven true is the fact of it, but not by all churchmen. There were champions of the irreversible 1616 decree in the Holy Office of the time. They insisted it was an infallible decree, in other words it had to be a truth. Olivieri had to concede, yes he said, it was irreversible. So how can you have an irreversible false decree, yet allow heliocentrism to be belieed.?

Thankfully, we now have copies of the docuмents that spell out all the arguments put forward in 1741 and 1820 in order to get popes to repeal the ban on heliocentric books.

I found them all translated in Maurice A. Finocchiaro's RETRYING GALILEO 2007.

Indeed, Finocchiaro's sizeable book is a great source of docuмentation. That said, it is interesting to note a rather cogent comment of Dr. Robert Sungenis concerning this book. It may be seen as a word to the wise before one proceeds in reading the book.

While admitting that Finocchiaro is a respected Galileo historian Sungenis states that Finocchiaro, "admits in the opening pages of his latest work [Retrying Galileo] that he is driven to uncover every detail of the Galileo affair because, as he says, 'a key recurring question has been whether, how, and why the condemnation was right or wrong, and that is what the title Retrying Galileo is meant to convey.' Finocchiaro believes the Church was sincerely wrong. Hence, his motivation for 'retrying' Galileo is too find the 'real' reason the Church took such a strong stance, since he can’t believe the Church could be so obtuse to science." [my emphasis]

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: cassini on May 18, 2018, 03:14:30 PM

Quote from: klasG4e on May 18, 2018, 02:44:23 PM

Indeed, Finocchiaro's sizeable book is a great source of docuмentation. That said, it is interesting to note a rather cogent comment of Dr. Robert Sungenis concerning this book. It may be seen as a word to the wise before one proceeds in reading the book.

While admitting that Finocchiaro is a respected Galileo historian Sungenis states that Finocchiaro, "admits in the opening pages of his latest work [Retrying Galileo] that he is driven to uncover every detail of the Galileo affair because, as he says, 'a key recurring question has been whether, how, and why the condemnation was right or wrong, and that is what the title Retrying Galileo is meant to convey.' Finocchiaro believes the Church was sincerely wrong. Hence, his motivation for 'retrying' Galileo is too find the 'real' reason the Church took such a strong stance, since he can’t believe the Church could be so obtuse to science." [my emphasis]

Yes KlasG4e, Finocchiaro is a heliocentrist who thinks the Church was wrong. Many of his comments are those of the Toms, Dicks and Harrys I spoke about that the Church allowed to decide the authority of the decrees against biblical heliocentrism.
But his history is
excellent, with no bias or favour, and he tells it as it really happened. Only for him the ignorance about the Galileo case would still be a mixture of fact and fiction it has been for hundreds of years.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 21, 2018, 12:02:28 AM

Quote from: happenby on April 27, 2018, 01:15:15 PM

Right. And by the looks of your answers devoid of reason, proof or sense, its obvious that you couldn't lick the boots of this gal if you had a ladder.

Oh, you got me with that scientific explanation. I cannot refute that, especially the boots part.
OK, if you want to do ad-hominum attacks ...
I hope you get ahead in life ... you need one.
Pax tecuм.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: roscoe on July 21, 2018, 02:01:02 AM

Quote from: klasG4e on May 18, 2018, 02:44:23 PM

Indeed, Finocchiaro's sizeable book is a great source of docuмentation. That said, it is interesting to note a rather cogent comment of Dr. Robert Sungenis concerning this book. It may be seen as a word to the wise before one proceeds in reading the book.

While admitting that Finocchiaro is a respected Galileo historian Sungenis states that Finocchiaro, "admits in the opening pages of his latest work [Retrying Galileo] that he is driven to uncover every detail of the Galileo affair because, as he says, 'a key recurring question has been whether, how, and why the condemnation was right or wrong, and that is what the title Retrying Galileo is meant to convey.' Finocchiaro believes the Church was sincerely wrong. Hence, his motivation for 'retrying' Galileo is too find the 'real' reason the Church took such a strong stance, since he can’t believe the Church could be so obtuse to science." [my emphasis]

I am not sure who Finocchiaro is but he is correct as the 'real' reason Galileo was condemned ( at least in 1633) is his concept of Quantum/Atom physics-- not astronomy. See my article The Real Galileo at firstjesuits.wordpress.com

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 21, 2018, 09:50:34 AM

Quote from: forlorn on April 29, 2018, 03:12:07 PM

Terrestrial literally means of or relating to the Earth. Calling the Earth a terrestrial body is like calling the Sun a solar body.

.
Or the moon a lunar body, or Mars a Martian body.
.

Remember the FirMarsament

(https://s14-eu5.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fprofile_images%2F935666360499269634%2FNCc1_TED_400x400.jpg&sp=2db9646fcbf79bc7a8fcda31d2ed79b8)

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Neil Obstat on July 21, 2018, 10:02:50 AM

Quote from: cosmas on May 18, 2018, 09:58:18 AM

I thought this was an interesting observation, at Fatima THE BLESSED MOTHER had the sun come hurtling down toward the Earth.

Why not have the Earth hurtle toward the sun? A mystery we'll find out someday.

.
If the earth had done the moving, then everyone all around the globe would have noticed, but only those at Fatima noticed.
The miracle was for those who came to the Cova da Iria, not for those who did not come.
Scripture says the earth "shall not be moved," so Our Lady wouldn't want the atheists to say the Bible was wrong.
.
Might have to do with the end of the world, which seemed to be happening then, but did not.
Scripture says the heavens will be rolled up like a scroll and the stars will lose their regular motion.
Most of the eye witnesses were convinced on the spot that the world was ending right there.
They fell to their knees and began to confess their sins out loud.
Atheists were converted.
The blind, sick and deaf were cured.
Everyone's clothes became dry and freshly laundered.
The muddy soil was suddenly dry.
People's shoes that had been stuck in the mud were clean, and resting normally on dry soil.
.
From a scientific perspective none of it makes any sense.
People's shoes should have been stuck in dried dirt, and they'd have to dig them out.
Dry clothes, maybe, but laundered and fresh? Impossible! Tell that to the eye witnesses.
Physically, the energy required to dry all those clothes and remove the moisture from the mud would have cooked the people.
Everyone would have died instantly, from a purely physical and normal drying by the sun's heat.
How the sun could have appeared as it did, moving that way, is entirely outside the possibility of nature.
Totally unbelievable.
Unquestionably the greatest physical miracle in modern times.
Comparable to the parting of the Red Sea or the 10 plagues of Egypt or the fire that erupted from the Temple reconstruction.
It was given "so that all may believe," but even to this day 100 years later, there are doubters.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 21, 2018, 03:23:23 PM

"Let all the earth be moved at his presence: for he hath founded the world immoveable."
[1 Paralipomenon (1 Chronicles) 16:30 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=13&ch=16&l=30#x)]

"Adore ye the Lord in his holy court. Let all the earth be moved at his presence."
[Psalms 95:9 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=95&l=9#x)]

"A psalm for David himself. The Lord hath reigned, let the people be angry: he that sitteth on the cherubims: let the earth be moved."
[Psalms 98:1 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=98&l=1#x)]

"With breaking shall the earth be broken, with crushing shall the earth be crushed, with trembling shall the earth be moved."
[Isaias (Isaiah) 24:19 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=24&l=19#x)]

"They have not known nor understood: they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth shall be moved."
[Psalms 81:5 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=81&l=5#x)]

"For this I will trouble the heaven: and the earth shall be moved out of her place, for the indignation of the Lord of hosts, and for the day of his fierce wrath."
[Isaias (Isaiah) 13:13 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=13&l=13#x)]

"And the Lord shall roar out of Sion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem: and the heavens and the earth shall be moved, and the Lord shall be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel."
[Joel 3:16 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=34&ch=3&l=16#x)]

.
Sorry, every time I try to clean this up, it gets worse.
.
Here are the results you get when you search the Douay-Rheims Bible for "earth be moved".
You can do the search yourself with this link:

http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=earth+be+moved&b=drb (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=earth+be+moved&b=drb)

I would like somebody to tell me how the word "rotating" or "orbiting" makes any sense in any of these verses.
Yet, you Geocentrists tell me that "earth shall not be moved" means the earth is not rotating and not orbiting the Sun.

Whereas the word "shaken" or "trembling" makes a lot of sense in these verses.
Why is there any mention of "foundations" when talking about the earth? And "pillars"?

The Bible is so unscientific and like a caveman, when it comes to astronomy,
yet you CathInfo people cling to Geocentrism, like a drowning man clings to a life-saver. Why?

Because all science is EVIL. Gravity is EVIL. NASA is EVIL. Heliocentrists are EVIL.
And, the Church fathers were great scientists, nearly infallible and they believed in Geocentrism.

Yes, I know, you are not going to change.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: roscoe on July 21, 2018, 06:14:51 PM

E & S are BOTH in motion.... :sleep:

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: klasG4e on July 22, 2018, 01:14:47 AM

Quote from: roscoe on July 21, 2018, 06:14:51 PM

E & S are BOTH in motion.... :sleep:

How so?

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 22, 2018, 11:04:54 AM

Quote from: apollo on July 21, 2018, 03:23:23 PM

Yet, you Geocentrists tell me that "earth shall not be moved" means the earth is not rotating and not orbiting the Sun.
Whereas the word "shaken" or "trembling" makes a lot of sense in these verses.
Why is there any mention of "foundations" when talking about the earth? And "pillars"?
The Bible is so unscientific and like a caveman, when it comes to astronomy,

Actually, I don't think the Bible says anything about Astronomy (earth rotating or orbiting).
It says "shall not be moved" and "by trembling shall be moved" and at the presence of God
"shall be moved". It is talking about trembling and shaking and crumbling of the foundations.
This is not Astronomy. This is Geography or Geophysics (earthquakes, tremors, etc.)

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: cassini on July 23, 2018, 02:07:21 PM

Quote from: apollo on July 21, 2018, 03:23:23 PM

"Let all the earth be moved at his presence: for he hath founded the world immoveable."
[1 Paralipomenon (1 Chronicles) 16:30 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=13&ch=16&l=30#x)]

"Adore ye the Lord in his holy court. Let all the earth be moved at his presence."
[Psalms 95:9 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=95&l=9#x)]

"A psalm for David himself. The Lord hath reigned, let the people be angry: he that sitteth on the cherubims: let the earth be moved."
[Psalms 98:1 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=98&l=1#x)]

"With breaking shall the earth be broken, with crushing shall the earth be crushed, with trembling shall the earth be moved."
[Isaias (Isaiah) 24:19 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=24&l=19#x)]

"They have not known nor understood: they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth shall be moved."
[Psalms 81:5 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=81&l=5#x)]

"For this I will trouble the heaven: and the earth shall be moved out of her place, for the indignation of the Lord of hosts, and for the day of his fierce wrath."
[Isaias (Isaiah) 13:13 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=27&ch=13&l=13#x)]

"And the Lord shall roar out of Sion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem: and the heavens and the earth shall be moved, and the Lord shall be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel."
[Joel 3:16 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=34&ch=3&l=16#x)]

.
Sorry, every time I try to clean this up, it gets worse.
.
Here are the results you get when you search the Douay-Rheims Bible for "earth be moved".
You can do the search yourself with this link:

http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=earth+be+moved&b=drb (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=earth+be+moved&b=drb)

I would like somebody to tell me how the word "rotating" or "orbiting" makes any sense in any of these verses.
Yet, you Geocentrists tell me that "earth shall not be moved" means the earth is not rotating and not orbiting the Sun.

Whereas the word "shaken" or "trembling" makes a lot of sense in these verses.
Why is there any mention of "foundations" when talking about the earth? And "pillars"?

The Bible is so unscientific and like a caveman, when it comes to astronomy,
yet you CathInfo people cling to Geocentrism, like a drowning man clings to a life-saver. Why?

Because all science is EVIL. Gravity is EVIL. NASA is EVIL. Heliocentrists are EVIL.
And, the Church fathers were great scientists, nearly infallible and they believed in Geocentrism.

Yes, I know, you are not going to change.

AND I WILL TELL YOU WHY APPOLLO

The interpretation of the 'movements' and 'non movements' of the Earth in Scripture was considered by many of the greatest theologians of the Catholic Church in the first half of the 17th century. These were men trying to retain the Catholic position during the early part of the Protestant reformation, wherein Protestants were interpreting the Scriptures for themselves. The Council of Trent had laid down the rules, that the CHURCH, and not individuals, will decide what the Scriptures say and do not say.

‘Furthermore, in order to curb imprudent clever persons, the synod decrees that no one who relies on his own judgement in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense that is held by holy Mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though interpretations of this kind were never intended to be brought to light. Let those who shall oppose this be reported by their ordinaries and be punished with the penalties prescribed by law.’ -- (Denzinger - 786)

Having considered tradition and the interpretation of ALL the Fathers with regard the 'movements' or 'non movements' of the Earth, in 1616, Pope Paul V, using the Index as was his prerogrative to issue his papal decree, made it quite clear that the CHURCH found the Scriptures reveal the Earth does not move.

As regards biblical quotes of a moving Earth, many of which you refer us to, were considered by the Church in 1615/16, and it is long known that they refer to the Earth being shaken locally by Earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides etc. In other cases sometimes such passages refer to shaken men who live on it, and who either through fear or astonishment at some divine occurrences are moved in different ways.

So, play out the Protestant all you like Apollo and think you know more about biblical interpretation better that the Fathers, Cardinal Bellarmine and the popes up to 1741, but I for one, with others on this forum, will not be moved.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 23, 2018, 02:28:01 PM

Quote from: cassini on July 23, 2018, 02:07:21 PM

The interpretation of the 'movements' and 'non movements' of the Earth in Scripture was considered by many of the greatest theologians of the Catholic Church in the first half of the 17th century.

Having considered tradition and the interpretation of ALL the Fathers with regard the 'movements' or 'non movements' of the Earth, in 1616, Pope Paul V, using the Index as was his prerogrative to issue his papal decree, made it quite clear that the CHURCH found the Scriptures reveal the Earth does not move.

So, play out the Protestant all you like Apollo and think you know more about biblical interpretation better that the Fathers, Cardinal Bellarmine and the popes up to 1741, but I for one, with others on this forum, will not be moved.

.
All the OPINIONS of the Church fathers and the "DECREE of 1616" do not make Geocentrism a doctrine of the Church.
You should come up to date and look at what the Church did in 1820 or 1822 (?). At that time the Pope re-examined the
Galileo question of Heliocentrism. He consulted with astronomers and scientists and finally made a DECREE that Heliocentrism
cannot be condemned.

It is not a Protestant thing. It is a reality thing. A truth thing. You have NO PROOF for Geocentrism. All you have is
Bible quotes that say NOTHING about astronomy. Earthquakes and shaking of the earth have NOTHING to do with astronomy.

"I will not be moved." You forgot to add, "Don't confuse me with the facts."
I was waiting for you to respond. Please show proof (outside of the Earthquakes)
that Kepler was wrong about the mathematics of the motion of the planets.

Once again, read my lips, the Church Fathers do NOT define infallible Church doctrines.
Only the Pope does that AND it must pertain to FAITH and MORALS, not astronomy.
You just have to get out of the dark ages.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Meg on July 23, 2018, 02:45:26 PM

Quote from: apollo on July 23, 2018, 02:28:01 PM

You just have to get out of the dark ages.

The dark ages? What was it about that time in history that would cause you (and protestants) to believe that it was "dark"?

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 23, 2018, 03:35:00 PM

Quote from: Meg on July 23, 2018, 02:45:26 PM

The dark ages? What was it about that time in history that would cause you (and protestants) to believe that it was "dark"?

.
A belief in Geocentrism, Flat Earth, blood letting to cure diseases, lack of cameras, lack of computers,
lack of internet ;D, using horses for transportation, lack of airplanes, lack of telephones, lack of cable
TV :), lack of electricity, lack of refrigerators, lack of air-conditioners, lack of rockets, lack of really
good telescopes, etc.

Of course, one could call our modern age by a bad name also, because of feminism, internet, rockets,
global elitists, nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, Vatican II, etc.

I'm speaking mostly from a non-religious viewpoint. And astronomy is a non-religious topic, except that
some people make it a religious topic. However, you can be Catholic or Atheist and still believe in
Heliocentrism.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Meg on July 23, 2018, 03:38:46 PM

Quote from: apollo on July 23, 2018, 03:35:00 PM

.
A belief in Geocentrism, Flat Earth, blood letting to cure diseases, lack of cameras, lack of computers,
lack of internet ;D, using horses for transportation, lack of airplanes, lack of telephones, lack of cable
TV :), lack of electricity, lack of refrigerators, lack of air-conditioners, lack of rockets, lack of really
good telescopes, etc.

Of course, one could call our modern age by a bad name also, because of feminism, internet, rockets,
global elitists, nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, Vatican II, etc.

I'm speaking mostly from a non-religious viewpoint. And astronomy is a non-religious topic, except that
some people make it a religious topic. However, you can be Catholic or Atheist and still believe in
Heliocentrism.

You're speaking from a non-religious viewpoint, okay, but how can astronomy be a non-religious topic for traditional Catholics? God created the universe and everything in it. It has everything to do with religion.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on July 23, 2018, 03:48:05 PM

Quote from: Meg on July 23, 2018, 03:38:46 PM

You're speaking from a non-religious viewpoint, okay, but how can astronomy be a non-religious topic for traditional Catholics? God created the universe and everything in it. It has everything to do with religion.

Quite right Meg. Insofar as the Church has spoken, or the Fathers have taught, or Scripture teaches, Catholics are bound. Just because someone doesn't know what the Church said, doesn't mean they can deny what is taught. Some of these people pop off without information having zero knowledge of what the Church has said in a particular matter, and continue to defy Church teaching in ignorance. It is their duty to find out first before criticizing.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 23, 2018, 03:57:09 PM

Quote from: Meg on July 23, 2018, 03:38:46 PM

You're speaking from a non-religious viewpoint, okay, but how can astronomy be a non-religious topic for traditional Catholics? God created the universe and everything in it. It has everything to do with religion.

.
Then everything is a religious topic I guess. I never thought of my cat as being a religious topic.
But then there must be real-religious topics, right? Like the ten commandments.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 23, 2018, 03:58:53 PM

Quote from: happenby on July 23, 2018, 03:48:05 PM

Quite right Meg. Insofar as the Church has spoken, or the Fathers have taught, or Scripture teaches, Catholics are bound. Just because someone doesn't know what the Church said, doesn't mean they can deny what is taught. Some of these people pop off without information having zero knowledge of what the Church has said in a particular matter, and continue to defy Church teaching in ignorance. It is their duty to find out first before criticizing.

.
Right, and some don't know what the Church taught in 1820 AD. They keep living in 1616 AD.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on July 23, 2018, 04:05:05 PM

Quote from: apollo on July 23, 2018, 03:58:53 PM

.
Right, and some don't know what the Church taught in 1820 AD. They keep living in 1616 AD.

Like the Index books should now be read. Good luck with that nonsense. Besides, less than 25 years ago, Benedict XVI said the Index remains in force.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Meg on July 23, 2018, 04:24:13 PM

Quote from: apollo on July 23, 2018, 03:57:09 PM

.
Then everything is a religious topic I guess. I never thought of my cat as being a religious topic.
But then there must be real-religious topics, right? Like the ten commandments.

No, of course not everything is a religious topic. Humans have nothing to do with creating the universe. Nothing at all. It was a direct cause of the Word of God.

When I bake a cake, for example, I have a hand in creating the cake, and so did the farmers who grew and harvested the wheat. God didn't create the cake, though he had a hand in providing the ingredients.

We have to rely on Divine Revelation in the case of the creation earth and the universe. There is such a thing as a hierarchy of truth. We humans are not as clever as we think.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 23, 2018, 04:32:13 PM

Quote from: happenby on July 23, 2018, 04:05:05 PM

Like the Index books should now be read. Good luck with that nonsense. Besides, less than 25 years ago, Benedict XVI said the Index remains in force.

.
The Index is OFF topic.
This is ON topic: In 1820, the Pope decreed that Heliocentrism cannot be condemned:
"The Magisterium has ruled: there are no obstacles to Catholics holding modern astronomical
views, which include the motion of the earth."
Source: http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/magisterium-rules-debate/ (http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/magisterium-rules-debate/)
(http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/magisterium-rules-debate/)You might want to read the whole article, then again you might not want to be
confused by the facts.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on July 23, 2018, 04:38:30 PM

Quote from: apollo on July 23, 2018, 04:32:13 PM

.
The Index is OFF topic.
This is ON topic: In 1820, the Pope decreed that Heliocentrism cannot be condemned:
"The Magisterium has ruled: there are no obstacles to Catholics holding modern astronomical
views, which include the motion of the earth."
Source: http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/magisterium-rules-debate/ (http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/magisterium-rules-debate/)
(http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/magisterium-rules-debate/)You might want to read the whole article, then again you might not want to be
confused by the facts.

This is the classic jumping to conclusion phenomena so prevalent in Tradition. Just because they permitted the printing of books, doesn't equate that the books are good to read or the Church changed Her stance on the subject. There is NOTHING in this statement that says heliocentrism cannot be condemned, just that books can be printed. Big deal.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 23, 2018, 04:40:19 PM

Quote from: happenby on July 23, 2018, 04:38:30 PM

This is the classic jumping to conclusion phenomena so prevalent in Tradition. Just because they permitted the printing of books, doesn't equate that the books are good to read or the Church changed Her stance on the subject. There is NOTHING in this statement that says heliocentrism cannot be condemned, just that books can be printed. Big deal.

.
You've got to be kidding.
So the Church says that heresy can be printed ?
You might want to read the whole article.
No, this is the classic "facing of reality".

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on July 23, 2018, 04:51:45 PM

Quote from: apollo on July 23, 2018, 04:40:19 PM

.
You've got to be kidding.
So the Church says that heresy can be printed ?
You might want to read the whole article.
No, this is the classic "facing of reality".

The Church is clear that She is not suppressing modern theory. That's all. You have not made a case for heliocentrism, but shown that the Church will not enter the debate by blocking modern theories, because She has already spoken.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 23, 2018, 05:48:54 PM

Quote from: happenby on July 23, 2018, 04:51:45 PM

The Church is clear that She is not suppressing modern theory. That's all. You have not made a case for heliocentrism, but shown that the Church will not enter the debate by blocking modern theories, because She has already spoken.

.
Well, some people are saying that in 1633 the Pope condemned Heliocentrism by a decree.
The decree of 1820 by the Church says that it's OK to publish a book that argues for Heliocentrism.
Logical conclusion is Geocentrism is NOT a doctrine of the Church, else the Church is contradicting
itself. The Church has entered into the debate, by saying it's OK to argue for Heliocentrism.
Go ahead twist that around to some kind of nonsense.
I have proved the case for Heliocentrism, but it's over your head. I think gravity is over your head.
Sorry, I just don't know how to deal with such complete nonsense in a nice way. (my fault).

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on July 23, 2018, 07:11:54 PM

Quote from: apollo on July 23, 2018, 05:48:54 PM

.
Well, some people are saying that in 1633 the Pope condemned Heliocentrism by a decree.
The decree of 1820 by the Church says that it's OK to publish a book that argues for Heliocentrism.
Logical conclusion is Geocentrism is NOT a doctrine of the Church, else the Church is contradicting
itself. The Church has entered into the debate, by saying it's OK to argue for Heliocentrism.
Go ahead twist that around to some kind of nonsense.
I have proved the case for Heliocentrism, but it's over your head. I think gravity is over your head.
Sorry, I just don't know how to deal with such complete nonsense in a nice way. (my fault).

Since the Church absolutely condemned heliocentrism by decree, in very distinct language, as well as in subsequent writings by Popes and prior to the Affair in teachings by Fathers of the Church, and since the Church subsequently permitted the publication of books on the subject, we know automatically that She is merely permitting the publication of books, and not giving license to what She has already condemned. Reading a few articles on the web does not make you an expert nor have you proven the case for heliocentrism which is not only the basis of pagan religion, but also at odds with Scripture and the Fathers of the Church. Now, if anything is over anyone's head, it's over yours because you don't even know the Fathers of the Church spoke against heliocentrism, nor are you aware that Scripture renders it false.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 23, 2018, 08:22:34 PM

Quote from: happenby on July 23, 2018, 07:11:54 PM

Since the Church absolutely condemned heliocentrism by decree, in very distinct language, as well as in subsequent writings by Popes and prior to the Affair in teachings by Fathers of the Church, and since the Church subsequently permitted the publication of books on the subject, we know automatically that She is merely permitting the publication of books, and not giving license to what She has already condemned. Reading a few articles on the web does not make you an expert nor have you proven the case for heliocentrism which is not only the basis of pagan religion, but also at odds with Scripture and the Fathers of the Church. Now, if anything is over anyone's head, it's over yours because you don't even know the Fathers of the Church spoke against heliocentrism, nor are you aware that Scripture renders it false.

.
Please quote Scripture, the verses that render Heliocentrism false.
And the Church absolutely condemned those people that oppose Heliocentrism.
Sorry, you are mistaken. You cannot read a few webpages and become an expert
on this topic. You have to go the the Vatican Library and dig out the docuмents
yourself ;D.
You must have missed ALL my previous replies, especially the one where I proved
Heliocentrism. I'm not going to repeat all my previous replies, you have to read
them.
Excuse me, the Church warns of a penalty for refusing to publish books that promote
Heliocentrism.
Do you even remember how fast I said the Sun must be moving in the Geocentric
model ?? How fast ? Tell me, oh wise doctor of the Church who has merely read
a few webpages.

How does the earth keep the moon in orbit? Do you even know that?
I guess the Fathers of the Church knew that. Probably, the scientists who determine
where Jupiter is going to be next month, used the formulas derived by the Fathers of
the Church. Probably those Fathers of the Church knew quantum physics also.
You are living in La-La land and think you are a doctor of the Church.

Oh my gosh. Now it's the basis for a pagan religion. :o

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 23, 2018, 09:15:36 PM

If you really want to see a proof of Heliocentrism, I will show it to you,
but you really don't, do you ... Gencentrist people? You just want to keep
shouting about the Fathers of the Church and the decree of 1633.

You have to start with some basic astronomy. Watch this video it shows
the basic material:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtOEnTiAZlU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtOEnTiAZlU)

If anybody wants to go to the next step in the proof, leave a positive reply.
If no positive replies show up, then I won't waste my time.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on July 23, 2018, 10:42:35 PM

Quote from: apollo on July 23, 2018, 08:22:34 PM

.
Please quote Scripture, the verses that render Heliocentrism false.
And the Church absolutely condemned those people that oppose Heliocentrism.
Sorry, you are mistaken. You cannot read a few webpages and become an expert
on this topic. You have to go the the Vatican Library and dig out the docuмents
yourself ;D.
You must have missed ALL my previous replies, especially the one where I proved
Heliocentrism. I'm not going to repeat all my previous replies, you have to read
them.
Excuse me, the Church warns of a penalty for refusing to publish books that promote
Heliocentrism.
Do you even remember how fast I said the Sun must be moving in the Geocentric
model ?? How fast ? Tell me, oh wise doctor of the Church who has merely read
a few webpages.

How does the earth keep the moon in orbit? Do you even know that?
I guess the Fathers of the Church knew that. Probably, the scientists who determine
where Jupiter is going to be next month, used the formulas derived by the Fathers of
the Church. Probably those Fathers of the Church knew quantum physics also.
You are living in La-La land and think you are a doctor of the Church.

Oh my gosh. Now it's the basis for a pagan religion. :o

If you think you're going to roll out a fifth grade science video to prove heliocentrism, you'd better think again. Let's start with this:
(my comments in blue)
The Pontifical Decrees Against the Doctrine of The Earth’s Movement and the Ultramontane Defence of Them By Rev. William W. Roberts (1885)
Introductory commentary by a Catholic layman in 2002 1543
Nicolaus Copernicus published De Revolutionibus Orbium Cœlestium (On the Revolutions of Spheres). 1534-1549 Reign of Pope Paul III, who was quite aware of Fr. Copernicus’ work. The two were actually friends. 1605-1621 Reign of Pope Paul V, who issued a 1616 decree condemning pro-heliocentricity work of GalileoGalilei. 1623-1644 Reign of Pope Urban VIII, who issued a 2nd decree [1633] condemning Copernicanism. 1655-1657 Reign of Pope Alexander VII, who issued a Bull [1664] reinforcing that Copernicanism was heretical. 1740-1758 Reign of Pope Benedict XIV, who removed the Copernican books from the Index in 1740. 1846-1878 Reign of Pope Pius IX, who called Vatican Council [1869-70] wherein Papal Infallibility was defined. In 1870 the Vatican Council promulgated the dogma of Papal Infallibility. Until then, the infallibility of the Catholic Church’s teachings had never been defined explicitly although accepted by the Fathers throughout its history. This definition brought criticism from those outside the Church and even from some within. There were at least three reasons for this: (1) It decreed that God Himself dictated the teachings of the Catholic Church, a notion that other religions were prone to deny; (2) some did not want to elevate the papacy to an infallible level, even when declaring matters of faith and morals; (3) some believed the Church had erred on previous occasions and that therefore the definition was erroneous. It is the third reason with which this book ofFr Roberts concerns itself. In the wake of the promulgation of the Papal Infallibility dogma, a spate of books by both Protestants & Catholics were published, the latter supposedly listing the occasions where this infallibility had proven to be null and void. At the top ofeach list is the Galileo case, perhaps the most infamous of all the Church’s supposed ‘failures’ wherein the Church explicitly condemned the acceptance of the movement of the earth as formal heresy. Those lists alleged that the Galileo decision turned out to be a blunder of unimaginable proportions. From generation to generation this tale is told, much to the delight of antiCatholics and much to the inconvenience of Catholics. The tale is told not, mind you, because anyone within the Church now actually denies that the earth does move, nor do they deny that Galileo was right all along or that the Church of 1616/1633 couldn’t tell faith from science, but because Catholics want their infallibility and their fixed sun and moving earth. As one can see, the only way to have this cake and at the same time eat it is to deny that the anti-Copernican decrees of 1616-1633 had any real authority at all, that they were like a bad joke gone wrong. 2 Perhaps the most honest history ever written of the Galileo case – and the casuistry that followed the alleged ‘proofs’ that earth moves and was not placed by God at the centre of the world, and that the sun stood still – was A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 1896, a book by Andrew Dickson White. He records that the history of the denial ofinfallibility of the 1616-1633 antiCopernican decree began even before Galileo died. At first they resorted to a denial that the Copernican theory was declared formal heresy and conjured up a load of excuses that sufficed for the world who had no other facts to judge the matter on, but who simply trusted Churchmen to feed them the truth as expected. But as the archives were opened up and the records themselves were made public, it was soon seen the faithful had been led astray. And as each objection to infallibility was shown to be a contradiction of the facts, the apologists became even more desperate. Andrew White tells us what happens next: …This contention, then, was at last utterly given up by honest Catholics themselves. In I870 a Roman Catholic clergyman in England, the Rev. Mr Roberts, evidently thinking that the time had come to tell the truth, published a book entitled The Pontifical Decrees against the Earth’s Movement, and in this exhibited the incontrovertible evidences that the papacy had committed itself and its infallibility fully against the movement of the earth… …Various theologians attempted to evade the force of the argument. Some like Dr Ward and Bouix took refuge in verbal niceties; some, like Dr Jeremiah Murphy, comforted themselves with declamation. The only result was, that in 1885 came another edition of the Rev. Mr Roberts’s work, even more cogent than the first; and, besides this, an essay by that eminent Catholic, St George Mivart, acknowledging the Rev. Mr Roberts’s position to be impregnable,1 and declaring virtually that the Almighty allowed Pope and Church to fall into complete error regarding the Copernican theory, in order to teach them that science lies outside their province, and that the true priesthood of scientific truth rests with scientific investigators alone. In spite, then, of all casuistry and special pleading, this sturdy honesty ended the controversy among Catholics themselves, so far as fair-minded men are concerned.2 And how that pleased the anti-Catholic Mr White. Now the problem facing faithful Catholics who have read Fr Roberts’ book is this: How can the Church have its infallible dogma on infallibility while at the same time conceding that Fr Roberts was correct in his seemingly flawless assessment of the decrees? 1 The Nineteenth Century, July 1885. 2 White, A History…, pp.165-6. 3 Well, there is only one answer to this, as any Catholic worthy of the name should know, but be warned, for it will test your faith as nothing else has ever done. The fact is that any definition on a matter of faith by the Church is infallible, even if it arises from the ordinary magisterium, let alone an extraordinary definition. This being so, if our Catholic faith is worth anything, then this definition is the truth guaranteed by God. Thus if the Scriptures, Fathers and Church (1616) say that the sun moves and that the earth does not but rests at the centre of the world, then that is the truth. ‘But, but, but’, I hear you say, ‘we all know that the earth moves around a fixed sun, so the Scriptures, the Fathers and the Church of 1616 are wrong.’ Is that a fact now? Well read this: I have known too, for a long time that we have no argument for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Don’t rush into the wasps’ nest. You will bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude…to come forth as the first against opinions, which the world has become fond of – I don’t feel the courage. Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859)3 Now I’ll bet this is the first time you ever heard that. But no doubt you could teach von Humboldt a thing or two, yes? You can prove the earth moves, can’t you? Well, no you can’t, for it is something that cannot be proven, demonstrated or verified. Were you to even try, anyone that has studied the matter could run rings around your pathetic ‘proofs.’ You see, at best, mankind has accepted Earthmoving (PythagoreanismCopernicanism-heliocentricism) as the ‘preferred’ system. Yes, I know we all, every last one of us – popes, cardinals, kings, emperors, lords, teachers, academicians, students, etc. etc. – were led to believe the earth moves, but that, as von Humboldt and others knew, was never shown, that it was merely an intellectual illusion to inhibit the true interpretation of the Scriptures, to deny the wisdom of the Fathers, to undermine the authority of the Church and popes, to destroy the Catholic faith itself of the people. No, Jesus was not exaggerating when He told us just how good a liar Satan really is. And how successful the hoax was, for the visible Church is now in pieces, all coherence gone, with Genesis considered a book of myth and poetry; with heresy and schism everywhere, right up to the Chair of Peter itself; with no hope other than the direct intervention of Our Lady to remedy the ignorance of billions. But back to this book, for we first have to convince you that the decree stating the earth does not move, was from God Himself, for that is what infallibility means. Once we see we cannot deny the decree did invoke the full authority of Church 3 Quoted by C Schoepffer: The Earth Stands Fast, New York: Ludwig, 1900, p. 59. 4 teaching, only then will we even entertain the idea of investigating how they hoaxed the world. That story is told in another place. Be aware, however, that in Fr Roberts’ thesis he too was convinced that Newton, Bradley and others had established a moving earth. He will assert this nonsense throughout, trying to establish a proof when all he has is relative theories, and this will lead him to believe the Church was in error and to deny the dogma of infallibility. It was Fr Roberts faith in ‘science’ that caused him to reject the 1870 dogma of Papal Infallibility, plunging him into yet another heresy, but this time formal heresy. Boy, didn’t Satan set a trap-and-a-half for those who prefer human reasoning to the 1616 declaration of the Church? And if we think this is frightening, consider from whom Fr Roberts took his cue, from where this heresy received its stamp of approval for Catholics. Why from none other than the papacy itself. You see it was Pope Benedict XIV in 1740 who first gave the nod to accepting alleged ‘proof’ that the earth moved, an endorsement that was given full and open approval in 1820 by Pope Pius VII and the Holy Office, even against the objection of one canonical expert. SUMMARY The importance of Fr Roberts’ book cannot be overstated. It alone, among the thousands and thousands of books, articles and debates of the past 350 years, gives us the full authority of the 1616, 1633 and 1664 decrees and Bull. Once this is admitted then there is only one option left for Catholics who have faith that the Holy Ghost did/does guide the Church, the Pope when deciding matters of faith. Fr Roberts’ book does not give us every detail of the affair that has destroyed the faith of billions, but they are recorded elsewhere. We can only hope and pray that Fr Roberts died with something different in his heart and that the Copernican heresy did not take one more soul to damnation for all eternity. Yes, such were/are the consequences of the Galileo affair, for what we are dealing with are matters of supreme importance for the salvation of souls. Redmond O’Hanlon 82 Braemor Rd Churchtown Dublin 14 Ireland 2002 A.D.

Here are Scriptural references against heliocentrism:
Joshua 10:12
"Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon."

But there are at least sixty-seven Scriptural references showing the sun moves, not the earth.
Genesis 15:12…… “…and when the sun was going down…”
15:17….. “…when the sun went down…”
19:23….. “The sun was risen upon the earth.”
28:11….. “…because the sun was set….”
32:31….. “…the sun rose….”
Exodus 17:12….. “…until the going down of the sun….”
22:3…… “…if the sun be risen upon him….”
22:26…. “…the sun goeth down….”
Leviticus 22:7…… “…And when the sun is down….”
Numbers 2:3…….. “…toward the rising of the sun….”
Deuteronomy 11:30….. “…the way where the sun goeth down….”
16:6……. “…at the going down of the sun….”
23:11….. “…when the sun is down….”
24:13….. “…when the sun goeth down….”
24:15….. “…neither shall the sun go down….”
Joshua 1:4….. “…the going down of the sun….”
8:29… “…as soon as the sun was down….”
10:12.. “…Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon….”
10:13.. “…and the sun stood still….”
10:27.. “…the time of the going down of the sun….”
12:1…. “…toward the rising of the sun….”
Judges 5:31…. “…as the sun when he goeth down….”
8:13…. “…before the sun was up….”
9:33…. “…as soon as the sun is up….”
14:18…. “…before the sun went down….”
19:14…. “…and the sun went down….”
II Samuel 2:24…. “…the sun went down….”
3:35…. “…till the sun be down….”
23:4….. “…when the sun riseth….”
I Kings 22:36…. “…the going down of the sun….”
I Chronicles 16:30…. “…the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved….”
II Chronicles 18:34…. “…time of the sun going down….”
Job 9:7…. “…commandeth the sun and it riseth not….”
Job 26:7…. “…He hangeth the earth upon nothing….”
Psalm 19:4…. “…tabernacle for the sun….”
19:5 … “…cometh out to run….”
19:6…. “…goes forth in a circle from one end of heaven to the other….”
50:1…. “…from the rising of the sun….”
93:1…. “…the world also is stablished that it cannot be moved….”
104:19.. “…the sun knoweth his going down….”
104:22.. “…the sun ariseth….”
113:3…. “…from the rising of the sun….”
Ecclesiastes 1:5…. “…The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down and hasteth to the place where he arose….”
Isaiah 13:10…. “…sun shall be darkened in his going….”
38:8…… “…is gone down on the sundial of Ahaz….”
38:8…… “…so the sun returned….”
41:25…. “…from the rising of the sun….”
45:6…… “…from the rising of the sun….”
59:19…. “…from the rising of the sun….”
60:20…. “…the sun shall no more go down….”
Jeremiah 15:9…. “…her sun is gone down while it was yet day….”
Daniel 6:14…. “…going down of the sun….”
Amos 8:9…. “…cause the sun to go down at noon….”
Jonah 4:8…. “…when the sun did arise….”
Micah 3:6…. “…and the sun shall go down….”
Nahum 3:17…. “…when the sun ariseth….”
Habakkuk 3:11…. “…the sun and moon stood still in their habitation….”
Malachi 1:11…. “…from the rising of the sun….”
Matthew 5:45…. “…for He maketh His sun to rise….”
13:6….. “…and when the sun was up….”
Mark 1:32…. “…when the sun did set….”
4:6…… “…when the sun was up….”
16:2…… “…at the rising of the sun….”
Luke 4:40…. “…when the sun was setting….”
Ephesians 4:26…. “…let not the sun go down upon your wrath….”
James 1:11…. “…for the sun is no sooner risen….”
The pagans have been at this heliocentric game from the time of Noah. Heliocentrism is the science of the Gnostic religions and has been foisted on men for centuries. Interestingly, NASA, world governments and modern pagan science happily endorse it...along with all its progeny: evolution, godless creation, and the Big Bang. Some of the most notorious pagans promoted it heavily, including Karl Marx who praised Copernicus for making Communism possible.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 23, 2018, 11:42:15 PM

Quote from: happenby on July 23, 2018, 10:42:35 PM

But there are at least sixty-seven Scriptural references showing the sun moves, not the earth.
Genesis 15:12…… “…and when the sun was going down…”
15:17….. “…when the sun went down…”
19:23….. “The sun was risen upon the earth.”
28:11….. “…because the sun was set….”
32:31….. “…the sun rose….”
Exodus 17:12….. “…until the going down of the sun….”

'
The sun goes up and down? Wow that is way too scientific for me to understand.
You did not understand the 5th-grade video. Perhaps I should provide a link to a 1st-grade
video.
Where is one standing when one sees the sun going up and down?
Is that what one sees when standing on the earth? Or 100,000,000 miles above the earth?
Because if one is standing on the earth and the earth is rotating, the sun would look like it is
going up and down. So your argument is useless.
I'm not talking to you anymore.
You are a complete idiot, sorry.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 24, 2018, 07:56:17 AM

Quote from: happenby on July 24, 2018, 12:26:00 AM

Scripture tells us the sun moves, not the earth. Scripture says the earth is fixed, never to be moved. Calling me names doesn't change the facts.

.
"Shall not be moved" in the Bible means "Shall not be shaken". This proves nothing about Astronomy.
And you can repeat that one thousand times, but it still proves nothing about Astronomy. So, you
are WRONG. You keep repeating the same LIE (that this proves something about Astronomy) over
and over and over again. That's why I called you a bad name. So go ahead and just keep repeating
it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on July 24, 2018, 08:18:39 AM

Quote from: apollo on July 24, 2018, 07:56:17 AM

.
"Shall not be moved" in the Bible means "Shall not be shaken". This proves nothing about Astronomy.
And you can repeat that one thousand times, but it still proves nothing about Astronomy. So, you
are WRONG. You keep repeating the same LIE (that this proves something about Astronomy) over
and over and over again. That's why I called you a bad name. So go ahead and just keep repeating
it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

Scripture says it in different ways so someone is selling you a line.

1 Chronicles 16:20 Let all the earth be moved at his presence : for he hath founded the world immoveable.
Psalm 104:5 5 (http://biblehub.com/psalms/104-5.htm)Who hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 24, 2018, 08:41:30 AM

Quote from: happenby on July 24, 2018, 08:18:39 AM

Scripture says it in different ways so someone is selling you a line.
1 Chronicles 16:20 Let all the earth be moved at his presence : for he hath founded the world immoveable.
Psalm 104:5 5 (http://biblehub.com/psalms/104-5.htm)Who hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever..

.
You can substitute the word "shaken" in every place where the word "moved" is used and it makes sense.
You cannot substitute the word "rotating" or "orbiting" in place of the word "moved" and still have it make sense.
I have already said this several times.

The earth is rotating once every 24 hours. That is why the Sun appears to go "up" and "down".
If you are sitting on a spinning merry-go-round in the park, is the park going round and round?
No. Therefore the Sun is not going "up" and "down". The Earth is rotating. It is physically impossible
for the Sun to orbit the Earth.

You don't want to go beyond the word "moved", so I can't prove anything to you about Astronomy.
Have you ever studied Astronomy? Do you know anything about Celestial Mechanics? Do you even know
why the Moon stays in orbit (instead of flying off into space)?

You always avoid these questions about the physical world and just repeat, blah, blah, blah "moved" blah, blah.
Question. Where are the "bases"? I would like to see a photo of the "bases".

Your brain is still in 500 BC.

I wonder if anybody else is reading this topic anymore.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on July 24, 2018, 08:54:35 AM

Quote from: apollo on July 24, 2018, 08:41:30 AM

.
You can substitute the word "shaken" in every place where the word "moved" is used and it makes sense.
You cannot substitute the word "rotating" or "orbiting" in place of the word "moved" and still have it make sense.
I have already said this several times.

The earth is rotating once every 24 hours. That is why the Sun appears to go "up" and "down".
If you are sitting on a spinning merry-go-round in the park, is the park going round and round?
No. Therefore the Sun is not going "up" and "down". The Earth is rotating. It is physically impossible
for the Sun to orbit the Earth.

You don't want to go beyond the word "moved", so I can't prove anything to you about Astronomy.
Have you ever studied Astronomy? Do you know anything about Celestial Mechanics? Do you even know
why the Moon stays in orbit (instead of flying off into space)?

You always avoid these questions about the physical world and just repeat, blah, blah, blah "moved" blah, blah.
Question. Where are the "bases"? I would like to see a photo of the "bases".

Your brain is still in 500 BC.

I wonder if anybody else is reading this topic anymore.

Modernism: modern artistic or literary philosophy and practice; especially : a self-conscious break with the past and a search for new forms of expression

The Fathers of the Church have already expounded on creation. Redefining terms changes nothing in reality, except to confuse yourself and others for using a modernist mindset. Scripture is so clear the Church condemned Galileo based on it.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on July 24, 2018, 09:04:54 AM

Psalms 104:5

He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.
He set the earth on its foundations, never to be moved.
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

Above are just a few different translations of this Scriptural passage. If the word "moved" means "shaken", then Scripture denies the existence of earthquakes.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Matthew on July 24, 2018, 09:25:30 AM

Happenby:

Have you ever read Pascendi? That's St. Pius X's encyclical on Modernism. If not, please stop talking about what you don't understand.
Apollo (and anyone else on CI) is not guilty of Modernism. You haven't studied it, so what would you know?

You just gave the definition of "modernism" with a lowercase "m", as it applies to artistic and cultural endeavors. That isn't the same thing as Modernism, the synthesis of all heresies, which is like acid to the Catholic Faith, caused the Crisis in the Church, and caused Vatican II to be a disaster.

I'd love to hear you define Modernism in your own words, in particular how it caused the Crisis in the Church. I'd alternate between groaning and laughing.

Spend more time reading and learning and less time trying to be a teacher of men.

Start with the Epistles of St. Paul, particularly the part where he speaks to women.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: cassini on July 24, 2018, 09:53:15 AM

Quote from: apollo on July 23, 2018, 02:28:01 PM

.
All the OPINIONS of the Church fathers and the "DECREE of 1616" do not make Geocentrism a doctrine of the Church.
You should come up to date and look at what the Church did in 1820 or 1822 (?). At that time the Pope re-examined the
Galileo question of Heliocentrism. He consulted with astronomers and scientists and finally made a DECREE that Heliocentrism
cannot be condemned.

It is not a Protestant thing. It is a reality thing. A truth thing. You have NO PROOF for Geocentrism. All you have is
Bible quotes that say NOTHING about astronomy. Earthquakes and shaking of the earth have NOTHING to do with astronomy.

"I will not be moved." You forgot to add, "Don't confuse me with the facts."
I was waiting for you to respond. Please show proof (outside of the Earthquakes)
that Kepler was wrong about the mathematics of the motion of the planets.

Once again, read my lips, the Church Fathers do NOT define infallible Church doctrines.
Only the Pope does that AND it must pertain to FAITH and MORALS, not astronomy.
You just have to get out of the dark ages.

It is most difficult Apollo to debate this subject with someone who really hasn't a clue what the Galileo case was all about and how it developed through the years. One line you are putting your emphasis on the scientific truth or not of geocentrism, the next you are challenging Trent's position on the UNANIMOUS interpretation of the Fathers as to what the Bible actually says and means, and finally you take up the position of all those, EVEN THE ELECT, who fell for one of the greatest tricks of the Devil and rewrote the Galileo case to 'SAVE THE CHURCH AS STILL PROTECTED BY GOD.' According, you actually represent probably 99% of all Catholics over the last 150 years who keep regurgitating the same old anti-Catholic line, that the Galileo case was about science, that how ALL the Fathers found the Bible reveals geocentrism has no authority in canon law, that heliocentrism was proven, and that when Popes re-examined the Galileo question of Heliocentrism from 1741 to 1835 they decreed that 'Heliocentrism cannot be condemned' as you put it.

So implanted into the Catholic mind is this story that SAVES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH that it suits both the anti-Catholics and especially the Catholics. Anyone, who tries to bring out the TRUTH will be considered AN ENEMY OF CATHOLICISM, and be banned from Catholic forums (as I was with three of them). Not even so-called traditional Catholic priests will give you a hearing, as I have experienced and as is demonstrated by this joke of a book on 'FAITH AND SCIENCE' written by the SSSPX Fr Robinson now being read by Catholics all of whom are now intellectually proud that they are better informed than those 'LUNATIC' geocentrists of 1616, 1633 and especially today.
I read you have other posts after this one so I will just answer some of your questions above. Geocentrism has been a doctrine since Christ found His Church. In the first three centuries, the Fathers, popes and faithful in the Catholic Church fought the Pythagorean heresies, one of them being that the Earth orbits the sun. Now a heresy is a rejection of a dogma, and in 1633 heliocentrism was again found to be a 'Pythagorean heresy.' Now are you trying to tell us that all the Churchmen up to to 1820 didn't know a heresy/dogma from a non heresy or dogmas..
Next you ask me did I not read about 1820. I did, every word of it. Now above you keep harping on about NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF FOR GEOCENTRISM as though the Church needed PROOF for an interpretation of Scripture. Here is St Thomas's answer for you:

‘The knowledge proper to this science of theology comes through divine revelation and not through natural reason. Therefore, it has no concern to prove principles of other sciences, but only to judge them. Whatever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science of theology must be condemned as false.’ --- (ST, I, Q 1, a 6, ad 2).

Next you said 'He consulted with astronomers and scientists and finally made a DECREE that Heliocentrism cannot be condemned.'

No he did not. He said the heliocentrism of modern astronomers cannot be banned from publication. The significence of this would be lost on you Apollo because you are not open to the truth of it.
Finally KEPLER. Your heliocentric hero do doubt, the man who COMPROMISED his astronomy to come up with ellipses. These same ellipses were the ROCK upon which Newton based his theory of gravity. Well it was Domeniico Cassini who FALSIFIED Kepler's ellipses but seeing as Cassini was a geocentrist they kept pretending orbits are ellipses.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: happenby on July 24, 2018, 10:09:32 AM

Quote from: Matthew on July 24, 2018, 09:25:30 AM

Happenby:

Have you ever read Pascendi? That's St. Pius X's encyclical on Modernism. If not, please stop talking about what you don't understand.
Apollo (and anyone else on CI) is not guilty of Modernism. You haven't studied it, so what would you know?

You just gave the definition of "modernism" with a lowercase "m", as it applies to artistic and cultural endeavors. That isn't the same thing as Modernism, the synthesis of all heresies, which is like acid to the Catholic Faith, caused the Crisis in the Church, and caused Vatican II to be a disaster.

I'd love to hear you define Modernism in your own words, in particular how it caused the Crisis in the Church. I'd alternate between groaning and laughing.

Spend more time reading and learning and less time trying to be a teacher of men.

Start with the Epistles of St. Paul, particularly the part where he speaks to women.

I've read Pascendi. You've made it clear this is no place to define Modernism in my own words.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Ladislaus on July 24, 2018, 11:00:38 AM

Quote from: apollo on July 24, 2018, 08:41:30 AM

It is physically impossible
for the Sun to orbit the Earth.

False. This has not been proven and cannot be proven ... even according to modern physicists. Even according to Newtonian physics (which has lots of issues), there's only one point in the entire universe that cannot be said to be rotating around some other point, and that's the center of mass of the entire universe. And no one can prove that the earth is NOT at that center of mass of the universe. In fact, certain experiments (measuring gamma rays) suggest that the earth is definitely somewhere in the ballpark.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: cassini on July 24, 2018, 11:16:46 AM

Quote from: apollo on July 23, 2018, 04:32:13 PM

.
The Index is OFF topic.
This is ON topic: In 1820, the Pope decreed that Heliocentrism cannot be condemned:
"The Magisterium has ruled: there are no obstacles to Catholics holding modern astronomical
views, which include the motion of the earth."
Source: http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/magisterium-rules-debate/ (http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/magisterium-rules-debate/)
(http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/magisterium-rules-debate/)You might want to read the whole article, then again you might not want to be
confused by the facts.

You've got to be kidding.
So the Church says that heresy can be printed ?
You might want to read the whole article.
No, this is the classic "facing of reality".

OK Apollo, at last you have played the CARD that FRIGHTENS EVERY CATHOLIC FROM FINDING THE TRUTH OF THE GALILEO AFFAIR:

'So the Church says that heresy can be printed?'

SEE THIS, END OF STORY. Either you Catholics accept heliocentrism or you accuse the Church of promoting heresy.
Now correct me if I am wrong. Wasn't it the Church, by way of Pope Paul V and Pope Urban VIII who decreed heliocentrism was heresy?

A couple of things before we get to the UNCOMFORTABLE truth, things you will not find in that website you keep asking posters to read. At Vatican I the Council decreed that not even Peter can change what a PREVIOUS PETER has condemned.
Righ, next, on what GROUNDS did the Holy Office (note I did not say the Church) decide to give IMPRIMATURS for heliocentric books? Well here they are, given to the world by the 1981-1992 papal commission on Galileo.

‘More than 150 years still had to pass before the optical and mechanical proofs for the motion of the Earth were discovered.….. This (1633) sentence was not irreformable. In 1741, in the face of optical proof of the fact that the Earth revolves round the sun, Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) had the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo.’ --- Pope John Paul II Commission report: L’Osservatore Romano, November 4^th, 1992. {Note it is the 1633 decree mentioned, not the 1616 decree tghat was papal and untouchable.]

‘In 1820, Canon Settele lodged an appeal [to obtain an imprimatur for his heliocentric book] with Pope Pius VII (1800-1823)… In 1822 a favourable decision was given. This papal decision was to receive its practical application in 1835 [under Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846)] with the publication of a new and updated index [emptied of all heliocentric books].’ --- Galileo Commission, 1981-1992.

Right, as we see the LIE that heliocentrism was proven, and thus geocentrism was WRONG as a biblical meaning IS the reason given - even in 1992, when the DOGS in the street knew there was no such proofs. Did none of them know Einstein admitteed this to science in 1905.

So, fr Benedetto Olivieri, head of the Holy Office, based on his belief that heliocentrism was proven, submitted a huge defence of heliocentrism for Pope Pius VII when considering if they should allow a heliocentric book to be printed. There was however one Fr Anfossi who argued that there was no proof and that the 1616 decree was irreformable (infallible) so could not be challenged. But the WORLDVIEW that heliocentrism was proven won the argument. Neverthe less, Anfossi insisted the 1616 decree was Church teaching and could not be overturned.

Olivieri AGREED the 1616 decree was papal and not-reversible. So how did he/they get the pope to agree their heliocentric books were not heretical?

Well, here is how they did it, Olivieri said the 1616 heliocentrism was a VIOLENT one and therefore was rightfully against philosophy and Scripture, but the heliocentrism OF MODERN ASTRONOMERS was not violent so was not the HERESY condemned in 1616. Now this was absolute nonsense and had NOTHING to do with the decree of heresy of 1616. What was defined as heresy in 1616 was that the sun is fixed heliocentrism, which had nothing to do with a violent Earth. And given the heliocentrism of modern astronomers APPROVED of by Pope Pius VII contained the heretical fixed sun, one cannot deny the heliocentric books allowed in 1820 still contained the heresy.

And surely, a papal approval of a heliocentric book that still contained a heresy condemned by his predecessors in 1616 and 1633, surely INFERRED that Catholics could accept heliocentrism as a physical reality and as a biblical interpretation.

Fr Anfossi and a few colleagues of the 1820 Holy Office who argued Pope Paul V could not have erred because of God's guidance,, have since been vindicated by science. But the abuse they got in 1820 for objecting to heretical heliocentrism was unbelievable.

As one can see, this has to be the greatest scandal in all of the Church's history, one that Catholicism can not ignore for much longer.

Now Apollo, figure a way out of that history.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 24, 2018, 01:06:29 PM

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 24, 2018, 11:00:38 AM

False. This has not been proven and cannot be proven ... even according to modern physicists. Even according to Newtonian physics (which has lots of issues), there's only one point in the entire universe that cannot be said to be rotating around some other point, and that's the center of mass of the entire universe. And no one can prove that the earth is NOT at that center of mass of the universe. In fact, certain experiments (measuring gamma rays) suggest that the earth is definitely somewhere in the ballpark.

.
You fail to take into account GRAVITY. There is a universal Gravitational constant which has been measured and it pertains to all the planets in
our solar system. It is the reason we have Order In The Universe -- one of the proofs of God's existence.
.
The earth does NOT have enough gravity to keep the Sun in orbit around the earth. If it had enough gravity to do that, the Moon would have
come crashing down to the earth many many yeas ago.
.
You don't even know the most basic thing about Celestial Mechanics. I know don't tell me -- Celestial Mechanics is EVIL.
Well good luck converting Astronomy professors to Catholicism.
.
I guess when NASA uses Celestial Mechanics to place the satellites in orbit, it is a total HOAX, because NASA is EVIL. Do you have any idea
about who fast the satellites are moving? 17,500 MPH, any less then they fall to the earth. Well, I guess all the Church Fathers knew that
already. The moon's velocity is about 2,300 MPH. The sun's velocity (if it were orbiting the Earth) would be 24,000,000 MPH !!! Go ahead
quote the Bible to disprove that.
.
BTW, I wrote software in Fortran in 1975 which uses Keplers 3rd law of Celestial Mechanics to compute the positions of all the planets,
so I know something about it. Heliocentrism works well for this. Geocentrism fails miserably, for at least one reason: retrograde motion.
.
My good friend Neil Block is the guy who wrote the software that NASA uses today. He said that the formula for the Moon required
2000 terms (in the Taylor series). His software was accurate to 1/10 th of a degree. I guess he was EVIL also.
.
You people are like cavemen.
.
Lastly, IT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE BIBLE TO DEFINE SCIENCE, INCLUDING ASTRONOMY.
Here is a quote from a traditional Priest who used to say Mass at my parent's house:
.
6. Is not the Bible statement that the sun stood still in the heavens (Jos. 10, 13) an example of obvious error?
No, we must remember that the Bible was written in every-day language of the time, not in scientific terms. Even to this day,
for example, we speak of sunset even though the sun is not setting anywhere and we know that the Earth is orbiting around the
Sun and not vice-versa. Link: http://drbo.org/catechism.htm#lesson12 (http://drbo.org/catechism.htm#lesson12)
.
I'm really getting tired of all the lies from people who know NOTHING about Astronomy.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Meg on July 24, 2018, 01:20:05 PM

Quote from: apollo on July 24, 2018, 01:06:29 PM

.
You fail to take into account GRAVITY. There is a universal Gravitational constant which has been measured and it pertains to all the planets in
our solar system. It is the reason we have Order In The Universe -- one of the proofs of God's existence.
.
The earth does NOT have enough gravity to keep the Sun in orbit around the earth. If it had enough gravity to do that, the Moon would have
come crashing down to the earth many many yeas ago.
.
You don't even know the most basic thing about Celestial Mechanics. I know don't tell me -- Celestial Mechanics is EVIL.
Well good luck converting Astronomy professors to Catholicism.
.
I guess when NASA uses Celestial Mechanics to place the satellites in orbit, it is a total HOAX, because NASA is EVIL.
.
BTW, I wrote software in Fortran in 1975 which uses Keplers 3rd law of Celestial Mechanics to compute the positions of all the planets,
so I know something about it. Heliocentrism works well for this. Geocentrism fails miserably, for at least one reason: retrograde motion.
.
My good friend Neil Block is the guy who wrote the software that NASA uses today. He said that the formula for the Moon required
2000 terms (in the Taylor series). His software was accurate to 1/10 th of a degree. I guess he was EVIL also.
.
You people are like cavemen.
.
Lastly, IT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE BIBLE TO DEFINE SCIENCE, INCLUDING ASTRONOMY.
Here is a quote from a traditional Priest who used to say Mass at my parent's house:
.
6. Is not the Bible statement that the sun stood still in the heavens (Jos. 10, 13) an example of obvious error?
No, we must remember that the Bible was written in every-day language of the time, not in scientific terms. Even to this day,
for example, we speak of sunset even though the sun is not setting anywhere and we know that the Earth is orbiting around the
Sun and not vice-versa. Link: http://drbo.org/catechism.htm#lesson12 (http://drbo.org/catechism.htm#lesson12)
.
I'm really getting tired of all the lies from people who know NOTHING about Astronomy.

Do you by any chance work for NASA?

Maybe you are retired by now, since you wrote software in Fortran back in 1975.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 24, 2018, 01:27:20 PM

Quote from: Meg on July 24, 2018, 01:20:05 PM

Do you by any chance work for NASA?

.
NO, sorry. Yep, I'm retired, but I never worked for NASA.
I was majoring in Aerospace Engineering at one time, but
changed to Computer Science.
It's just mathematics. Is that EVIL ?

In order to be a traditional Catholic does one have to reject
everything that was discovered after 1633 AD ?

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Meg on July 24, 2018, 01:31:19 PM

Quote from: apollo on July 24, 2018, 01:27:20 PM

.
NO, sorry. Now I guess mathematics is EVIL.

Are you quite sure that mathematics can tell us everything we need to know about God's creation? Hasn't mathematics became like a religion to which no one is allowed waver from its dogmas? That seems to be what you are saying.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 24, 2018, 01:35:01 PM

Quote from: Meg on July 24, 2018, 01:31:19 PM

Are you quite sure that mathematics can tell us everything we need to know about God's creation? Hasn't mathematics became like a religion to which no one is allowed waver from its dogmas? That seems to be what you are saying.

.
Yes, mathematics can tell us which Catholic dogmas are right and which are wrong :laugh2: :P :o :( ;D ;) :-\

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Meg on July 24, 2018, 01:40:30 PM

Quote from: apollo on July 24, 2018, 01:35:01 PM

.
Yes, mathematics can tell us which Catholic dogmas are right and which are wrong :laugh2: :P :o :( ;D ;) :-\

Thanks....but that doesn't address what I was getting at.

Mathematics is a tool. While it is a useful tool, you seem to be saying that we cannot question what humans have supposedly discovered about the earth and universe by using math. The discoveries using math are infallible, isn't that what you are saying?

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 24, 2018, 01:50:57 PM

Quote from: Meg on July 24, 2018, 01:40:30 PM

Thanks....but that doesn't address what I was getting at.
Mathematics is a tool. While it is a useful tool, you seem to be saying that we cannot question what humans have supposedly discovered about the earth and universe by using math. The discoveries using math are infallible, isn't that what you are saying?

.
Math being infallible? No more than Music being infallible. Infallibility pertains to the Pope in maters of Faith
and Morals, not science. That's why the decree of 1633 is not a doctrine of the Church.

Now you might say that NASA's formulas are in error, but the satellites are not crashing down.
And the Sun is definitely NOT going 24,000,000 MPH around the Earth. So the formulas are very accurate.
.
Catholic doctrine cannot say that the earth has no gravity, because that would contradict what
we can measure and feel in the physical world. Therefore, Catholic doctrine cannot say that Heliocentrism
is false, because that would contradict what we can measure (and have measured with telescopes and other
observations).

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Meg on July 24, 2018, 01:57:02 PM

Quote from: apollo on July 24, 2018, 01:50:57 PM

.
Math being infallible, no more than Music being infallible. Infallibility pertains to Catholic doctrine.
Now you might say that NASA's formulas are in error, but satellites are not crashing down.
And the Sun is definitely NOT going 24,000,000 MPH.
.
Catholic doctrine cannot say that the earth has no gravity, because that would contradict what
we can measure and feel in the physical world. Therefore, Catholic doctrine cannot say that Heliocentrism
is false, because that would contradict what we can measure (and have measured with telescopes).

What is termed "gravity" isn't really as well defined and understood as most scientists want us to believe. Therefore to base a view on the of idea of gravity can be flawed.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 24, 2018, 01:59:13 PM

Quote from: Meg on July 24, 2018, 01:57:02 PM

What is termed "gravity" isn't really as well defined and understood as most scientists want us to believe. Therefore to base a view on the of idea of gravity can be flawed.

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Ladislaus on July 24, 2018, 02:42:16 PM

Quote from: apollo on July 24, 2018, 01:06:29 PM

.
You fail to take into account GRAVITY. There is a universal Gravitational constant which has been measured and it pertains to all the planets in
our solar system. It is the reason we have Order In The Universe -- one of the proofs of God's existence.
.
The earth does NOT have enough gravity to keep the Sun in orbit around the earth. If it had enough gravity to do that, the Moon would have
come crashing down to the earth many many yeas ago.

You clearly know nothing about gravity. Besides the fact that nobody can demonstrate its existence, the simple truth of the matter is that ... even according to Newtonian physics ... the earth does NOT move around the sun. Rather, the earth moves around the "center of mass" of the entire solar system, and the sun too moves around this center of mass, which is usually but not always located somewhere within the physical body of the sun ... depending on planetary alignment.

In addition, even in that case, you have to pretend that the solar system is a closed system and the sun is stationary. Neither is the case. Sun and the entire solar system are also both in motion, in turn rotating around other centers of mass.

At the end of the day, the only stationary point in the universe would be the ENTIRE universe's center of mass.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Ladislaus on July 24, 2018, 02:48:06 PM

Quote from: apollo on July 24, 2018, 01:50:57 PM

Catholic doctrine cannot say that the earth has no gravity, because that would contradict what
we can measure and feel in the physical world.

Gravity is nothing but a hypothesis. No one has ever directly measured it. People merely DESCRIBE the movements of things with math, but the existence of a single force to explain it is nothing but a hypothesis. In fact, some scientists claim that there is no such thing as gravity, but that it all has to do with electro-magnetism. Nobody can explain how "mass" by itself can act on other objects at a distance ... because it can't.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: cassini on July 24, 2018, 03:03:08 PM

Quote from: apollo on July 24, 2018, 01:06:29 PM

.
You fail to take into account GRAVITY. There is a universal Gravitational constant which has been measured and it pertains to all the planets in
our solar system. It is the reason we have Order In The Universe -- one of the proofs of God's existence.
.
The earth does NOT have enough gravity to keep the Sun in orbit around the earth. If it had enough gravity to do that, the Moon would have
come crashing down to the earth many many yeas ago.
.
You don't even know the most basic thing about Celestial Mechanics. I know don't tell me -- Celestial Mechanics is EVIL.
Well good luck converting Astronomy professors to Catholicism.
.
I guess when NASA uses Celestial Mechanics to place the satellites in orbit, it is a total HOAX, because NASA is EVIL.
.
BTW, I wrote software in Fortran in 1975 which uses Keplers 3rd law of Celestial Mechanics to compute the positions of all the planets,
so I know something about it. Heliocentrism works well for this. Geocentrism fails miserably, for at least one reason: retrograde motion.
.
My good friend Neil Block is the guy who wrote the software that NASA uses today. He said that the formula for the Moon required
2000 terms (in the Taylor series). His software was accurate to 1/10 th of a degree. I guess he was EVIL also.
.
You people are like cavemen.
.
Lastly, IT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE BIBLE TO DEFINE SCIENCE, INCLUDING ASTRONOMY.
Here is a quote from a traditional Priest who used to say Mass at my parent's house:
.
6. Is not the Bible statement that the sun stood still in the heavens (Jos. 10, 13) an example of obvious error?
No, we must remember that the Bible was written in every-day language of the time, not in scientific terms. Even to this day,
for example, we speak of sunset even though the sun is not setting anywhere and we know that the Earth is orbiting around the
Sun and not vice-versa. Link: http://drbo.org/catechism.htm#lesson12 (http://drbo.org/catechism.htm#lesson12)
.
I'm really getting tired of all the lies from people who know NOTHING about Astronomy.

Really Apollo, your posts are so self contradicting that it is obvious you are homo consensus personified. Your mind is so captivated by the heresy that you demonstrate the magic that Lucifer brought about beginning with Pythagoras.

You write like you are the only one who understands science when in fact you are a captive of the same false 'science.' Above you begin with gravity as though what CAUSES it is known. Obviously you are a Newtonian and believe his THEORY OF GRAVITY is a fact of science. Didn't anyone tell you that even he said ihis theory would account for a geocentric universe? History shows there were/are about five different theories of gravity. Today, and there is evidence for it, Electromagnetism is being considered as the means by which God controls His universe. Remember when God said in Genesis that He created LIGHT before the sun, well we all know what light is, an electromagnetic effect.

Immediately then you jump over to theology, claiming your Newtonian heresy is some sort of proof for God. What about a geocentric universe, wouldn't that be an even better proof for God, óne that the Catholic Church holds to this day in spite of so many denying this truth?
It is you Apollo who doesn't know the basics of celestial mechanics. What in God's name has NASA's sending satellites into orbit got to do with theb order of the universe?

Now Kepler's third law is a description of the universe as God created it, nothing more.

This observation of Kepler’s was without doubt a great one. In essence, he noted that there is, irrespective of their size and distance, a harmony, a relationship, a wedding, between periodicity and distance - or if you like between time and space - in the movements of the celestial spheres. This law is wonderful in a quantitative sense in that it establishes an equivalency between entities raised to different powers.
And might the Christian believer further expect that if such that is now called Kepler’s ‘Third law’ undergirds the whole of nature, then surely, as Kepler himself believed, had the Creator geometrically signed the canvas of His creation He would have done so with a curve that uniquely reflects His triune Essence? That curve is not an ellipse however, but one discovered by Domenico Cassini. It was Kepler however, who, albeit using Tycho’s records, announced this amazing phenomenon.

Now when you know how God created the Earth, sun, moon and planets, it is easy to devise a THEORY that fits the order and to call it a law. If Newton's law predicted the order Kepler found, that would indeed have given his theory credibility. But he didn't, he based his theory on the mathematics already there.

Lastly you say, IT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE BIBLE TO DEFINE SCIENCE, INCLUDING ASTRONOMY. Every word of the Bible is a truth, whether physical descriptions or theological revelations. The order of the universe is not a scientific question for the simple reason it is now within man's ability to know it for certain. It is metaphysical, and therefore well within the purpose of biblical revelation.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 24, 2018, 03:26:33 PM

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 24, 2018, 02:42:16 PM

You clearly know nothing about gravity. Besides the fact that nobody can demonstrate its existence, the simple truth of the matter is that ... even according to Newtonian physics ... the earth does NOT move around the sun. Rather, the earth moves around the "center of mass" of the entire solar system, and the sun too moves around this center of mass, which is usually but not always located somewhere within the physical body of the sun ... depending on planetary alignment.
In addition, even in that case, you have to pretend that the solar system is a closed system and the sun is stationary. Neither is the case. Sun and the entire solar system are also both in motion, in turn rotating around other centers of mass.
At the end of the day, the only stationary point in the universe would be the ENTIRE universe's center of mass.

What was your major in college, sociology?
What you described is Heliocentrism.
Nobody can demonstrate the existence of gravity ?? ??
Yeah, I see people flying off the face of the Earth everyday ;D ;D
The Sun has about 99% of the mass of the solar system, so the center of mass
of the solar system is very close to the center of the Sun.
Read my lips. WE CAN MEASURE GRAVITY. Throw a ball up into the air. It comes
down. That is gravity in operation.
There is no gravity ?? Try jumping off your roof and flying.
But the word "moved" ... that has more wisdom than anything modern science has
discovered. You are insane.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 24, 2018, 03:28:41 PM

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 24, 2018, 02:48:06 PM

Gravity is nothing but a hypothesis. No one has ever directly measured it. People merely DESCRIBE the movements of things with math, but the existence of a single force to explain it is nothing but a hypothesis. In fact, some scientists claim that there is no such thing as gravity, but that it all has to do with electro-magnetism. Nobody can explain how "mass" by itself can act on other objects at a distance ... because it can't.

. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: cassini on July 24, 2018, 03:33:33 PM

Quote from: apollo on July 24, 2018, 01:59:13 PM

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Understanding Gravity:--- From the Latin gravitás, meaning heavy.

“For great is the power of God alone, and he is honoured by the humble. Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability: but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious. For it is not necessary for thee to see with thy eyes those things that are hid. In unnecessary matters be not over curious, and in many of his works thou shalt not be inquisitive. For many things are shewn to thee above the understanding of men. And the suspicion of them hath deceived man, and hath detained their minds in vanity.” (Ecclus 3:21-26).

To say Newton solved the mystery of ‘gravity’ is ignorant or deceit for no one other than God ‘understands’ what we call ‘gravity.’ We know the need for and effects of ‘gravity’ on Earth, and indeed probably on the surface of every other cosmic body, but can mere human reason really comprehend the mystery of gravity?

There are, of course, many known functions served by ‘gravity.’ Experience has shown us that without Earth’s gravity men could not/cannot survive for very long. The ability of our bodily parts to function properly, for example, is totally dependant on the Earth’s perfect gravity. On Earth, thanks to the Earth’s ‘gravity.’ All living creatures can exist on its surface where they belong with perfect health and mobility, and the weight of a glass of wine and cigar just perfect.

As we look out at the sky from our immobile Earth, we see that all celestial bodies have proper daily, monthly, annual and multi-yearly movement, that is, a daily rotation around the Earth, a monthly orbit for the moon, an annual orbit for the sun, and a multi-year cycle for planets, comets and the precession of the stars. The Earth’s motionless centrality was considered by Aristotle to be its gravitational ‘natural place.’ St Ambrose of Milan (†397), however, and other Fathers of the Church, like St Gregory Naxianzus (†390) and St Basil the Great (†379), attributed the geocentricity of the Earth to divine Providence alone.

‘On the nature and position of the Earth there should be no need to enter into discussion… It is sufficient for our information to state the text of Holy Scriptures, namely, that “He hangeth the Earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7).

There are many, too, who have maintained that the Earth, placed in the midst of the air, remains motionless there by its own weight, because it extends itself equally on all sides. As to this subject, let us reflect on what was said by the Lord to His servant Job…. Does not God clearly show that all things are established by His majesty, not by number, weight, and measure? For the creature has not given the law, rather he accepts it or abides by that which has been accepted.

The Earth is therefore not suspended in the middle of the universe like a balance hung in equilibrium, but the majesty of God holds it together by the law of His own will, so that what is steadfast should prevail over the void and unstable…. By the will of God, therefore, the Earth is immovable. “The Earth standeth forever,” according to Ecclesiastes (91:4).’ – St Ambrose.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 24, 2018, 03:38:28 PM

Quote from: Meg on July 24, 2018, 01:40:30 PM

The discoveries using math are infallible, isn't that what you are saying?

No. Discoveries are made with telescopes. Math is formulated to explain what was measured with telescopes.
Math can be proven to be correct by repeating the experiments and also with mathematical proofs.

(a + b) squared = a squared + 2ab + b squared.

This can be proven by putting numbers in the formula (e.g. a=2 and b=2, a=3 and b=5)
Math is what engineering run on. Engineering without correct math fails miserably. That is why we make sure
to use math that has been proved.
That is how we can predict where Mars will be one year from now. By using the formulas of Celestial Mechanics.
I hope none of you Geocentrists get a job building bridges in my state.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 24, 2018, 03:49:18 PM

Quote from: cassini on July 24, 2018, 03:33:33 PM

As we look out at the sky from our immobile Earth, we see that all celestial bodies have proper daily, monthly, annual and multi-yearly movement, that is, a daily rotation around the Earth, a monthly orbit for the moon, an annual orbit for the sun, and a multi-year cycle for planets, comets and the precession of the stars. The Earth’s motionless centrality was considered by Aristotle to be its gravitational ‘natural place.’ St Ambrose of Milan (†397), however, and other Fathers of the Church, like St Gregory Naxianzus (†390) and St Basil the Great (†379), attributed the geocentricity of the Earth to divine Providence alone.

.
Not true. Some of the celestial bodies (planets) appear to have a non-proper daily motion, called retrograde motion. This can only be explained
by Heliocentrism in a simple way. It can be explained by a Geocentrism that is so complex that it is insane.

I don't give a damn what Aristotle thought or what St Ambrose believed about Astronomy. I don't care what the Fathers of the Church believed
about Astronomy.

Like I said, you need to get out of the dark ages.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 24, 2018, 04:39:26 PM

We know that a rocket needs to attain a speed of 25,000 MPH to leave the gravity of the Earth and never come back,
for going to Mars or Jupiter. We have been able to calculate that speed (25,000 MPH) by using the formula used in
Celestial Mechanics. If we had tried to send a rocket to Mars with a maximum speed of 20,000 MPH, it would never
have escaped the gravity of the Earth and would be orbiting the Earth in some kind of elliptical orbit.

So, to say the we don't understand gravity is not very smart. We understand all we need to know about gravity for
rockets, satellites and the planets of the solar system (which are orbiting around the Sun, like the Earth does).

I know .... don't tell me ... BUT THE CHURCH FATHERS, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH ...
Give me some more negative votes. That will prove me wrong.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: roscoe on July 24, 2018, 07:21:35 PM

There is nothing in the Universe that is fixed in position... :cheers:

It is one of Galileo's greatest astronomical mistakes to presume that S is fixed in center of U...

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: klasG4e on July 24, 2018, 09:02:12 PM

Quote from: apollo on July 24, 2018, 01:35:01 PM

.
Yes, mathematics can tell us which Catholic dogmas are right and which are wrong :laugh2: :P :o :( ;D ;) :-\

Say what?! A Catholic dogma is a defined Catholic doctrine. All well educated Catholics should know that all Catholic dogmas are absolutely true and not subject to change. So.....please be so kind as to state one, just one, Catholic dogma that is not true/right and then explain how it can not be true/right and still be a Catholic dogma.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: X on July 24, 2018, 09:11:57 PM

Fr. Alphonsus Maria, C.SS.R., currently working with the SSPX, claims that St. Alphonsus de Liguori was a heliocentrist.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 24, 2018, 09:43:41 PM

Quote from: klasG4e on July 24, 2018, 09:02:12 PM

Say what?! A Catholic dogma is a defined Catholic doctrine. All well educated Catholics should know that all Catholic dogmas are absolutely true and not subject to change. So.....please be so kind as to state one, just one, Catholic dogma that is not true/right and then explain how it can not be true/right and still be a Catholic dogma.

.
You were not supposed to take that seriously. I was trying to show how ridiculous someone's comment was.
Don't forget to give me a negative vote.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Ladislaus on July 24, 2018, 10:20:38 PM

There's a reason your screen name is that of the pagan sun god.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Ladislaus on July 24, 2018, 10:21:49 PM

Quote from: roscoe on July 24, 2018, 07:21:35 PM

There is nothing in the Universe that is fixed in position... :cheers:

It is one of Galileo's greatest astronomical mistakes to presume that S is fixed in center of U...

Except the center of mass of the entire universe.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 25, 2018, 03:55:29 AM

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 24, 2018, 10:20:38 PM

There's a reason your screen name is that of the pagan sun god.

Neil Obstat already said that a long time ago. Actually that is a name someone used to call me many years ago.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 25, 2018, 03:59:45 AM

QUESTION. What is the force that keeps the Moon in orbit around the Earth? The Moon has a velocity, right? It has been calculated
to be 2,300 MPH. Why does it not go in a straight line and go off into space? (I have my own theory/fact, but I want to hear what
other people think).

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 25, 2018, 07:05:10 AM

I just watched a video, a talk by Dr. Robert Sungenis given in Dallas, TX, published in Dec. 2015.
I now realize that I have been narrowly focused on the Newtonian (gravitational) aspect of the
Solar System. Robert Sungenis focuses on a much larger aspect, using the whole universe.
He has shown me why so many Catholics like the idea of Geocentrism.

HOWEVER, he admits that if one focuses only on the Solar System, the Newtonian (gravitational)
theories show that the Earth orbits around the Sun, no question about it.

Nevertheless, he claims that there are forces outside our Solar System that change the Newtonian
Solar System model into a different model where the Earth may very well be at the center of the
Universe.

Finally, I disagree with his concept of forces outside of our Solar System, but I don't want to go
into that in this reply. I want to see if there is sufficient interest in this advanced part of the debate.
I also disagree with his main arguments about why the Earth must be at the center and I disagree
with his claim that the Bible says the Earth is at the center and not rotating and not orbiting the
Sun.

BTW, I'm sorry for my lack of patience with people, but I do think it's not fair for people to keep
shouting the same thing over and over again, when I've already given my argument against it.

Here is the Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwx7bYEUIF4

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Jaynek on July 25, 2018, 07:30:09 AM

Quote from: apollo on July 24, 2018, 03:49:18 PM

I don't give a damn what Aristotle thought or what St Ambrose believed about Astronomy. I don't care what the Fathers of the Church believed
about Astronomy.

Like I said, you need to get out of the dark ages.

Your lack of respect for the great thinkers of the past limits your understanding of the present. You need to learn some humility and some history.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 25, 2018, 07:52:23 AM

Quote from: Jaynek on July 25, 2018, 07:30:09 AM

Your lack of respect for the great thinkers of the past limits your understanding of the present. You need to learn some humility and some history.

Humility? OK.
Great thinkers of the past? What this usually means is that I cannot disagree with the Fathers of the Church,
whose business was religion and Catholic dogma, but not Astronomy.

They may be out of date, since we have better telescopes than they had. So we may know more than they
knew. There have been mathematical discoveries since they lived on the Earth. Respect for them? OK. But
if their theories are now known to be incorrect, we can say so, especially on non-religious subjects, such as
Astronomy.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Jaynek on July 25, 2018, 08:57:00 AM

Quote from: apollo on July 25, 2018, 07:52:23 AM

Humility? OK.
Great thinkers of the past? What this usually means is that I cannot disagree with the Fathers of the Church,
whose business was religion and Catholic dogma, but not Astronomy.

They may be out of date, since we have better telescopes than they had. So we may know more than they
knew. There have been mathematical discoveries since they lived on the Earth. Respect for them? OK. But
if their theories are now known to be incorrect, we can say so, especially on non-religious subjects, such as
Astronomy.

While it is possible for Fathers of the Church to be wrong about astronomy, it is still worthwhile to understand what they said and why they said it. These are wise and holy men, not people to dismiss as "out of date".

Theories about astronomy are always subject to change because that is the nature of science. In fact, several different theories have been accepted and then discarded since the classical period. There is no good reason to assume that the latest theory is actually correct nor to treat is an an absolute fact. At most, it is the best understanding at this time.

You seem to have this idea that everyone is smart and correct now and were stupid and wrong in the past. That is not how it works. The term "dark ages" is misleading, inaccurate, and pejorative. Scholars of history do not use it. Your posts display a shallow and ignorant grasp of the subject.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Meg on July 25, 2018, 10:47:12 AM

Quote from: apollo on July 24, 2018, 04:39:26 PM

So, to say the we don't understand gravity is not very smart. We understand all we need to know about gravity for
rockets, satellites and the planets of the solar system (which are orbiting around the Sun, like the Earth does).

Please provide actual photos of your heliocentric solar system that are not CG'd.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Smedley Butler on July 25, 2018, 10:51:23 AM

Quote from: apollo on July 24, 2018, 04:39:26 PM

We know that a rocket needs to attain a speed of 25,000 MPH to leave the gravity of the Earth and never come back,
for going to Mars or Jupiter. We have been able to calculate that speed (25,000 MPH) by using the formula used in
Celestial Mechanics. If we had tried to send a rocket to Mars with a maximum speed of 20,000 MPH, it would never
have escaped the gravity of the Earth and would be orbiting the Earth in some kind of elliptical orbit.

So, to say the we don't understand gravity is not very smart. We understand all we need to know about gravity for
rockets, satellites and the planets of the solar system (which are orbiting around the Sun, like the Earth does).

I know .... don't tell me ... BUT THE CHURCH FATHERS, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH ...
Give me some more negative votes. That will prove me wrong.

Earth has no gravity.
Launching a rocket has to do with only 2 things to get it aloft: its mass and its speed.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 25, 2018, 12:05:36 PM

Quote from: Smedley Butler on July 25, 2018, 10:51:23 AM

Earth has no gravity.

Then why is the world high-jump record not 20 or 30 feet ?

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 25, 2018, 12:08:12 PM

Quote from: Smedley Butler on July 25, 2018, 10:51:23 AM

Launching a rocket has to do with only 2 things to get it aloft: its mass and its speed.

And what speed is that? And how does one "get it aloft"? NASA might want to know.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: cassini on July 25, 2018, 12:15:15 PM

Quote from: apollo on July 25, 2018, 03:59:45 AM

QUESTION. What is the force that keeps the Moon in orbit around the Earth? The Moon has a velocity, right? It has been calculated
to be 2,300 MPH. Why does it not go in a straight line and go off into space? (I have my own theory/fact, but I want to hear what
other people think).

Electromagnetism. Get iron filings on a piece of paper. Place a magnet of two positive poles underneat and they will form cassinian ovals, exactly the same as found in all orbits.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Ladislaus on July 25, 2018, 12:20:16 PM

Quote from: apollo on July 25, 2018, 12:05:36 PM

Then why is the world high-jump record not 20 or 30 feet ?

Gravity is made up. There's no credible scientific answer that's ever been put forward to explain how mass can act at a distance on another mass. In fact, some scientists believe that what had heretofore been known as gravity actually is a manifestation of electromagnetic forces.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 25, 2018, 12:27:00 PM

Quote from: Jaynek on July 25, 2018, 08:57:00 AM

Theories about astronomy are always subject to change ...

Celestial Mechanics is not subject to much change. It has been accurate for a long time.

Quote

You seem to have this idea that everyone is smart and correct now and were stupid and wrong in the past ...

Not really. I'm in agreement with Pascendi. I'm opposed to Evolution.
My use of the term "dark ages" was directed specifically at the thinking of certain individuals replying to this topic,
who seem to think all science is evil. Actually, I love Chopin and Beethoven. Also Rembrandt lighting in portraiture.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 25, 2018, 12:34:13 PM

Quote from: cassini on July 25, 2018, 12:15:15 PM

Electromagnetism. Get iron filings on a piece of paper. Place a magnet of two positive poles underneat and they will form cassinian ovals, exactly the same as found in all orbits.

OK, noted. So if I get the iron out of my body, will I weight less?

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: cassini on July 25, 2018, 12:51:11 PM

Quote from: apollo on July 24, 2018, 04:39:26 PM

We know that a rocket needs to attain a speed of 25,000 MPH to leave the gravity of the Earth and never come back,
for going to Mars or Jupiter. We have been able to calculate that speed (25,000 MPH) by using the formula used in
Celestial Mechanics. If we had tried to send a rocket to Mars with a maximum speed of 20,000 MPH, it would never
have escaped the gravity of the Earth and would be orbiting the Earth in some kind of elliptical orbit.

So, to say the we don't understand gravity is not very smart. We understand all we need to know about gravity for
rockets, satellites and the planets of the solar system (which are orbiting around the Sun, like the Earth does).

I know .... don't tell me ... BUT THE CHURCH FATHERS, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH ...
Give me some more negative votes. That will prove me wrong.

It is obvious to me now Apollo that you avoid many of the replies to your position. This tells me you are not open to faith or reason. You keep insulting the Fathers, popes and theologians saying they have no expertese in astronomy.

It was Galileo who said ASTRONOMY would correct Scriptuiral exegesis. The astronomy that we geocentrists defend FIRST is the geocentrism of SCRIPTURE. It has God as its Author so He knows how he created it. The popes had every right to defend Scripture against the ideologies of philosophers AND GUYS LIKE YOURSELF. So no more BUT THE CHURCH FATHERS BLAH, BLAH,BAH... if you dont mind. They simply interpreted the Word of God, and did NOT indulge in cosmology.

There are times when you write like a ten-year-old. 'To say we don't understand gravity is not very smart' you write. By this I/WE MEAN WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT CAUSES GRAVITY, NOT HOW IT WORKS ON EARTH. I have already told you there are at least 5 different viable SCIENTIFIC THEORIES FOR THE CAUSE OF GRAVITY. You picked Newton's, but please do not tell us that his theory is a law.

Finally, here is a question on gravity in which you can show us all how much you know about it. Now I will be waiting for your answer knowall.

If I am on a train and I throw a ball as it passes a building, what speed will the ball hit the wall at? Won't it be the speed of the train PLUS the speed with which I throw it?

Now the 25,000mph needed to get a rocket into space. But given the rocket is launched off the earth (A TRAIN) doing 72,000mph shouldn't the rocket fly off into space at 97,000mph? Now get in touch with your pals in NASA and ask them at what rate they calculate the time it will take to get to its destination. Do they start at 97,000mph, so that it takes one hour to do 97,000miles.
When you get an answer let us know Apollo.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: cassini on July 25, 2018, 12:56:51 PM

Quote from: apollo on July 25, 2018, 12:34:13 PM

OK, noted. So if I get the iron out of my body, will I weight less?

See everybody, Apollo cannot cope with facts so tries to make a joke out of it.

Apollo, YOU ARE PATHETIC. I FOR ONE AM OFF. YOU ARE A WASTE OF SPACE ON A DISCUSSION FORUM.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: cassini on July 25, 2018, 12:59:41 PM

Quote from: apollo on July 25, 2018, 12:27:00 PM

Celestial Mechanics is not subject to much change. It has been accurate for a long time. Not really. I'm in agreement with Pascendi. I'm opposed to Evolution.
My use of the term "dark ages" was directed specifically at the thinking of certain individuals replying to this topic,
who seem to think all science is evil. Actually, I love Chopin and Beethoven. Also Rembrandt lighting in portraiture.

Oh, one final joke Apollo.

Your heliocentrism is an evolved theory (Nebular theory). Yet above you say you are opposed to evolution. You couldn't make it up.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 25, 2018, 01:29:03 PM

Quote from: cassini on July 25, 2018, 12:59:41 PM

Oh, one final joke Apollo.
Your heliocentrism is an evolved theory (Nebular theory). Yet above you say you are opposed to evolution. You couldn't make it up.

.
Hey guys, it was fun, but I've got some work to do, no more time for insults and speculation.
NASA has offered me a job after reading my replies. I've got to go launch some rockets and write
some numerical analysis software, double integration, using Gaussian quadrature (you know).
Good luck with your rocket built out of magnets. Love, peace, charity.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: klasG4e on July 25, 2018, 03:00:43 PM

Quote from: cassini on July 25, 2018, 12:56:51 PM

See everybody, Apollo cannot cope with facts so tries to make a joke out of it.

Apollo, YOU ARE PATHETIC. I FOR ONE AM OFF. YOU ARE A WASTE OF SPACE ON A DISCUSSION FORUM.

I am not saying that Apollo is evil, yet I can not help noting here that evil often hides behind a mask of humor, just as Freemasons often disguise their evil agenda behind a philanthropic disguise.

As a slight aside, I am reminded of how Francis put on a foolish grin for the infamous photo op behind that red circus nose (or how he bowed down before a Jєωιѕн female secretary from Israel, yet fails to bow down, let alone genuflect, during the Consecration (?) at the NO Mass.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: apollo on July 26, 2018, 10:46:25 AM

GEOCENTRISM vs HELIOCENTRISM VIDEO ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyRJZbNmC7U&list=PLmWeueTF8l82THrHwihtcmhQdjcBQBXjT (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyRJZbNmC7U&list=PLmWeueTF8l82THrHwihtcmhQdjcBQBXjT)

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 04, 2018, 07:22:54 PM

Quote from: klasG4e on July 25, 2018, 03:00:43 PM

I am not saying that Apollo is evil, yet I can not help noting here that evil often hides behind a mask of humor, just as Freemasons often disguise their evil agenda behind a philanthropic disguise.

As a slight aside, I am reminded of how Francis put on a foolish grin for the infamous photo op behind that red circus nose (or how he bowed down before a Jєωιѕн female secretary from Israel, yet fails to bow down, let alone genuflect, during the Consecration (?) at the NO Mass.

.
Or when he pulls the altar cloth out from under the candlesticks.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABy_1sL-R3s

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 24, 2018, 10:13:03 AM

.
This whole thread is a microcosm of the controversy.

Title: Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 24, 2018, 10:31:33 AM

Quote from: Smedley Butler on July 25, 2018, 10:51:23 AM

Earth has no gravity.

Launching a rocket has to do with only 2 things to get it aloft: its mass and its speed.

.
A good example of "Things That Are Not Rocket Science."

Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Incredulous on April 23, 2018, 11:06:13 AM