Haha - your paper says Diodore the Bishop of Tarsus in 378 warned against the grave sin of astrology and its connection to the error of spherical earth.

It is an academic paper, not a flat-earther site giving cherry-picked proof verses.  The author is attempting to give an overview of all the opinions.  He describes people in the Antioch school who were against flat earth as well as other Fathers who were open to the idea.

You are not somehow scoring points every time you find a reference to somebody who believed the earth is flat.  Ever since I started posting on this topic I have said that there was no consensus among the Fathers.  Some believed the earth was flat and others thought it was a sphere.  There is nothing in this paper that contradicts this or anything else that I have claimed.

In his attempt to promote the globe, Nothaft emphasizes several proofs for Christendom defending flat earth.  He even admits that from 300-800AD any beliefs beyond the upper echelons of academia isn't quite clear.  Ha ha.  Just what we talked about before.  The people held to flat earth because of Scripture and didn't hold the view of those whose papers they didn't have access to.  Not only are Nothafts proofs for a sphere leaps in logic (against Augustine) he can't help but use the Church Fathers to attempt to prove the Church wrong.  What a loser this guy is.  Yet, like Dickenson White, he spills a little too much ink and slits his own throat.  

Thank you.  

Did you notice what he had to say about Cosmas?

Nothafts makes a logical and coherent case for his thesis.  He is not "attempting to prove the Church wrong".  There is no reason to think he is hostile to the Church in any way.  He does, however, show that you are wrong which is not the same thing at all.

He backs up the account of history that I have been stating:  There was no consensus in the Patristic period.  Once St. Bede clearly taught spherical earth around 700 AD that view became the consensus of educated Catholics (and we can only speculate about the uneducated ones).

You have not been able to produce a single quote in favour of flat earth from after 700.  Not from a Saint, a Doctor, a Pope, or anyone with any sort of authority.  The closest you come is to pretend that condemnations of heliocentrism somehow imply that the Church had a problem with spherical earth.  This is obviously wrong since geocentrism at the time of Galileo incorporated a sphericical earth.

Belief in flat earth virtually disappeared by 700.  It was revived by heretics in the mid 1800s.  It cannot reasonably be seen as an integral part of Catholicism just because some of the Fathers believed it.

Then why does Nofthath mention that Copernicus condemns flat earth in the first page?
Why would Copernicus have to mention flat earth in the 1500's if EVERYONE knew it was a ball?

Ever since Copernicus’s mocking reference to Lactantius’s rejection of the earth’s sphericity in the preface to De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (1543), the flat earth has been a symbol of ignorance and backward thinking, an archetype for everything that separates our modern mindset from that of the “Dark Ages.”

For it is not unknown that Lactantius, otherwise an illustrious writer but hardly an astronomer, speaks quite childishly about the earth's shape, when he mocks those who declared that the earth has the form of a globe. Hence scholars need not be surprised if any such persons will likewise ridicule me. Astronomy is written for astronomers. To them my work too will seem, unless I am mistaken, to make some contribution.

I missed this one.
Eat my shorts, Globestat.