(November 16, 2019 at 1:48 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Simply because a philosopher who - let's admit it, lives a somewhat rarified life - holds a particular viewpoint doesn't mean that rank-and-file peasants are going to hold that same view point.  And it's worth mentioning here that Plato doesn't appear anywhere in the New Testament.

Boru

I never said that it became the majority view because of Plato. I pointed out that he believed it, back then.

It became the majority view over several centuries, due to the work of lots of people. 

Plato doesn't appear in the Bible but was indirectly a strong influence on Christian theology.

We know less about the views of the rank and file peasants whether they were Christian or not. But the simple fact that they were Christian doesn't mean they believed in a flat earth.

---

(November 16, 2019 at 8:09 am)Jehanne Wrote: the author of Revelation (7:1) believed in a flat Earth, as did the author of Matthew.  Likewise, Saint
Irenaeus, a second century Christian bishop, justified the four Gospels as being due to the "four corners of the World", and so, the idea was certainly present in Christian belief.

The idea that anything in the book of Revelation is intended literally is a stretch. 

Anyway -- we've established that many Christians knew the earth was round. And this shows that a belief in the flat earth is not something that automatically goes with Christianity.

---

(November 16, 2019 at 10:19 am)Jehanne Wrote: Plato argued passionately, also, that the Earth was the center of the universe and that all the planets and Sun must go around the Earth in perfect circles. That idea went unchallenged for over 2000 years, even though the ellipse was universally known.

Yes, but that's not a flat earth -- that's a different problem. 

When your geocentric model accurately predicts eclipses and allows you to navigate safely, it means that there is strong empirical evidence for its truth. It took a long time to gather more detailed evidence to the contrary.

Nor is belief in a geocentric model particularly Christian.

(November 16, 2019 at 4:44 pm)Belacqua Wrote: The idea that anything in the book of Revelation is intended literally is a stretch. 

A number of modern scholars disagree with you:

http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/7

(November 16, 2019 at 6:20 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(November 16, 2019 at 4:44 pm)Belacqua Wrote: The idea that anything in the book of Revelation is intended literally is a stretch. 

A number of modern scholars disagree with you:

http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/7

Do you mean this:

Quote:* [] The four corners of the earth: the earth is seen as a table or rectangular surface.

It's certainly true that in the mystical vision he's recounting, the earth is portrayed as having four corners. 

How about this one:

Quote:* [7:17] Life-giving water: literally, “the water of life,” God’s grace, which flows from Christ; cf. Rev 21:6; 22:1, 17; Jn 4:10, .

No doubt you read this as good advice about staying hydrated in hot weather. 

It's a mistake to read texts that are wholly dependent on symbolism as geography books.

(November 16, 2019 at 6:20 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(November 16, 2019 at 4:44 pm)Belacqua Wrote: The idea that anything in the book of Revelation is intended literally is a stretch. 

A number of modern scholars disagree with you:

http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/7

In the Book of Revelation, John also sees a woman "clothed with the sun." But this is not evidence that, outside of mystical visions, he thinks women can wear the sun.

In his mystical vision, he sees a beast with seven heads. But this is not evidence that he thinks such beasts exist outside of mystical visions. 

The fact that he sees something in a mystical vision is not evidence that he thinks it is true in the non-mystical-visionary world.

(November 16, 2019 at 10:26 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(November 16, 2019 at 6:20 pm)Jehanne Wrote: A number of modern scholars disagree with you:

http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/7

In the Book of Revelation, John also sees a woman "clothed with the sun." But this is not evidence that, outside of mystical visions, he thinks women can wear the sun.

In his mystical vision, he sees a beast with seven heads. But this is not evidence that he thinks such beasts exist outside of mystical visions. 

The fact that he sees something in a mystical vision is not evidence that he thinks it is true in the non-mystical-visionary world.

I think the mysticism of Revelation doesn't really apply to the topic.  John couches his vision (and I wholeheartedly agree that it IS a vision, not a physical description) in terms his audience would understand - nothing wrong in that, all writers (with the possible exception of Joyce) do it.  It's a necessity if you want to get your message across.  No matter how symbolic your speech, you have to use symbols the readers can relate to.

So, when John says, 'After this, I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the Earth', he is using the imagery of a flat Earth, an Earth that has corners.  He doesn't say, 'I saw angels on the land and the sea' or 'I saw angels mustered around the girth of the world' - the specifically uses the term 'corners'.  And I think it's a stretch that he meant something other than 'corners' in the physical sense.  He's trying to convey where in his vision the angels were - at the corners.

One would think that, if his vision came from God, he would have used some other expression that would have indicated a spherical Earth.  Given what he actually wrote, it seems pretty plain that John and his intended readers viewed the Earth as shaped like a square (or possibly rectangular) tabletop.

Boru

(November 17, 2019 at 7:22 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(November 16, 2019 at 10:26 pm)Belacqua Wrote: In the Book of Revelation, John also sees a woman "clothed with the sun." But this is not evidence that, outside of mystical visions, he thinks women can wear the sun.

In his mystical vision, he sees a beast with seven heads. But this is not evidence that he thinks such beasts exist outside of mystical visions. 

The fact that he sees something in a mystical vision is not evidence that he thinks it is true in the non-mystical-visionary world.

I think the mysticism of Revelation doesn't really apply to the topic.  John couches his vision (and I wholeheartedly agree that it IS a vision, not a physical description) in terms his audience would understand - nothing wrong in that, all writers (with the possible exception of Joyce) do it.  It's a necessity if you want to get your message across.  No matter how symbolic your speech, you have to use symbols the readers can relate to.

So, when John says, 'After this, I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the Earth', he is using the imagery of a flat Earth, an Earth that has corners.  He doesn't say, 'I saw angels on the land and the sea' or 'I saw angels mustered around the girth of the world' - the specifically uses the term 'corners'.  And I think it's a stretch that he meant something other than 'corners' in the physical sense.  He's trying to convey where in his vision the angels were - at the corners.

One would think that, if his vision came from God, he would have used some other expression that would have indicated a spherical Earth.  Given what he actually wrote, it seems pretty plain that John and his intended readers viewed the Earth as shaped like a square (or possibly rectangular) tabletop.

Boru

Could be an idiom, though, Brian. Like "raining cats and dogs".

And if you think about, if they did believe in a flat earth, did they really think it must have been a rectangular form with sharp corners? I'm not familiar with such flat earth cosmology for those times, but I admit I haven't read enough to know properly.

(November 17, 2019 at 8:27 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(November 17, 2019 at 7:22 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I think the mysticism of Revelation doesn't really apply to the topic.  John couches his vision (and I wholeheartedly agree that it IS a vision, not a physical description) in terms his audience would understand - nothing wrong in that, all writers (with the possible exception of Joyce) do it.  It's a necessity if you want to get your message across.  No matter how symbolic your speech, you have to use symbols the readers can relate to.

So, when John says, 'After this, I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the Earth', he is using the imagery of a flat Earth, an Earth that has corners.  He doesn't say, 'I saw angels on the land and the sea' or 'I saw angels mustered around the girth of the world' - the specifically uses the term 'corners'.  And I think it's a stretch that he meant something other than 'corners' in the physical sense.  He's trying to convey where in his vision the angels were - at the corners.

One would think that, if his vision came from God, he would have used some other expression that would have indicated a spherical Earth.  Given what he actually wrote, it seems pretty plain that John and his intended readers viewed the Earth as shaped like a square (or possibly rectangular) tabletop.

Boru

Could be an idiom, though, Brian. Like "raining cats and dogs".

And if you think about, if they did believe in a flat earth, did they really think it must have been a rectangular form with sharp corners? I'm not familiar with such flat earth cosmology for those times, but I admit I haven't read enough to know properly.

Well, four angels, four corners.  Seems to indicate a parallelogram of some kind.  It could have been a rhomboid or a kite-shape, I suppose.

And the idiom 'four corners of the earth' arises from a belief in a flat earth.  But Revelation isn't known for its use idioms.  Seems strange (and kind of ad hoc) to excuse this particular verse as an idiom and nothing else.

Boru

(November 17, 2019 at 7:22 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(November 16, 2019 at 10:26 pm)Belacqua Wrote: In the Book of Revelation, John also sees a woman "clothed with the sun." But this is not evidence that, outside of mystical visions, he thinks women can wear the sun.

In his mystical vision, he sees a beast with seven heads. But this is not evidence that he thinks such beasts exist outside of mystical visions. 

The fact that he sees something in a mystical vision is not evidence that he thinks it is true in the non-mystical-visionary world.

I think the mysticism of Revelation doesn't really apply to the topic.  John couches his vision (and I wholeheartedly agree that it IS a vision, not a physical description) in terms his audience would understand - nothing wrong in that, all writers (with the possible exception of Joyce) do it.  It's a necessity if you want to get your message across.  No matter how symbolic your speech, you have to use symbols the readers can relate to.

So, when John says, 'After this, I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the Earth', he is using the imagery of a flat Earth, an Earth that has corners.  He doesn't say, 'I saw angels on the land and the sea' or 'I saw angels mustered around the girth of the world' - the specifically uses the term 'corners'.  And I think it's a stretch that he meant something other than 'corners' in the physical sense.  He's trying to convey where in his vision the angels were - at the corners.

One would think that, if his vision came from God, he would have used some other expression that would have indicated a spherical Earth.  Given what he actually wrote, it seems pretty plain that John and his intended readers viewed the Earth as shaped like a square (or possibly rectangular) tabletop.

Boru

Clearly, most illerate individuals living at that time believed in a flat Earth, and no Biblical author or pre-Nicene author wrote on the Earth being spherical.

(November 17, 2019 at 7:22 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: One would think that

Well, I don't know. We all get quite skillful in interpreting scripture when we want to prove something we already believed. 

Surely C.S. Lewis knew that you need an airplane to go to another country. Why would he put the entrance in the back of a wardrobe?

---

(November 17, 2019 at 1:47 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Clearly, most illerate individuals living at that time believed in a flat Earth

It's not clear to me. How do you determine "most"? 

Is there persuasive evidence, other than scriptural interpretation?

(November 17, 2019 at 4:44 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(November 17, 2019 at 7:22 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: One would think that

Well, I don't know. We all get quite skillful in interpreting scripture when we want to prove something we already believed. 

Surely C.S. Lewis knew that you need an airplane to go to another country. Why would he put the entrance in the back of a wardrobe?

---

You understand the difference between God and C.S Lewis, I hope.

Boru