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

Author Topic: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong  (Read 29993 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong
« Reply #35 on: March 29, 2017, 01:31:43 AM »
A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom by Andrew Dickenson White

A few of the larger-minded fathers of the Church, influenced possibly by Pythagorean traditions, but certainly by Aristotle and Plato, were willing to accept this view, but the majority of them took fright at once. To them it seemed fraught with dangers to Scripture, by which, of course, they meant their interpretation of Scripture. Among the first who took up arms against it was Eusebius. In view of the New Testament texts indicating the immediately approaching, end of the world, he endeavoured to turn off this idea by bringing scientific studies into contempt. Speaking of investigators, he said, "It is not through ignorance of the things admired by them, but through contempt of their useless labour, that we think little of these matters, turning our souls to better things." Basil of Caesarea declared it "a matter of no interest to us whether the earth is a sphere or a cylinder or a disk, or concave in the middle like a fan." Lactantius referred to the ideas of those studying astronomy as "bad and senseless," and opposed the doctrine of the earth's sphericity both from Scripture and reason. St. John Chrysostom also exerted his influence against this scientific belief; and Ephraem Syrus, the greatest man of the old Syrian Church, widely known as the "lute of the Holy Ghost," opposed it no less earnestly.

But the strictly biblical men of science, such eminent fathers and bishops as Theophilus of Antioch in the second century, and Clement of Alexandria in the third, with others in centuries following, were not content with merely opposing what they stigmatized as an old heathen theory; they drew from their Bibles a new Christian theory, to which one Church authority added one idea and another, until it was fully developed. Taking the survival of various early traditions, given in the seventh verse of the first chapter of Genesis, they insisted on the clear declarations of Scripture that the earth was, at creation, arched over with a solid vault, "a firmament," and to this they added the passages from Isaiah and the Psalms, in which it declared that the heavens are stretched out "like a curtain," and again "like a tent to dwell in." The universe, then, is like a house: the earth is its ground floor, the firmament its ceiling, under which the Almighty hangs out the sun to rule the day and the moon and stars to rule the night. This ceiling is also the floor of the apartment above, and in this is a cistern, shaped, as one of the authorities says, "like a bathing-tank," and containing "the waters which are above the firmament." These waters are let down upon the earth by the Almighty and his angels through the "windows of heaven." As to the movement of the sun, there was a citation of various passages in Genesis, mixed with metaphysics in various proportions, and this was thought to give ample proofs from the Bible that the earth could not be a sphere.(27)


(27) For Eusebius, see the Proep. Ev., xv, 61. For Basil, see the
Hexaemeron, Hom. ix. For Lactantius, see his Inst. Div., lib. iii, cap.
3; also citations in Whewell , Hist. Induct. Sciences, London, 1857, vol.
i, p. 194, and in St. Martin, Histoire de la Geographie, pp. 216, 217.
For the views of St. John Chrysostom, Ephraem Syrus, and other great
churchmen, see Kretschmer as above, chap i.nklhlbl


This book was written by a Protestant historian who hated the Catholic Church and thought he could make Her look stupid
by docuмenting the Church's position through saints and popes interpreting scripture as geocentric and flat.   
There is more on the subject in the book which is
available to read for free online. 
Also, highly recommended is the book Christian Topography by the Catholic monk, Cosmas Indiocopleustes also available
to read for free online.  This book has a marvelous description of Moses and the tabernacle being a copy, a microcosm
of the earth itself.   

I am going to stop here, having extended things a little in order to give you a clearer view of the Church's
geocentric flat earth position.  With antiquity showing that pagans held the round earth theory even back in 550, this
round earth theory adopted by the majority of the pagan world today, remains a serious problem.  When the Church
denounced Galileo, it denounced all the pagan notions of heliocentrism which includes round earth. 


Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong
« Reply #36 on: March 29, 2017, 04:54:53 AM »
This is due to the law of perspective.
From where you stand on the flat plane of earth, from your perspective, all objects reach what is called "the vanishing point" where they converge and disappear from view (from your perspective) but not in reality.
It's like looking down the highway at the painted lines on the road - they converge and disappear from view, but you know if you drove a few miles down the road, the lines are still there, still in a straight line.
It's the same with the sun. It doesn't literally go "down" it only disappears from your point of view from your perspective, and if you had a super-fast vehicle that could drive you 1,000 miles down the road in a few moments, the sun would still be "up."
Do you see?
Yes, thank you for answering my question.


Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong
« Reply #37 on: March 29, 2017, 05:04:27 AM »
Please explain day/night on your version of geocentrism, which includes the Biblical non-rotating, non-moving earth.
Thanks!
The first and most obvious astronomical understanding was the relationship between the sun and the earth. From earth we see the sun rise in the east, pass overhead and disappear westward under the horizon until it appears again in the east to continue its movement. This time period, divided into 24 hours, was classed as one astronomical day. This ‘day’ was also divided into two periods, one from sunrise to sunset, called daytime, and sunset to sunrise, called night-time.



The second recurring motion noted was that of the moon. As well as turning around the earth every day, it also shifted position in the sky for 29.33 days before returning to its original position. This was interpreted as a full rotation of the moon around the earth every month.

The third time period was based on a different movement of the sun. From all points on earth, the daily motion of the sun shifts north and south and back again completing this movement over around 365 days. Careful measuring showed this path, if begun at the centre line around the earth (the Equator), goes 23.5 degrees north (called the Tropic of Cancer) and back down again to a point 23.5 degrees south of the Equator (called the Tropic of Capricorn) when it begins the cycle again. Like a precision instrument, the sun thus continues to deliver spring, summer, autumn and winter to both hemispheres in turn. This period was called a year.



Alas, this tropical year as it is called, does not divide evenly into twelve months, so adjustments in the number of days allocated to each of the twelve months had to be made. If the civil year (365 days) were to hold to the tropical year (365.242264 days), as the ancient Egyptians did, the dates would regress through all the various seasons of the year performing a complete revolution in 1508 years. Julius Caesar tried to solve this problem by the intercalation every fourth year of a leap year consisting of 366 days. But this too, because it made each year 365.25 days, now progressed the year by 11 minutes 12 seconds doing a complete cycle in 47,213 years.

As it happened, Caesar’s 27.85 seconds a day aberration meant that by the early 1600s the Spring Equinox was 10 days out. To resolve this, in Oct. 1582, Pope Gregory XIII, after great consultation, removed 10 days off the new ‘Gregorian Calendar,’ which, because it was out by a mere second, means our successors will have to make further adjustments in 4,000 years.

Then there is the astronomer Hipparchus who worked out that there is another ‘day,’ the period in which the stars do a complete daily revolution around the earth. [Hipparchus (died 125BC) was born in Nicaea in north-western Asia Minor. Little else is known about his personal life and fortune. Most of what we do know of his astronomy is due to the references made by the equally famous Ptolemy (died 187AD.) in his Almagest because, with one small exception, his works have been lost.]

This star measured day is called a sidereal day. But this presented another problem because an astronomical day - measured by the sun’s meridian passage - exceeds the sidereal day, measured by the meridian passage of any fixed star, by nearly four minutes every day. This in turn of course resulted in a star measured year, a sidereal year, and some 20 min 20 seconds shorter than the tropical year. This disparity is responsible for the phenomenon called the precession of the equinoxes, a retrograde motion of the equinoxes that will complete a full revolution in the plane of the ecliptic every 25,869 years. 

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong
« Reply #38 on: March 29, 2017, 05:20:45 AM »
This is due to the law of perspective.
From where you stand on the flat plane of earth, from your perspective, all objects reach what is called "the vanishing point" where they converge and disappear from view (from your perspective) but not in reality.
It's like looking down the highway at the painted lines on the road - they converge and disappear from view, but you know if you drove a few miles down the road, the lines are still there, still in a straight line.
It's the same with the sun. It doesn't literally go "down" it only disappears from your point of view from your perspective, and if you had a super-fast vehicle that could drive you 1,000 miles down the road in a few moments, the sun would still be "up."
Do you see?
For this to happen the sun has to be lowered in the sky from 93 million miles to a few thousand miles above the earth. Again FEism has to deny the science of measuring distances from earth to the planets and the sun, that is mathematics, one of the few methods to achieve proofs.

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong
« Reply #39 on: March 29, 2017, 06:19:40 AM »

There is no doubt that some of the Fathers believed in a flat earth. But unless there is unanimous belief of the Fathers the belief does not qualify as CHURCH TEACHING as regards what the Bible says. It is therefore not right to insist a Catholic must or should accept a flat-earth Scripture.

“All educated persons of Columbus’ day, very much including the Roman Catholic prelates, knew the earth was round. The Venerable Bede (c. 673-735) taught that the world was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (c. 720-784), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224-74). All four ended up saints. Sphere was the title of the most popular medieval textbook on astronomy, written by the English scholastic John of Sacrobosco (c. 1200-1256). It informed that not only the earth but all heavenly bodies are spherical.’

The term circle in the scriptures does not eliminate a globe, a sphere. A flat earth has only one circle. A globe is circular as viewed from every angle.