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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 16

Author Topic: The Earth is Flat  (Read 28506 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tradman

  • Supporter
  • ***
  • Posts: 1355
  • Reputation: +863/-287
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Earth is Flat
« Reply #75 on: October 17, 2023, 06:11:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • More from the Easter Catholic Church

    FLAT EARTH COSMOLOGY Byzantine Support for Cosmas' interpretation manifested in Church archtechture.

    Emperor JustinianThe Cosmological Philosophy of Imperial Orthodox Christian Byzantium was Mosaic Biblical Flat Earth Cosmography.  In 'The Madaba Map Centenary 1897-1997:  Travelling Through the Byzantine Ummayad Period' Dr. Irfan Shahid of Dumbarton Oaks contributed an article entitled 'The Madaba Mosaic Map Revisited:  Some New Observations on Its Purpose and Meaning' which states the following on page 151:"That Imperial Byzantium was also aware of Moses the Cosmographer in the sixth century is reflected in the fact that none other than Justinian himself spoke against the pagan Greek spherical view of the Universe and clearly implied strong support for the opposite conception, originally owed to Moses in Genesis, and held strongly by the school in Antioch, when he thundered his anathemas against Origenism at the Synod of Constantinople in AD 553."

    Consistent with all Orthodox Churches, the architecture of the Hagia Sophia of Constantinople and all Churches which Emperor Justinian built is a model of the Cosmos:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia The excellent, learned, and exhaustive Madaba Map Book containing the quotation above may be obtained through the Madaba Map website:http://www.christusrex.org/www1/ofm/mad/index.html


    Although the term "flat earth" isn't exactly used by the Fathers, like the hidden pearl of Mary's Immaculate Conception is tucked between the pages of scripture and remains a bit of a treasure hunt, their exegeses brings to light incredible typology regarding the shape of the earth comparing it to the Ark of the Covenant, the Tabernacle, the liturgy, and likened the physical form of the earth to a two-story house, and even to the architecture of churches with their pillars, domes, altars, candles and windows. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Methodius, Ephrem Syrus, Gregory of Nyssa, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyrus and Procopius of Gaza also offer intriguing exegesis of the Tabernacle. Also cited is the Apostolic Constitutions Books VII and VIII. It also links Christian liturgy to Jєωιѕн liturgy in which typology and history already account. Historian Andrew Dickson White (who disagreed with St. Clement) explains in his book, "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom," says: "St. Clement of Alexandria demonstrated that the altar in the Jєωιѕн tabernacle was "a symbol of the earth placed in the middle of the universe": nothing more was needed; the geocentric theory was fully adopted by the Church and universally held to agree with the letter and spirit of Scripture."(41)

    Logged

    Offline Tradman

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1355
    • Reputation: +863/-287
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Earth is Flat
    « Reply #76 on: October 17, 2023, 06:25:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Out of respect for Enoch I have to add: 

    I saw the ends of the earth whereon the vault of heaven rests. (1 En 33:2)

    Cosmas of Indiocopleustes expands on this view explaining that the tabernacle is a 'type' for the earth, the vault, pitched like a tent (according to Moses) the firmament is the 'veil' between heaven and earth. 

    Logged

    Offline Jaynek

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4170
    • Reputation: +2318/-1232
    • Gender: Female
    Re: The Earth is Flat
    « Reply #77 on: October 17, 2023, 07:20:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on October 17, 2023, 05:06:20 PM
    I think that quite a few of the Church Fathers believed the earth to be flat, particularly those of the Antiochene school. 
    It is easy enough to find people who claim that, but this is not supported with quotes.  The Flat Earth Trads site, for example, claims that the "Church Fathers were almost unanimous in their opinion that the earth was flat" but only has citations from four. And I think the site is correct in its selection of quotes. People who attempt to go over that number, end up quoting things that are not actually saying anything about flat earth or including quotes from sources who are not Catholic Saints, such as Cosmas. (Cosmas has no authority whatsoever, nor was he influential in Catholic thought.)

    Quote from: Ladislaus on October 17, 2023, 05:06:20 PM
    I've also seen a larger context from Bede where the full quote made me doubt that he was thinking of the "ball" earth rather than a spherical world in general.
    Could you be more explicit about what makes you think this?  I can not think of anything in the context that could support such a conclusion.  Given how extensively St. Bede quotes Pliny in the larger context, the obvious way to understand him is that he shares Pliny's model of a globe earth.
    Logged

    Offline Jaynek

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4170
    • Reputation: +2318/-1232
    • Gender: Female
    Re: The Earth is Flat
    « Reply #78 on: October 17, 2023, 07:34:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Tradman on October 17, 2023, 06:11:25 PM
     Historian Andrew Dickson White (who disagreed with St. Clement) explains in his book, "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom," says: ...

    White is not a reliable source.


    Historian of science Lawrence M. Principe writes, "No serious historians of science or of the science-religion issue today maintain the warfare thesis...The origins of the warfare thesis lie in the late 19th century, specifically in the work of two men - John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. These men had specific political purposes in mind when arguing their case, and the historical foundations of their work are unreliable." [2]
    Principe goes on to write "Despite appearances, White’s arguments are scarcely any better than Draper’s. White uses fallacious arguments and suspect or bogus sources. His methodological errors are collectivism (the unwarrantable extension of an individual’s views to represent that of some larger group of which he is a part), a lack of critical judgement about sources, argument by ridicule and assertion, failure to check primary sources, and quoting selectively and out of context. White popularized the baseless notions that before Columbus and Magellan, the world was thought to be flat and that the Earth’s sphericity was officially opposed by the Church. He is also responsible for the equally fallacious notion that the Church forbade human dissection. The notion - eternally repopularized by Hollywood - that the medieval Church condemned all science as devilry runs throughout White; this view is likewise baseless."[3]
    In his course on science and religion, Principe points out a couple of examples of White's poor scholarship, "Let’s start with a simple and a notorious example: the idea that before Columbus people thought that the world was flat. Well, in fact, it is Draper and White, specifically, both of them, who bear most of the blame for popularizing this baseless view to the extent that nowadays, 80 percent of school teachers still foist this upon poor innocent school children. The fact is that of course the sphericity of the Earth was well established by the fifth century BC by the Greeks, and a good measure of its circuмference made by the third century BC. And these facts were never forgotten in learned Western Culture."
    Principe goes on to say, "White tells of a brave Columbus who fought mightily for the revolutionary notion of the earth’s sphericity. And here he helps us out (damning himself) with a footnote that reads “W. Irving, Life of Columbus” Yes, indeed, this is Washington Irving of Rip Van Winkle and headless horseman fame, who wrote a fictionalized account of Columbus in 1838. Yet White uses it as a historical source. This is an error of critical judgement."[4]
    Principe sums up White's book this way: "Refuting White is like shooting fish in a barrel. With his combination of bad sources, argument by assertion, quoting out of context, collectivism, and general reliance on exclamation, rather than evidence and argument, White’s is not a book to be taken seriously. Its real value is as a relic of its particular time and place, and as a museum of how not to write history...While we can look today with astonishment upon the shoddy character of Draper and White’s writings, their books have had enormous impact, and we can’t deny that. Much of this is due to their great success in their creating a myth for science as a religion. Their myth of science as a religion is replete with battles, and martyrdoms, and saints, and creeds. And as we know, or should know, myths are often much more powerful than historical realities."[5]

    Logged

    Offline Tradman

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1355
    • Reputation: +863/-287
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Earth is Flat
    « Reply #79 on: October 17, 2023, 08:08:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Jaynek on October 17, 2023, 07:34:01 PM
    White is not a reliable source.


    Historian of science Lawrence M. Principe writes, "No serious historians of science or of the science-religion issue today maintain the warfare thesis...The origins of the warfare thesis lie in the late 19th century, specifically in the work of two men - John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. These men had specific political purposes in mind when arguing their case, and the historical foundations of their work are unreliable." [2]
    Principe goes on to write "Despite appearances, White’s arguments are scarcely any better than Draper’s. White uses fallacious arguments and suspect or bogus sources. His methodological errors are collectivism (the unwarrantable extension of an individual’s views to represent that of some larger group of which he is a part), a lack of critical judgement about sources, argument by ridicule and assertion, failure to check primary sources, and quoting selectively and out of context. White popularized the baseless notions that before Columbus and Magellan, the world was thought to be flat and that the Earth’s sphericity was officially opposed by the Church. He is also responsible for the equally fallacious notion that the Church forbade human dissection. The notion - eternally repopularized by Hollywood - that the medieval Church condemned all science as devilry runs throughout White; this view is likewise baseless."[3]
    In his course on science and religion, Principe points out a couple of examples of White's poor scholarship, "Let’s start with a simple and a notorious example: the idea that before Columbus people thought that the world was flat. Well, in fact, it is Draper and White, specifically, both of them, who bear most of the blame for popularizing this baseless view to the extent that nowadays, 80 percent of school teachers still foist this upon poor innocent school children. The fact is that of course the sphericity of the Earth was well established by the fifth century BC by the Greeks, and a good measure of its circuмference made by the third century BC. And these facts were never forgotten in learned Western Culture."
    Principe goes on to say, "White tells of a brave Columbus who fought mightily for the revolutionary notion of the earth’s sphericity. And here he helps us out (damning himself) with a footnote that reads “W. Irving, Life of Columbus” Yes, indeed, this is Washington Irving of Rip Van Winkle and headless horseman fame, who wrote a fictionalized account of Columbus in 1838. Yet White uses it as a historical source. This is an error of critical judgement."[4]
    Principe sums up White's book this way: "Refuting White is like shooting fish in a barrel. With his combination of bad sources, argument by assertion, quoting out of context, collectivism, and general reliance on exclamation, rather than evidence and argument, White’s is not a book to be taken seriously. Its real value is as a relic of its particular time and place, and as a museum of how not to write history...While we can look today with astonishment upon the shoddy character of Draper and White’s writings, their books have had enormous impact, and we can’t deny that. Much of this is due to their great success in their creating a myth for science as a religion. Their myth of science as a religion is replete with battles, and martyrdoms, and saints, and creeds. And as we know, or should know, myths are often much more powerful than historical realities."[5]


    Lol.  White is not a reliable source according to you, but Principe is? White was clearly anti-Catholic yet, because he was an reputable historian, he painstakingly quoted Catholic Fathers and saints who promoted flat earth even though he disagreed with them.     

    What's even more humorous is your modern science guy Principe was admittedly an active alchemist.  And you believe a demonic alchemist over Fathers, saints and popes? 

    Even worse, you shamelessly avoided any acknowledgment of the trustworthy Catholic sources provided, including Scripture, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, Cosmas, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, Virgilus, Methodius, Lactanctius, St. Clement of Alexandria, Moses, Enoch, Severian of Gabala, Pope Paul V, Pope Urban VIII, Pope Alexander VII, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich and the multitude of other saints and Fathers and Catholics that you prefer to ignore. :laugh1: 
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46918
    • Reputation: +27790/-5165
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Earth is Flat
    « Reply #80 on: October 17, 2023, 09:12:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Jaynek on October 17, 2023, 07:20:19 PM
    Could you be more explicit about what makes you think this?  I can not think of anything in the context that could support such a conclusion.  Given how extensively St. Bede quotes Pliny in the larger context, the obvious way to understand him is that he shares Pliny's model of a globe earth.

    I'll see if I can find the quote, but I don't have it handy.
    Logged

    Offline AnthonyPadua

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2423
    • Reputation: +1252/-253
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Earth is Flat
    « Reply #81 on: October 17, 2023, 10:20:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Tradman on October 17, 2023, 05:43:06 PM

    From The Dolorous Passion of Anne Catherine Emmerich:

    "I learned also that the prophet having related what had happened to him, the spot received the name of Calvary. Finally, I saw that the Cross of Jesus was placed vertically over the skull of Adam. I was informed that this spot was the exact centre of the earth; and at the same time I was shown the numbers and measures proper to every country, but I have forgotten them, individually as well as in general. Yet I have seen this centre from above, and as it were from a bird's-eye view. In that way a person sees far more clearly than on a map all the different countries, mountains, deserts, seas, rivers, towns, and even the smallest places, whether distant or near at hand."    http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/pjc/pjc68.htm   

    Maybe we should make a map with Calvary in the centre?
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46918
    • Reputation: +27790/-5165
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Earth is Flat
    « Reply #82 on: October 17, 2023, 10:44:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: AnthonyPadua on October 17, 2023, 10:20:37 PM
    Maybe we should make a map with Calvary in the centre?

    Here you go (Azimuthal projection from Jerusalem)  Seems like it might be a bit off, perhaps due to the fact that the base data is wrong, lies about the current map being magnified into a bad projection (including their supposition about Antarctica, but something like this might work ... with some modification.


    Logged

    Offline Marulus Fidelis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 750
    • Reputation: +403/-122
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Earth is Flat
    « Reply #83 on: October 18, 2023, 02:56:12 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Thank you Tradman for the resources, unfortunately there is still work to do with tracking down specific proof-texts. I haven't the time now but certainly I'll look into it later 
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46918
    • Reputation: +27790/-5165
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Earth is Flat
    « Reply #84 on: October 18, 2023, 05:34:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • That map above could almost work with some adjustments:

    1) straighten out South America a bit
    2) Put Antarctica back around the edges.
    3) possible adjustments to the Pacific Ocean
    4) shape/dimensions of Australia

    Logged

    Offline Jaynek

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4170
    • Reputation: +2318/-1232
    • Gender: Female
    Re: The Earth is Flat
    « Reply #85 on: October 18, 2023, 03:03:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Tradman on October 17, 2023, 08:08:05 PM
    Even worse, you shamelessly avoided any acknowledgment of the trustworthy Catholic sources provided, including Scripture, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, Cosmas, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, Virgilus, Methodius, Lactanctius, St. Clement of Alexandria, Moses, Enoch, Severian of Gabala, Pope Paul V, Pope Urban VIII, Pope Alexander VII, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich and the multitude of other saints and Fathers and Catholics that you prefer to ignore. :laugh1:
    If we threw out your quotes that do not actually support flat earth and the ones that are not actually from Saints we would be left with the same four Fathers that are cited on the Flat Earth Trads site.  That is apparetly run by somebody who agrees with you about flat earth but understands how to recognize relevant quotes. 

    Cosmas is not a "trustworthy Catholic source".  He was a random monk who had faded into obscurity until intellectually dishonest anti-Catholics pretended that he representative of Catholic thinking in order to make Catholics look bad.  (Contrast him with the globe-earth- supporting St. Bede, an influential writer, Saint, and Doctor of the Church. It should be obvious which one really represents Catholic thinking.)

    Similarly, while there were a few early Christians who believed the so-called books of Enoch were actually written by the Patriarch of that name and should be included in Scripture, this view was rejected by the Church.  Catholics consider these writings to be apocryphal and there is no reason to see them as a "trustworthy Catholic source".

    Some of your quotes do come from genuine Catholic sources, but you are conflating geocentrism with flat earth and treating support for geocentrism as if it were support for flat earth.  Perhaps you noticed in my Bede quote earlier in the thread that he supported both globe earth and geocentrism.  This was a very common position among Catholics throughout history so it is incorrect to treat quotes about geocentrism as you have.




    Logged

    Offline Tradman

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1355
    • Reputation: +863/-287
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Earth is Flat
    « Reply #86 on: October 18, 2023, 04:54:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Jaynek on October 18, 2023, 03:03:59 PM
    If we threw out your quotes that do not actually support flat earth and the ones that are not actually from Saints we would be left with the same four Fathers that are cited on the Flat Earth Trads site.  That is apparetly run by somebody who agrees with you about flat earth but understands how to recognize relevant quotes.

    Cosmas is not a "trustworthy Catholic source".  He was a random monk who had faded into obscurity until intellectually dishonest anti-Catholics pretended that he representative of Catholic thinking in order to make Catholics look bad.  (Contrast him with the globe-earth- supporting St. Bede, an influential writer, Saint, and Doctor of the Church. It should be obvious which one really represents Catholic thinking.)

    Similarly, while there were a few early Christians who believed the so-called books of Enoch were actually written by the Patriarch of that name and should be included in Scripture, this view was rejected by the Church.  Catholics consider these writings to be apocryphal and there is no reason to see them as a "trustworthy Catholic source".

    Some of your quotes do come from genuine Catholic sources, but you are conflating geocentrism with flat earth and treating support for geocentrism as if it were support for flat earth.  Perhaps you noticed in my Bede quote earlier in the thread that he supported both globe earth and geocentrism.  This was a very common position among Catholics throughout history so it is incorrect to treat quotes about geocentrism as you have.
    What quotes do not support flat earth that you think need thrown out? And which four saints are you referring to?

    Why would you suggest Cosmas not a "trustworthy Catholic source"? If you have information, please provide it. Cosmas' bio tells us he was very well respected, accomplished, and trusted (see below). Cosmas also wrote similar exegeses of Scripture that several of the Fathers and saints did, teaching about typology in Scripture regarding the form of the earth as the pattern for man's worship and dwelling places: the Tabernacle, the Ark, Noah's Ark, the Temple, church architecture and even Catholic liturgy. This kind of exegesis doesn't come out of thin air, but provides a common theme throughout historical Christendom. Not to mention, it is quite compelling in and of itself.  If you're Catholic you should read it (as well as the others) and study it before you dismiss it.  Conversely, there is no exegesis, by any historical Catholic figure whatsoever, of earth being a globe, let alone even one parallel the globe might have with places of worship, or houses, the Church or the Mass.  Cosmas also finished out his priestly life in cloister, so he was a man of prayer.       

    BIOGRAPHY OF COSMAS. (Christian Topography)

    The Topography fortunately contains passages which throw light on the personal history of its author, and enable us also to fix with certainty the date at which he wrote. He was most probably a native of Alexandria, and may have been of Greek parentage. His education was confined to the more elementary branches of knowledge, such as would fit him for the career he pursued in the earlier part of his life----that of a merchant. But though he was not instructed, as he tells us himself,2 |v in the "learning of the schools," yet so inquisitive was his turn of mind and so sharp his intellect that he eventually acquired such a knowledge of literature and science as raised him to the level of the culture of his time, and to his being accepted as a capable exponent and defender of the Christian faith.

    Cosmas was well traveled, well received at Court, and was permitted by the King, who professed the Christian faith and could speak Greek, to travel freely through his dominions. Cosmas, when all his travels were over, returned to Alexandria, perhaps after paying a visit to Jerusalem; and, abandoning the secular life, retired to the seclusion of the cloister, where he devoted his leisure to the composition of works on descriptive geography, cosmography, and Scriptural exegesis.

    The language he uses is simple, and his descriptions are not only remarkably vivid, but are, above all things, truthful.  They also say: he was a man who had a supreme regard for truth, and who was at once an acute observer, and shrewd in judging the value of the information which he received from others.
    ====================================================================================
    More info on the book, Christian Topography by Cosmas Indiocopleustes

    "The Christian Topography" has been preserved in two copies: one a parchment manuscript of the 10th century belonging to the Laurentian Library in Florence, and containing the whole work except the last leaf; the other, a very fine unical manuscript of the eighth or ninth century, belonging to the Vatican Library, and containing sketches drawn by Cosmas himself, but wanting entirely the twelfth book, which is the last.  There is, besides, in the Imperial Library in Vienna, a Cosmas manuscript, but this contains only a few leaves of the Topography.  This treatise, completed around 547 A.D., remained rather obscure until 1706 when it was first published in its entirety (the Florentine codex collated with that of the Vatican) by a Benedictine monk, Father Montfaucon, as part of a larger work entitled Nova Collectio Patrum et Scriptorum Graecorum.

    The Christian Topography contains references to nearly seventy authorities selected from among philosophers, historians, travelers, doctors of the Church, soldiers, and statesmen. Comas’ primary objective and motivation in writing the treatise was to discredit the “false and heathen doctrine of a spherical earth”.  This he accomplishes with reprehensible religious zeal in the first book [chapter].  In order to disprove the pagan writers with such stature as Plato, Aristotle, Strabo, Pythagoras, Eudoxus, Pytheas of Marseilles, Ptolemy, Eratosthenes, and many others, Cosmas used two very effective weapons: the words of God and his common sense.
    =====================================================================================
    I'll stop there, this is getting long. You'll have to justify your dismissal of Cosmas who left us a treasure of Catholic information.

    Btw, that trad flat earth site is pretty old and doesn't seem to get updated. 
    Logged

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12468
    • Reputation: +7915/-2449
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Earth is Flat
    « Reply #87 on: October 18, 2023, 04:55:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    Similarly, while there were a few early Christians who believed the so-called books of Enoch were actually written by the Patriarch of that name and should be included in Scripture, this view was rejected by the Church.  Catholics consider these writings to be apocryphal and there is no reason to see them as a "trustworthy Catholic source".
    :facepalm:  I could challenge all of your points in the previous posts, which are filled with half-truths and generalizations, but i'll stick to this one.

    Both Christ and St James quoted the Book of Enoch in Scripture; yes, at the time when Christ lived (i.e. early Christianity), the Book of Enoch was considered inspired by Old Testament Jews.  The reason it wasn't included in the Catholic Bible by the Church in the 400s, was due to many Jєωιѕн books being lost during the destruction of Jerusalem.  When the book was "found" by Jєωιѕн leaders in the 300s-400s, Catholic scholars noted many differences and couldn't trust the source.

    Now, whether or not the "newest found" book of the 1800/1900s is legit, is up for debate.  I'd probably trust Protestants over Jews.  But either way, i'm not sure if the V2-led church can be trusted to review this source, and it's not going to be added to Scripture, so the issue is irrelevant.

    However, i've read the newest edition of the book of Enoch a few times and I don't see much that is contrary to Catholicism.  In fact, much in it supports Catholicism which means it probably wasn't messed with by Protestants.  This further leads to it's *marginal* credibility.

    And even if this newest found version was edited by Protestants/Jews/Muslims, they probably would only edit the doctrinal/theological subjects, and not topics such as science/cosmos/geography.  So the fact that such topics support flat earth is *more* believable because its *possible* that these were actually written by Enoch himself.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46918
    • Reputation: +27790/-5165
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Earth is Flat
    « Reply #88 on: October 19, 2023, 05:49:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 18, 2023, 04:55:27 PM
    :facepalm:  I could challenge all of your points in the previous posts, which are filled with half-truths and generalizations, but i'll stick to this one.

    Both Christ and St James quoted the Book of Enoch in Scripture; yes, at the time when Christ lived (i.e. early Christianity), the Book of Enoch was considered inspired by Old Testament Jews.  The reason it wasn't included in the Catholic Bible by the Church in the 400s, was due to many Jєωιѕн books being lost during the destruction of Jerusalem.  When the book was "found" by Jєωιѕн leaders in the 300s-400s, Catholic scholars noted many differences and couldn't trust the source.

    Now, whether or not the "newest found" book of the 1800/1900s is legit, is up for debate.  I'd probably trust Protestants over Jews.  But either way, i'm not sure if the V2-led church can be trusted to review this source, and it's not going to be added to Scripture, so the issue is irrelevant.

    However, i've read the newest edition of the book of Enoch a few times and I don't see much that is contrary to Catholicism.  In fact, much in it supports Catholicism which means it probably wasn't messed with by Protestants.  This further leads to it's *marginal* credibility.

    And even if this newest found version was edited by Protestants/Jews/Muslims, they probably would only edit the doctrinal/theological subjects, and not topics such as science/cosmos/geography.  So the fact that such topics support flat earth is *more* believable because its *possible* that these were actually written by Enoch himself.

    Yeah, let's be honest, and minimizing / dismissing the Book of Enoch is simply a distortion of fact and shows dishonesty.  As you point out, not only did several prominent Church Fathers hold that it was inspired Scripture, but Our Lord and St. James quoted from yet.

    Nor did the Church "reject" the book, but simply did not hold it to be inspired.  Not everything every written by a figure in the Old (or New) Testament was inspired.  I'm sure St. Paul wrote other stuff that was not inspired.  But just because something was not technically inspired does not make it illegitimate or "rejected" by the Church.  That is to grossly overstate the case.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46918
    • Reputation: +27790/-5165
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The Earth is Flat
    « Reply #89 on: October 19, 2023, 06:33:04 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Jaynek on October 18, 2023, 03:03:59 PM
    Similarly, while there were a few early Christians who believed the so-called books of Enoch were actually written by the Patriarch of that name and should be included in Scripture, this view was rejected by the Church.  Catholics consider these writings to be apocryphal and there is no reason to see them as a "trustworthy Catholic source".

    You're conflating the two concerns.  Simply because the Church did not hold the book to be inspired Scripture does not meant it was not "written by the Patriarch of that name".  Not everything written by a figure in the Old Testament would be ipso facto inspired Scripture.  Simply not holding it to be inspired makes no other statements whatsoever regarding the authenticity (or lack thereof) of the work.

    As has been pointed out, the book was quoted by Our Lord Himself and by St. James ... which I suspect is one of the reasons some Church Fathers considered it to have been inspired, but it's also not true that just because Our Lord cited something means it was inspired Scripture.  Though Our Lord's citation does at least suggest that it was authentic and of value.  I doubt Our Lord would cite some strange heretical forged work and give it more credibility than it deserves.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 16
    « previous next »