Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Charity on June 09, 2022, 09:45:49 AM
-
I'm not sure if this 2018 video was already posted on CI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ak7Qy_dHmk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ak7Qy_dHmk)
-
I like both Hovind and Sungenis ... but I have to disagree with them on this point.
-
So I started looking at this video. Sungenis admits that there are some very intelligent men with solid arguments that do make it appear as though the earth is flat, that it doesn't suffice just to brush it off, and that his original 30-page paper turned into a 700+ page book.
He starts off by talking about how he chose a DaVinci painting of Jesus holding a globe for the cover of his book.
But have a look at the globe in this picture It's basically transparent. People say that DaVinci was into the occult and had ties to Masonry. So it's hard to make anything of this picture one way or the other. Jesus' Hand at the bottom kindof looks like land at the bottom, and the top part, wth the blue garment showing through kindof looks like sky, and a few dots that could be stars ... in the dome. This kindof looks like it could be an earth covered by a dome, so that it really does resemble more the snow-globe dome view of "globe earth" than the NASA one.
(https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2017/11/Salvator-Mundi-framed-783x1024.jpg)
-
So I started looking at this video. Sungenis admits that there are some very intelligent men with solid arguments that do make it appear as though the earth is flat, that it doesn't suffice just to brush it off, and that his original 30-page paper turned into a 700+ page book.
He starts off by talking about how he chose a DaVinci painting of Jesus holding a globe for the cover of his book.
But have a look at the globe in this picture It's basically transparent. People say that DaVinci was into the occult and had ties to Masonry. So it's hard to make anything of this picture one way or the other.
(https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2017/11/Salvator-Mundi-framed-783x1024.jpg)
He speaks about why he chose this picture for the cover of his book and the significance of the globe in the picture and the globe in other religious iconography of the Middle Ages from 3:33 to 6:10.
-
He starts off by talking about how he chose a DaVinci painting of Jesus holding a globe for the cover of his book.
I don't see why Leonardo da Vinci would know any more about the shape of the earth than anyone else. That's really an odd person to choose as an authority on this subject.
-
In any case, why not choose the Infant of Prague and His globe? Jesus would definitely know what the shape of the earth is, after all. ::)
-
In any case, why not choose the Infant of Prague and His globe? Jesus would definitely know what the shape of the earth is, after all. ::)
He speaks about why he chose this picture for the cover of his book and the significance of the globe in the picture and the globe in other religious iconography of the Middle Ages from 3:33 to 6:10.
-
So I started looking at this video. Sungenis admits that there are some very intelligent men with solid arguments that do make it appear as though the earth is flat, that it doesn't suffice just to brush it off, and that his original 30-page paper turned into a 700+ page book.
Lad, I'm glad you started looking at the video. I would appreciate any final comments you have concerning its content if you would care to provide.
-
"People say that DaVinci was into the occult and had ties to Masonry"
Bingo! I think you're picking-up a scent...
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.ISNndhKFTywM2zlKpfKfWgHaGE%26pid%3DApi&f=1)
Walker Coon Hound
-
Hmm... I wonder how this thread ended up being dominated by the discussion of a picture on the cover of a book. An exception to the rule about not being able to judge a book by its cover?!
-
I don't see why Leonardo da Vinci would know any more about the shape of the earth than anyone else. That's really an odd person to choose as an authority on this subject.
I don't see why he -- a man who should be spoken of in the past tense as he has been dead for hundreds of years -- would have know any less, either. What is more, he was, while on earth, a man of true genius. He was and remains a very respectable authority on myriad subjects, especially when compared to modern "traditional" stooges who cannot even figure out that the Bogus Ordo Anti-Church is a bloodthirsty whore who devours her own children.
-
Lad, I'm glad you started looking at the video. I would appreciate any final comments you have concerning its content if you would care to provide.
Thus far I got to the debate regarding the Biblical origins of Flat Earth. That's not something I spend too much time on because I do believe it's debatable and not definitive. We do not have unanimous dogmatic consensus from the Fathers about the matter. Some Fathers (Antiochene school for instance) were FE, while others were GE. So it's not something I would really want to be debate with Dr. Sungenis. Some of Hovind's objections against FE were actually a bit lame, and Dr. Sungenis actually shot some of them down, saying, "well, actually they have a really good answer for that," etc.
-
Jesus would definitely know what the shape of the earth is, after all.
He told you there is a firmament above you, among other things that you apparently do not believe. Earth is not the name of a planet; it is the name of the dry land.
"And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day. God also said: Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done. And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good."
-
In any case, why not choose the Infant of Prague and His globe? Jesus would definitely know what the shape of the earth is, after all. ::)
In either case, globes in art are not definitive. FE does hold to a globular shape of the world overall when the dome is factored in. Not to mention that the artists are not inspired or infallible. So art really isn't definitive:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Early_Hebrew_Conception_of_the_Universe.svg/640px-Early_Hebrew_Conception_of_the_Universe.svg.png)
When used as symbols of royal power, it's also largely symbolic where the entire existence of the universe is wrapped in a ball and held in by the cross, to show that all of creation is in Our Lord's dominion.
-
I thought I was over the debate, but, well, here I am again. I'll just share these two once more to get the point across that Scripture does not at all talk of the earth as NASA and the Masons say it is.
The Earth is certainly a globe. A snow-globe, in a sense. We are to take the literal word of Scripture before moving to the other senses, and well, a lot of FE-advocates are pushing back and showing that the literal words are true.
-
I thought I was over the debate, but, well, here I am again. I'll just share these two once more to get the point across that Scripture does not at all talk of the earth as NASA and the Masons say it is.
The Earth is certainly a globe. A snow-globe, in a sense. We are to take the literal word of Scripture before moving to the other senses, and well, a lot of FE-advocates are pushing back and showing that the literal words are true.
Are there any good responses to these photos? The first one I always found the ascend and descend bit confusing on a globe earth, same with Jesus appearing visible to all physically in the sky made no sense on a globe earth.
-
Are there any good responses to these photos? The first one I always found the ascend and descend bit confusing on a globe earth, same with Jesus appearing visible to all physically in the sky made no sense on a globe earth.
There's also the passage in SacredScripture where the devil was tempting Our Lord in the desert, and he took Him up on a high mountain and showed Him "all the kingdoms of the world".
St. Matthew 4:8
Again the devil took him up into a very high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them,
-
I don't know about you, but I don't think I could see more than just a few kingdoms from a mountain, let alone all their glory, even on a flat Earth. Is it possible that some sort of magical power was exercised by the devil to not only transport the mind or enhance the eyes to see these things, but also to demonstrate that it would appear he has power such that he could give those kingdoms to Jesus? Couldn't God allow such an event to take place? The devil cannot tempt unless allowed to do so by God.
I would prefer to see the explanations put forth by the various doctors and saints throughout church history, because who are we to pick and choose what is and is not literal in scripture? It is my understanding that metaphors and symbolism are used in some places, and literal meaning in others. Then there is the complication of translation into our own language without losing the meaning as intended when it was written.
(https://i.imgur.com/Orok5iD.png)
As for the tower of Babel, I don't think A or B makes any more sense. My understanding of it was that the building of the tower was all for human pride, not the honor of God, and a huge waste of effort that could be better spent on other things. If allowed to continue, they likely would have had issues with the tower sinking under its own weight, or suffocating at high altitudes, or does the air not get thin at high altitudes on a flat Earth? I would think the edge of where the breathable air extends to could, in either model of the Earth, be considered Heaven above that point.
The bottomless pit: can you say there is a bottom to a sphere? A center, yes, but a bottom? Could bottomless be just an expression? Is it a region in a spiritual existence, or physically under the Earth, which would be a huge place on the globe Earth model. Do demons need a physical hole in the ground to travel through?
The flood:
Do people ever say the clouds are in heaven? Gen. 1:8 "God called the firmament heaven" Could it be that the waters above are the clouds, and below are the oceans? I admit that the way it is written makes it difficult to tell where the water above is, and how much there is, unless you play it safe and say the waters above are above even the stars. The globe model can be said to be deep, but the water would not extend anywhere near the center.
Meteors and comets could look like stars falling to earth. Who could tell the difference? They look like small specs of light until they get larger and fall towards the ground. Without a powerful telescope, who can know what a star really looks like to be able to imagine what a falling star would really look like. Modern affordable optics show us that planets and their rings and moons do exist. I don't think the flat Earth model of the starts and universe does the greatness of God any Justice. He put such a wide variety of beautiful life even on the bottom of the ocean, why not an uncountable number of different galaxies extending out in every direction as far as the greatest of modern technology can see?
Perhaps all souls will be gathered together when Jesus comes again, or by some miracle all will be able to see him. I'm sure the whole world didn't see him ascend. But to those who saw him ascend, he would have been moving in their relative up direction according to their location on a globe earth. It should not be a difficult concept to grasp. That's the neat thing about spheres; their universal symmetry makes the whole surface its face, with any direction away being up, and any direction toward being down. Of course, no matter what shape is being talked about, up and down and any direction need to be defined first relative to a point of view.
-
I thought I was over the debate, but, well, here I am again. I'll just share these two once more to get the point across that Scripture does not at all talk of the earth as NASA and the Masons say it is.
The Earth is certainly a globe. A snow-globe, in a sense. We are to take the literal word of Scripture before moving to the other senses, and well, a lot of FE-advocates are pushing back and showing that the literal words are true.
As a globe-earther by default I must say the ascent of Jesus struck me. I will definitely have to look into the Flat Earth theory when I finish my exams.