Author Topic: The Earth is Flat (Read 28291 times)

Tradman · « **Reply #120 on:** October 20, 2023, 06:44:48 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 20, 2023, 04:31:14 PM

Anyone that believes in heliocentrism HAS to believe the earth is a globe, or else how can the earth spin through space and orbit the sun? You have to reduce the earth to a planet-shape, like all the others.

Heliocentrism is a DIRECT attack on catholic scripture and it’s implied philosophy of the earth being the center of the universe, which Christ Redeemed.

A globe earth does not pose as many problems, doctrinally or philosophically, though some issues still remain. If Galileo had simply posited the earth was a globe, I doubt the Church would’ve gotten involved.

Correct. It's possible the globe thing isn't as bad as moving earth because the Church attacked moving earth first. But then again, the Church authorities were fighting an entire paradigm, a philosophy, a false religion, and they knew the lie recreated the world in Satan's image and deny the reality of God's creation. So they debunked the whole thing via moving earth. It was a package deal they trashed by proving earth didn't move because it didn't jive with Scripture. I would argue that the globe is as equally as bad as the moving earth for several reasons. It is a lie. It denies reason. It denies Scripture. It denies saints and Fathers. It denies words and concepts: like level, the firmament, earth as a foundation, ends of the earth, North South East and West being cardinal directions. It questions whether up is up when it's really 180 degrees outward above you. Down is no longer exactly down, water and things stick to the bottom of the earth, the firmament is forgotten, people are upside down, aliens are possible, other worlds might exist, evolution becomes plausible, Big Bang becomes plausible, God becomes questionable because everything is relative, etc. Not judging the Church or how She condemned this garbage, She condemned it entirely. Just pointing to some of the particular problems of earth being a globe.

Tradman · « **Reply #121 on:** October 20, 2023, 06:45:26 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 20, 2023, 06:24:27 PM

Well, in theory, you could hold that the earth is a globe in the sense of a snow globe and somehow moves around the sun ... but I doubt anyone actually held that.

Jaynek · « **Reply #122 on:** October 20, 2023, 08:01:09 PM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on October 20, 2023, 03:45:41 PM

So I still contend that it was believed by all learned men at the time that the Earth was a globe and not flat or a “snow globe” type design.

Yes, that is right and it is very obvious when we look at how the subject was taught at the (Church sponsored) universities. I have found an English translation of De Sphaera Mundi, the most widespread and influential textbook from its writing in 1230 for hundreds of years onward. This work represents the long-held scientific consensus in Christendom that Galileo was arguing against.  http://esotericarchives.com/solomon/sphere.htm

Here is the section on the shape of the earth:

THE EARTH A SPHERE. -- That the earth, too, is round is shown thus. The signs and stars do not rise and set the same for all men everywhere but rise and set sooner for those in the east than for those in the west; and of this there is no other cause than the bulge of the earth. Moreover, celestial phenomena evidence that they rise sooner for Orientals than for westerners. For one and the same eclipse of the moon which appears to us in the first hour of the night appears to Orientals about the third hour of the night, which proves that they had night and sunset before we did, of which setting the bulge of the earth is the cause.
FURTHER PROOFS OF THIS. -- That the earth also has a bulge from north to south and vice versa is shown thus: To those living toward the north, certain stars are always visible, namely, those near the North Pole, while others which are near the South Pole are always concealed from them. If, then, anyone should proceed from the north southward, he might go so far that the stars which formerly were always visible to him now would tend toward their setting. And the farther south he went, the more they would be moved toward their setting. Again, that same man now could see stars which formerly had always been hidden from him. And the reverse would happen to anyone going from the south northward. The cause of this is simply the bulge of the earth. Again, if the earth were flat from east to west, the stars would rise as soon for westerners as for Orientals. which is false. Also, if the earth were flat from north to south and vice versa, the stars which were always visible to anyone would continue to be so wherever he went, which is false. But it seems flat to human sight because it is so extensive.
SURFACE OF THE SEA SPHERICAL. -- That the water has a bulge and is approximately round is shown thus: Let a signal be set up on the seacoast and a ship leave port and sail away so far that the eye of a person standing at the foot of the mast can no longer discern the signal. Yet if the ship is stopped, the eye of the same person, if he has climbed to the top of the mast, will see the signal clearly. Yet the eye of a person at the bottom of the mast ought to see the signal better than he who is at the top, as is shown by drawing straight lines from both to the signal. And there is no other explanation of this thing than the bulge of the water. For all other impediments are excluded, such as clouds and rising vapors.
Also, since water is a homogeneous body, the whole will act the same as its parts. But parts of water, as happens in the case of little drops and dew on herbs, naturally seek a round shape. Therefore, the whole, of which they are parts, will do so.

This was what virtually all educated Catholics believed in the centuries before Galileo. He left the sphericity of the earth uncontested while arguing with other points that were commonly believed.

Jaynek · « **Reply #123 on:** October 20, 2023, 08:21:56 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 20, 2023, 04:31:14 PM

If Galileo had simply posited the earth was a globe, I doubt the Church would’ve gotten involved.

There were no objections from the Church when St. Bede, St. Albert the Great, or St. Thomas Aquinas posited that the earth is a globe. Rather, all three of these Saints were declared Doctors of the Church. This seems unlikely if they were teaching something heretical or problematic.

It is reasonable to talk about differing views on the shape of the earth during the Patristic period. St. John Damascene explicitly states that the Fathers disagreed. But from St. Bede on there was a consensus on the question. At the time of Galileo, it was around a thousand years since Catholics had believed in flat earth.

Tradman · « **Reply #124 on:** October 20, 2023, 10:10:47 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 20, 2023, 08:21:56 PM

There were no objections from the Church when St. Bede, St. Albert the Great, or St. Thomas Aquinas posited that the earth is a globe. Rather, all three of these Saints were declared Doctors of the Church. This seems unlikely if they were teaching something heretical or problematic.

It is reasonable to talk about differing views on the shape of the earth during the Patristic period. St. John Damascene explicitly states that the Fathers disagreed. But from St. Bede on there was a consensus on the question. At the time of Galileo, it was around a thousand years since Catholics had believed in flat earth.

Please prove with texts and sources where St. Bede, St. Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas posited that the earth is a globe.

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #125 on:** October 21, 2023, 05:02:37 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 20, 2023, 08:01:09 PM

Yes, that is right and it is very obvious when we look at how the subject was taught at the (Church sponsored) universities. I have found an English translation of De Sphaera Mundi, the most widespread and influential textbook from its writing in 1230 for hundreds of years onward. This work represents the long-held scientific consensus in Christendom that Galileo was arguing against. http://esotericarchives.com/solomon/sphere.htm

Here is the section on the shape of the earth:

THE EARTH A SPHERE. -- That the earth, too, is round is shown thus. The signs and stars do not rise and set the same for all men everywhere but rise and set sooner for those in the east than for those in the west; and of this there is no other cause than the bulge of the earth. Moreover, celestial phenomena evidence that they rise sooner for Orientals than for westerners. For one and the same eclipse of the moon which appears to us in the first hour of the night appears to Orientals about the third hour of the night, which proves that they had night and sunset before we did, of which setting the bulge of the earth is the cause.
FURTHER PROOFS OF THIS. -- That the earth also has a bulge from north to south and vice versa is shown thus: To those living toward the north, certain stars are always visible, namely, those near the North Pole, while others which are near the South Pole are always concealed from them. If, then, anyone should proceed from the north southward, he might go so far that the stars which formerly were always visible to him now would tend toward their setting. And the farther south he went, the more they would be moved toward their setting. Again, that same man now could see stars which formerly had always been hidden from him. And the reverse would happen to anyone going from the south northward. The cause of this is simply the bulge of the earth. Again, if the earth were flat from east to west, the stars would rise as soon for westerners as for Orientals. which is false. Also, if the earth were flat from north to south and vice versa, the stars which were always visible to anyone would continue to be so wherever he went, which is false. But it seems flat to human sight because it is so extensive.
SURFACE OF THE SEA SPHERICAL. -- That the water has a bulge and is approximately round is shown thus: Let a signal be set up on the seacoast and a ship leave port and sail away so far that the eye of a person standing at the foot of the mast can no longer discern the signal. Yet if the ship is stopped, the eye of the same person, if he has climbed to the top of the mast, will see the signal clearly. Yet the eye of a person at the bottom of the mast ought to see the signal better than he who is at the top, as is shown by drawing straight lines from both to the signal. And there is no other explanation of this thing than the bulge of the water. For all other impediments are excluded, such as clouds and rising vapors.
Also, since water is a homogeneous body, the whole will act the same as its parts. But parts of water, as happens in the case of little drops and dew on herbs, naturally seek a round shape. Therefore, the whole, of which they are parts, will do so.

This was what virtually all educated Catholics believed in the centuries before Galileo. He left the sphericity of the earth uncontested while arguing with other points that were commonly believed.

This is very good, thank you!

Marulus Fidelis · « **Reply #126 on:** October 21, 2023, 05:20:12 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 20, 2023, 08:01:09 PM

Yes, that is right and it is very obvious when we look at how the subject was taught at the (Church sponsored) universities. I have found an English translation of De Sphaera Mundi, the most widespread and influential textbook from its writing in 1230 for hundreds of years onward. This work represents the long-held scientific consensus in Christendom that Galileo was arguing against. http://esotericarchives.com/solomon/sphere.htm

Here is the section on the shape of the earth:

THE EARTH A SPHERE. -- That the earth, too, is round is shown thus. The signs and stars do not rise and set the same for all men everywhere but rise and set sooner for those in the east than for those in the west; and of this there is no other cause than the bulge of the earth. Moreover, celestial phenomena evidence that they rise sooner for Orientals than for westerners. For one and the same eclipse of the moon which appears to us in the first hour of the night appears to Orientals about the third hour of the night, which proves that they had night and sunset before we did, of which setting the bulge of the earth is the cause.
FURTHER PROOFS OF THIS. -- That the earth also has a bulge from north to south and vice versa is shown thus: To those living toward the north, certain stars are always visible, namely, those near the North Pole, while others which are near the South Pole are always concealed from them. If, then, anyone should proceed from the north southward, he might go so far that the stars which formerly were always visible to him now would tend toward their setting. And the farther south he went, the more they would be moved toward their setting. Again, that same man now could see stars which formerly had always been hidden from him. And the reverse would happen to anyone going from the south northward. The cause of this is simply the bulge of the earth. Again, if the earth were flat from east to west, the stars would rise as soon for westerners as for Orientals. which is false. Also, if the earth were flat from north to south and vice versa, the stars which were always visible to anyone would continue to be so wherever he went, which is false. But it seems flat to human sight because it is so extensive.

Debunked by modern technology: https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/no-star-movement-during-flight-equals-flat-earth/

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #127 on:** October 21, 2023, 05:32:21 AM »

Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on October 21, 2023, 05:20:12 AM

Debunked by modern technology: https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/no-star-movement-during-flight-equals-flat-earth/

Whether it’s been debunked or not, the point that she is lending support to is that all (or nearly all) learned men believed that the Earth is a globe in shape and not flat or a snow globe type system. Do you concede that point?

AMDGJMJ · « **Reply #128 on:** October 21, 2023, 06:12:32 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 20, 2023, 08:01:09 PM

Yes, that is right and it is very obvious when we look at how the subject was taught at the (Church sponsored) universities. I have found an English translation of De Sphaera Mundi, the most widespread and influential textbook from its writing in 1230 for hundreds of years onward. This work represents the long-held scientific consensus in Christendom that Galileo was arguing against. http://esotericarchives.com/solomon/sphere.htm

Here is the section on the shape of the earth:

THE EARTH A SPHERE. -- That the earth, too, is round is shown thus. The signs and stars do not rise and set the same for all men everywhere but rise and set sooner for those in the east than for those in the west; and of this there is no other cause than the bulge of the earth. Moreover, celestial phenomena evidence that they rise sooner for Orientals than for westerners. For one and the same eclipse of the moon which appears to us in the first hour of the night appears to Orientals about the third hour of the night, which proves that they had night and sunset before we did, of which setting the bulge of the earth is the cause.
FURTHER PROOFS OF THIS. -- That the earth also has a bulge from north to south and vice versa is shown thus: To those living toward the north, certain stars are always visible, namely, those near the North Pole, while others which are near the South Pole are always concealed from them. If, then, anyone should proceed from the north southward, he might go so far that the stars which formerly were always visible to him now would tend toward their setting. And the farther south he went, the more they would be moved toward their setting. Again, that same man now could see stars which formerly had always been hidden from him. And the reverse would happen to anyone going from the south northward. The cause of this is simply the bulge of the earth. Again, if the earth were flat from east to west, the stars would rise as soon for westerners as for Orientals. which is false. Also, if the earth were flat from north to south and vice versa, the stars which were always visible to anyone would continue to be so wherever he went, which is false. But it seems flat to human sight because it is so extensive.
SURFACE OF THE SEA SPHERICAL. -- That the water has a bulge and is approximately round is shown thus: Let a signal be set up on the seacoast and a ship leave port and sail away so far that the eye of a person standing at the foot of the mast can no longer discern the signal. Yet if the ship is stopped, the eye of the same person, if he has climbed to the top of the mast, will see the signal clearly. Yet the eye of a person at the bottom of the mast ought to see the signal better than he who is at the top, as is shown by drawing straight lines from both to the signal. And there is no other explanation of this thing than the bulge of the water. For all other impediments are excluded, such as clouds and rising vapors.
Also, since water is a homogeneous body, the whole will act the same as its parts. But parts of water, as happens in the case of little drops and dew on herbs, naturally seek a round shape. Therefore, the whole, of which they are parts, will do so.

This was what virtually all educated Catholics believed in the centuries before Galileo. He left the sphericity of the earth uncontested while arguing with other points that were commonly believed.

Wow! This is amazing! Thank you for sharing!

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #129 on:** October 21, 2023, 06:26:02 AM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on October 21, 2023, 05:32:21 AM

Whether it’s been debunked or not, the point that she is lending support to is that all (or nearly all) learned men believed that the Earth is a globe in shape and not flat or a snow globe type system. Do you concede that point?

One of the MAIN problems with interpreting the meaning of the Church Fathers and other historical figures discussing this topic is that BOTH sides of Flat Earth and Ball Earth can use the same terminology.

Globe: can mean the Ancient Hebrew "Snow Globe" Earth with the firmament dome above a Flat Plane, or it can mean NASA's Ball Earth

Sphere: likewise can also mean the Hebrew "Snow Globe" with firmament and Flat terrain inside a globe, or it can refer to NASA's BAll with upside down Antipodes underneath.

Round: Can refer to the round Flat Earth as seen in the Gleason Map, or it can refer to a Ball Earth model.

Here is a photo of the Ancient Hebrew model for reference:

So the Globus Cruciger can depict either model.

Ball earth proponents will determine, "See! Jesus is holding a ball, he is holding a ball..therefore the Earth is clearly a Ball with upside down people underneath it."

Well, maybe I guess, but I would love for NASA to take a photo of the upside down buildings and planes to provide some evidence for that. That shouldn't be hard to do, right?

Anyway, this is why I no longer say "globe earth" but say "ball earth" instead for clarity.

There is a lot of evidence that the Church Fathers were familiar with BOTH models

while we moderns have only had exposure to ONE model our entire lives thanks to the Masons who run NASA.

So when they use the terms: globe, sphere, and round

we assume they mean NASA Ball Earth

and picture the photoshopped Big Blue Marble that NASA artists create

when actually, they are often referring to the Hebrew snow globe model since they

unanimously

believed in a solid firmament holding back the waters above.

But St Augustine was clearly familiar with both models.

This source describes the early Christian understanding of the Hebrew "snow globe" earth vs the Hellenistic ball model which influenced St Augustine after his conversion to Christianity:

For more context on Augustine and his beliefs:
Leo Ferrari (a NASA "glober") explains that Augustine was influenced by his conversion to the Christian religion after being raised in the pagan mindset
and rejected the NASA "globe" (ball earth) because the Christians rejected it.

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/biblical-flat-earth/msg899989/#msg899989

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 (Gen 1:7). And God called the firmament heaven .... (Gen 1:8).

Taking as a matter of fact, on the unquestionable authority of Sacred Scripture, 62 that God did make a firmament to divide the waters that were below from those that were above, St. Augustine sets out to determine what that firmament is. In his Confessions 63 and in his Unfinished Book on the Letter of Genesis, 64 he had entertained the idea that "the firmament was made between the spiritual waters above and the corporeal waters below," but he later retracted this interpretation as "having been stated without sufficient consideration, although the thing is extremely recondite." 65 In The City of God he expresses his mature opinion that the waters above and below the firmament are material water whose creation by God in indistinct form is expressed in verse 1 under the name of earth, or ground. 66

St. Augustine respected and adhered to the common opinion of his day that the ultimate constituents of matter are the Four Elements: earth, water, air, and fire, in that ascending order. 67 According to the model of the universe following from this, earth tended naturally to be situated at the bottom, with the water and the air successively above it and fire at the top. Thus, he says, the expression in Psalm 35:6, "who established the earth above the waters," cannot be taken literally, but only figuratively, because the normal place of the earth is below the water. 68 Nor, he adds, could water normally stay above the fiery heaven, 69 unless, perhaps, in tiny drops of vapor, 70 or as a sheet of solid ice. 71 Augustine doubts whether a sheet or globe of solid ice above the heavens can be seriously defended, and he appeals against any rash assertions in this regard. 72 But, he cautions, "in whatever way it exists and whatever kind of water it is, we have no doubt whatsoever that the water is there, because the authority of this writing exceeds the limits of all human imagination. 73

https://www1.villanova.edu/villanova/artsci/anthro/Previous_Lectures/sustain/AugustineCosmology0.html

Miser: Okay, y'all. So Augustine is like:

"Them waters is up there and we have to deal with it."

So in the Ball Earth NASA model----WHERE ARE THOSE WATERS?

So how did the Christians get from belief in the snow globe Hebrew cosmology to the

ball earth cosmology?

It appears it happened because they fell for the obvious lies of Erastothenes and Pythagoras:

HOW PYTHAGORAS AND ERATOSTHENES GAVE US THE FLAT EARTH TRUMP CARD

23min 39sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/YNPh1fjo7HaD/

Ohhhhh, those ancient Greeks were sooooooo smart! They simply MUST be believed!!!

Yeah, no. It's really dumb.

The crux of the matter is the FIRMAMENT dividing the waters above and below.

In the heliocentric model there is NO FIRMAMENT, and NO WATERS ABOVE.

The Church Fathers didn't just disregard that as some vague metaphor but as a REAL revelation that must be revered.

And as I have posted in the past:

It appears that the concept of the Firmament had to be discarded to allow for the modern understanding of "outer space" and heliocentrism and a spinning earth:

Models of the Firmament[edit]
The plurality of heaven[edit]
Perhaps beginning with Origen, the different identifiers used for heavens in the Book of Genesis, caelum and firmamentum, sparked some commentary on the significance of the order of creation (caelum identified as the heaven of the first day, and firmamentum as the heaven of the second day).^[8] Some of these theories identified caelum as the higher, immaterial and spiritual heaven, whereas firmamentum was of corporeal existence.^[9]^: 237

Christian theologians of note writing between the 5th and mid-12th century were generally in agreement that the waters, sometimes called the "crystalline orb", were located above the firmament and beneath the fiery heaven that was also called empyrean (from Greek ἔμπυρος). One medieval writer who rejected such notions was Pietro d'Abano who argued that theologians "assuming a crystalline, or aqueous sphere, and an empyrean, or firey sphere" were relying on revelation more than Scripture.^[10]

About this Ambrose wrote: "Wise men of the world say that water cannot be over the heavens"; the firmament is called such, according to Ambrose, because it held back the waters above it.^[11]

This matter of the position of the "waters" above the firmament was considered by Augustine in De Genesi ad litteram (perhaps his least studied work): "only God knows how and why [the waters] are there, but we cannot deny the authority of Holy Scripture which is greater than our understanding".

Corporeality[edit]
Early Christian writers wrote at length about the material nature of the firmament, the problem arising from the barrier said to be created when it divided the waters above and below it.^[12] At issue was the reconciliation of Scripture with Aristotle's cosmology.
Saint Basil rejected the notion that the firmament is made of solid ice, although Bede in Hexaemeron ignores the problem of the motion of celestial bodies (stars) in a solid firmament and declares that the siderum caelum (heaven of the celestial bodies) was made firm (firmatum) in the midst of the waters so should be interpreted as having the firmness of crystalline stone (cristallini Iapidis).^[13]

History[edit]
Main article: Hebrew astronomy § Biblical cosmology

The Flammarion engraving (1888) depicts a man crawling under the edge of the sky, depicted as if it were a solid hemisphere, to look at the mysterious Empyrean beyond. The caption underneath the engraving (not shown here) translates to "A medieval missionary tells that he has found the point where heaven and Earth meet..."

The ancient Hebrews, like all the ancient peoples of the Near East, believed the sky was a solid dome with the Sun, Moon, planets and stars embedded in it.^[14] 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, and even when Copernicus placed the Sun at the centre of the system he included an outer sphere that held the stars (and by having the earth rotate daily on its axis it allowed the firmament to be completely stationary). Tycho Brahe's studies of the nova of 1572 and the Comet of 1577 were the first major challenges to the idea that orbs existed as solid, incorruptible, material objects,^[15] and in 1584 Giordano Bruno proposed a cosmology without a firmament: an infinite universe in which the stars are actually suns with their own planetary systems.^[16] After Galileo began using a telescope to examine the sky it became harder to argue that the heavens were perfect, as Aristotelian philosophy required, and by 1630 the concept of solid orbs was no longer dominant.^[15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament

So it is easily proven that there is NO BULGE those poor deluded "intelligentia" , in whatever year they lived, believed to be real

and they have no excuse for

getting rid of the Firmament:

The Kolbe Center is committed in a special way to defending the Catholic teaching that “the literal and obvious sense of Scripture” as intended by the sacred authors must be believed unless reason or necessity force us to reject that teaching in favor of an exclusively figurative interpretation. Pope Leo XIII emphatically upheld this teaching in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus, which has never been overruled by any subsequent magisterial teaching.

15. But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires;(40) 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. Neither should those passages be neglected which the Fathers have understood in an allegorical or figurative sense, more especially when such interpretation is justified by the literal, and when it rests on the authority of many. For this method of interpretation has been received by the Church from the Apostles, and has been approved by her own practice, as the holy Liturgy attests; although it is true that the holy Fathers did not thereby pretend directly to demonstrate dogmas of faith, but used it as a means of promoting virtue and piety, such as, by their own experience, they knew to be most valuable.

Jaynek · « **Reply #130 on:** October 21, 2023, 07:47:11 AM »

Quote from: Miser Peccator on October 21, 2023, 06:26:02 AM

One of the MAIN problems with interpreting the meaning of the Church Fathers and other historical figures discussing this topic is that BOTH sides of Flat Earth and Ball Earth can use the same terminology.

This is true, especially in the Patristic period. However, this does not mean that all authors are unclear. The passage that I just quoted from De Sphaera Mundi, for example, is unambiguously talking about a ball earth. The proofs it gives (whether or not they are correct) only apply to a ball earth model.

Nor can it be claimed that this passage is about a spherical universe rather than a spherical earth. The author is explicitly describing a spherical universe with a spherical earth at its center.

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #131 on:** October 21, 2023, 07:52:08 AM »

Since most people won't watch the video I posted...

That "bulge" thingy simply don't make sense whether you are an ancient Greek, a Catholic university professor in 1200 or whatnot:

Here we are at the top of the "bulge"

You have to look down to see the horizon.

Here is the 1200 AD Catholic professor looking out at the horizon:

Yeah, he would have to look down to see it. Have you ever had to look down to see the horizon?

I know he is a super duper Catholic professor from the 12th cent with special "knowledge" and "enlightenment" from the ancient Greeks and maybe he has super powers I don't have

but this has never been my experience. Have you experienced this?

And well, let's just say he is lower down on

"the bulge"

well, this is what he would see when looking

straight out towards the horizon:

Man, that 12th cent Catholic professor needs to rethink his bulge theory and do a bit of math and all that and figure out that

they ain't no bulge

and they ain't no curve.

If you want to hear further analysis of this

COMMON SENSE

then watch this video starting at 14:32 about the

STUPID BULGE theory

https://www.bitchute.com/video/YNPh1fjo7HaD/

or watch the whole thing.

It's hard to accept we have been lied to, but indeed we have and it's better to accept the obvious truth than to continue to believe really dumb lies. smh

Jaynek · « **Reply #132 on:** October 21, 2023, 08:03:07 AM »

Quote from: Tradman on October 20, 2023, 10:10:47 PM

Please prove with texts and sources where St. Bede, St. Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas posited that the earth is a globe.

I posted such a passage from St. Bede on this very thread just a few days ago. But thanks for the reminder that Ladislaus still hasn't gotten back with any support for his vague claim that something about the wider context suggests that the passage does not mean what it clearly says.

St. Albert and St. Thomas both wrote commentaries on Aristotle's De Caelo et Terra in which they agreed with the Aristotelean ball earth model. I have not found an English translation of St. Albert's work online, but I have posted extensive quotes and discussion about that of St. Thomas here in the past. Let me know if you can't find it and I'll find it for you.

Tradman · « **Reply #133 on:** October 21, 2023, 08:10:36 AM »

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on October 21, 2023, 05:32:21 AM

Whether it’s been debunked or not, the point that she is lending support to is that all (or nearly all) learned men believed that the Earth is a globe in shape and not flat or a snow globe type system. Do you concede that point?

I'm not sure how that book proved anything whatsoever. Does the mass production of model globes prove earth is a globe? Even if the entire world read it and half believed it, what would that prove except the church had enemies that try to undermine belief in Scripture.

Jaynek · « **Reply #134 on:** October 21, 2023, 08:13:00 AM »

Quote from: Miser Peccator on October 21, 2023, 07:52:08 AM

Since most people won't watch the video I posted...

That "bulge" thingy simply don't make sense whether you are an ancient Greek, a Catholic university professor in 1200 or whatnot:

Whether or not it makes sense is irrelevant to the point. This work represents the scientific consensus of its time. It shows us what Catholics were taught at university and what virtually all educated people believed. And since the universities were essentially Church-run institutions, it also shows that the Church had no problem with people taking this position.

Author Topic: The Earth is Flat (Read 28291 times)

Tradman

Re: The Earth is Flat

Tradman

Re: The Earth is Flat

Jaynek

Re: The Earth is Flat

Jaynek

Re: The Earth is Flat

Tradman

Re: The Earth is Flat

Quo vadis Domine

Re: The Earth is Flat

Marulus Fidelis

Re: The Earth is Flat

Quo vadis Domine

Re: The Earth is Flat

AMDGJMJ

Re: The Earth is Flat

Miser Peccator

Re: The Earth is Flat

Jaynek

Re: The Earth is Flat

Miser Peccator

Re: The Earth is Flat

Jaynek

Re: The Earth is Flat

Tradman

Re: The Earth is Flat

Jaynek

Re: The Earth is Flat