Awesomelyglorious wrote:
dddhgg wrote:
You still haven't convinced me that this was the view held by the majority of early Christians. As for the verse in Mathhew, it can be argued that he really meant "all the kingdoms of the inhabited or civilized world". For in the uninhabited part of the world there wouldn't be any need for kings, would there? The issue whether there was any life on the part of the world that couldn't theoretically be seen from a mountain top (i.e., the entire southern hemisphere) was a different issue from that of the earth's shape. In fact, there is evidence that most believers in a spherical earth at the same time were skeptical as to whether "antipodes" (beings living on the opposite side of the sphere) could exist, leaving at least half of the earth uninhabited. St Augustine, among others, seems to have held this view.
Furthermore, I seriously doubt whether there really existed, at any point in history, something like an "early Church", i.e., something distinct from Jesus and his immediate followers and pupils, and something signifying more than the sum of an infinitely fragmented set of opinions, doctrines, and practices. I'm even more skeptical as to the ability of later denominations to uncover the properties of this hypothetical "early Church", lacking as they are in both historical and cultural context (we'll never be 1st Century Jews or Greeks or Romans) and in truly reliable, non-contradictory first-hand accounts of Jesus and his actions.
Briefly, I find the notion of an "early Church" as representing the "true" teachings of Christ both theologically and historically invalid.
I don't see the questions as different because we KNOW that there has always been life on the Western Hemisphere. In fact, mankind is spread across the world pretty well and has been for thousands upon thousands of years. Not only that, but if the earth were anything BUT flat it would require a really really tall mountain.
Definitely not. All geographic maps of the world from Antiquity only show Europe, the Near East and Africa above the equator. So, although the Ancients knew from Eratosthenes that the Earth was a sphere about 28,000 miles in circumference, they limited the world to about a quarter of its true extent. Why? Because the claim that there actually lived people below the equator or beyond the Atlantic Ocean really was controversial. Remember that people were much more geographically isolated then, so they would never have met people from below Ethiopia or from Australia. Also, they didn't really know the concept of gravity, so some argued that while the Earth was a sphere, there couldn't be life on the other side of the sphere, because it would all be upside-down. St Augustine says so quite clearly:
Quote:
But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part which is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled.
Quote:
Additionally, if the Christians are inheritors of the Jewish beliefs, which they've made claims to be, and these Jewish beliefs included a belief in a flat earth, then it seems to follow that Christians would also have flat earth-ism.
I can't believe this. For if this argument be followed to its logical conclusion, then the beliefs of (ancient) Judaism would simply be a subset of those of Christianity, which is definitely not the case (take for instance the issue of circumcision; even in the earliest times of Christianity it was never required of any man). Yes, the two religions do share a common history and scripture, but it can't reasonable be maintained that every single Jewish belief was also shared by the early Christians, especially considering that many early Christians weren't even Jews, but rather ethnic Romans and Greeks, some of whom highly educated and well-versed in arguments like Eratosthenes's.
Quote:
I am not drawing a distinction between immediate followers and later followers for an "early church" or even an essence, only the notion that there was a historical group that would be considered close to the historical claims of this religion and that this closeness makes them more relevant to the original revelation. In any case, I can understand and appreciate this claim, but a lack of belief in a real early church ultimately dissolves this question to begin with. I usually seek to be more charitable than that, however, if there is no accuracy in the early church to refer back to, then there is no reason to believe that the New Testament or the Church Fathers are solid enough foundations to base anything upon. If this is the case, then there is no real framework on what is truly Christian and what isn't. And so, there is nothing to really talk about here.
I think that for this reason, most Christians except for the more liberal ones stake their beliefs in a real early church. Protestants need accurate transmission of beliefs in order to have their Bible, and the Orthodox and Catholics also trust church fathers, which requires a real early church, or else those figures would have no weight.
Let's leave it at that then. I seriously disagree though with the notion that denominations which believe in a continued revelation by the Holy Spirit, such as the Quakers, are somehow less genuinely Christian than those that believe only in a revelation by Christ himself.
_________________
Dabey müssen wir nichts seyn, sondern alles werden wollen, und besonders nicht öffter stille stehen und ruhen, als die Nothdurfft eines müden Geistes und Körpers erfordert. - Goethe
24 Jan 2010, 1:30 am
and slightly move your arms to balance your walking so you dont look too strange moving. otherwise people will stare but im shure you dont leave that armchair of yours, so no worrys
