Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis  (Read 78026 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
« Reply #285 on: July 14, 2023, 01:02:15 PM »
I don't have much to add to what you have already found in Wikipedia.  "Around the 4th to 3rd centuries BCE the Greeks, under the influence of Aristotle who argued that the heavens must be perfect and that a sphere was the perfect geometrical figure, exchanged this for a spherical Earth surrounded by solid spheres. This became the dominant model in the Classical and Medieval world-view..."

They believed that "firmament" referred to multiple clear solid spheres around a spherical earth which held the heavenly bodies. 



Do you know of any modern day geocentrists who hold to that model of clear solid spheres around a spherical earth which hold the heavenly bodies?

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
« Reply #286 on: July 14, 2023, 01:25:01 PM »
Condemning heliocentrism is a separate issue from belief in the shape of the world.  "Every single person"...what a statement.
I am making the reasonable assumption that the popes, the members of the Holy Office, etc. inolved in condemning heliocentrism were educated at a Catholic university.  That was the norm for anyone who held high positions in the Church.  These universities all taught that the earth is a sphere. Think of it as a syllogism:

Globe earth was accepted by all educated people. 
Those who condemned heliocentrism were educated people.
Therefore, those who condemned heliocentrism accepted that the earth is a globe.

BTW, St. Robert Bellarmine not only attended a Catholic university, he taught an astronomy class at one.  


Offline Tradman

  • Supporter
Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
« Reply #287 on: July 14, 2023, 01:25:07 PM »
Not only are we without proof that anyone in authority during the Galileo Affair thought the earth was a globe, there is some proof none of them were convinced earth was a globe. 

From Galileo historian AA Martinez from the book Burned Alive

Pg 135 and 136

  Furthermore, Bellarmine reasserted traditional interpretations of scriptures. So he denied the Earth’s motion. In 1611 Bellarmine quoted Psalm 103:5 from the Latin Vulgate, that God established the Earth on its foundations, it cannot be moved forever and ever’. Bellarmine commented that God put Earth in the centre of the world, and that its ‘weight rests on its eternal stability’.159 He also 136 burned alive quoted Psalm 118:8, that God ‘established the Earth and permanently’. Bellarmine explained this phrase: ‘it almost says that you [God] established the Earth immovable, and it always remains immobile.’ He added: ‘God ordained, on the contrary, that heaven or the Sun move always.’160 These statements matter, because they show Bellarmine truly believed that the Earth does not move. So, its motion was not one of the questions he sent to the Collegio Romano. He only asked about the telescopic phenomena Galileo had described. The Earth’s motion had been censured by the consultors of the Inquisition in the works of Bruno. Strangely, historians hardly ever mention this key point when discussing Galileo. 


Here we see that not only did Bellarmine not believe earth moves, he believed God established the earth on its foundations. No glober even remotely suggests earth has foundations as it's hanging or twirling around in space.  Bellarmine and the Pope also agreed that earth is covered by the firmament with water above the firmament.  No outer space.  

The following is found in the sixth argument against Galileo which led to the condemnation of heliocentric theory.  

Sixth Argument 
According to Genesis 1, there are waters in heaven above the firmament and beneath it. ‘Therefore the Earth’s Water is not contained only in the solidity of the Earth, and consequently the natural place of the Earth is not the centre, but possibly, outside it and carried in circular motion in a Great Orb.’  

More from Martinez


pg217
Antipodes
  Inchofer cited Lactantius and Augustine for having criticized the theory of the antipodes. In City of God, Augustine denied the antipodes as a ‘fable’ that had not been proved, because, he said, even if the Earth indeed were spherical, one would have to prove that it has lands throughout, not just bare waters, plus, one would have to prove that there were people there, and descended from Adam.224 Augustine preferred biblical and historical evidence over scientific conjectures. Similarly, Inchofer argued that the Earth’s motion was imaginary and false.

Obviously, the theologian, Inchofer, who summed up the entire Affair, as well as the thoughts of the Pope and Bellarmine, showed they were not convinced earth is a globe.    




Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
« Reply #288 on: July 14, 2023, 01:26:38 PM »

Do you know of any modern day geocentrists who hold to that model of clear solid spheres around a spherical earth which hold the heavenly bodies?
No I don't but this is not an area I have studied, so this does not mean they don't exist.  Sorry I can't be more help.

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
« Reply #289 on: July 14, 2023, 01:50:41 PM »
No I don't but this is not an area I have studied, so this does not mean they don't exist.  Sorry I can't be more help.


Yeah, I have never heard any ball earth proponent hold that view.

So somewhere along the line the firmament seems to have vanished...

It appears to have started with Bruno:


1584 Giordano Bruno proposed a cosmology without a firmament: an infinite universe in which the stars are actually suns with their own planetary systems.


So along with what Tradman posted we seemed to have lost along the way:

1.  The solid firmament as define by Sacred Scripture (Raquia)

2.  The foundation of the earth again from SS and confirmed by St Bellarmine

3.  The notion of upside down people under the earth (antipodes) as ruled out by St Augustine.



From what I've heard from modern geocentrists they usually hold to

a motionless ball earth

that is suspended in space

and no real definition of a firmament other than clouds and sky which is not in accordance with SS (raquia) or the Church Fathers

no waters above and waters below the firmament

and upside down people underneath (the antipodes) which is not in accordance with St Augustine.