https://biblelovenotes.blogspot.com/2012/09/flat-earth.htmlRecently an unbeliever tried to discredit me by saying Christians don’t use their brains. And he brought up the widely-held belief that Christians once insisted the earth was flat.
But that's a myth.
Early church fathers and theologians actually formed the largest group of individuals who advanced and supported the spherical earth view. And Christian scholars are credited with some of the best explanations of the spherical earth in ancient and Middle Age literature. In fact, early European missionaries spread the spherical earth view along with the gospel.
This myth about flat-earth Christians originated when Washington Irving wrote The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. He mixed fact with fiction and created a story about foolish flat-earth Christians opposing Columbus’ voyages. And somehow this fiction became “fact,” and a popular way to discredit Christianity.
But we can rejoice even in this: “God blesses you when people mock you and persecute you and lie about you.” Matthew 5:11
And I might add that my rude commenter didn't take his own advice--he didn't use his brain. He accepted the myth about flat-earth Christians without checking its validity.
Note: Some people bring up the trial of Galileo as a proof that Christians believed in a flat earth. This is another example of not getting the facts straight. The trial of Galileo is a complex political, scientific and theological controversy. The scientific aspect was NOT about the shape of the earth. All parties believed in a spherical earth. It was over the widely accepted (but wrong) geocentric theory versus Galileo's correct heliocentric belief. It was not the church vs. science. There were scientists on both sides and Christians on both sides.
Want to read more? See: Wiki Galileo; Galileo Controversy
I'll tell you who's dumb - the stiff-necked crowd who didn't do their homework on the historical Jesus and who have rejected Jesus' salvation for the remission of their sins, and will wind up in the Lake of Fire for that (Rev. 21:8).Oh no, those poor persecuted Christians. Wasn't Christopher Columbus a Christian? Wasn't pretty much everybody in Europe a Christian in the 1400s? Sounds like a made up grievance to me.
If people think that some Christians are dumb, it's because of what they do and say now, not because some of them might have believed the Earth was flat centuries ago.
I'll tell you who's dumb - the stiff-necked crowd who didn't do their homework on the historical Jesus and who have rejected Jesus' salvation for the remission of their sins, and will wind up in the Lake of Fire for that (Rev. 21:8).
It doesn't get any dumber than that.
Not just about Christians. Any lie that is repeated enough can become commonly believed. That can be (and has been0 used by Christians as much as against them and, like so many things, will typically have nothing to do with Christianity at all, it not actually being the be-all and end-all of everything.People will believe it...
As much as people like to write about the person called Jesus there is no historical evidence of the person as mentioned in the Gospels. Even Philo of Alexandria make no mention of Jesus and Philo was a contemporary of Jesus's time. One would think that if in Mark 15.33: "And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.", or in Matthew 27.52-53: "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." that Philo would at least made a mention of it. After all Philo was very connected though out the region.I'll tell you who's dumb - the stiff-necked crowd who didn't do their homework on the historical Jesus and who have rejected Jesus' salvation for the remission of their sins, and will wind up in the Lake of Fire for that (Rev. 21:8).
It doesn't get any dumber than that.
I'll tell you who's dumb - the stiff-necked crowd who didn't do their homework on the historical Jesus and who have rejected Jesus' salvation for the remission of their sins, and will wind up in the Lake of Fire for that (Rev. 21:8).
It doesn't get any dumber than that.
That's absurd.As much as people like to write about the person called Jesus there is no historical evidence of the person as mentioned in the Gospels.
That's absurd.
"The fact is, the early church fathers were unanimous that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the gospels that bear their names." Jesus is mentioned repeatedly in those Gospels.
"Following are web pages that contain the quotations of the early church fathers, confirming traditional Gospel authorship:"
Matthew
https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/1-church-fathers-and-matthews-gospel/
Mark Authorship
https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/2-church-fathers-and-marks-gospel/
References for Luke and John in the article below.
Who Wrote the Gospels?
Many have questioned who the original authors of the Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – were. Skeptics and those with a revisionist liberal agenda love to argue that the Gospels …righterreport.com
The early church fathers were liars and were well schooled in the practiced in the ways of deceit, "liars-for-God"That's absurd.
"The fact is, the early church fathers were unanimous that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the gospels that bear their names." Jesus is mentioned repeatedly in those Gospels.
"Following are web pages that contain the quotations of the early church fathers, confirming traditional Gospel authorship:"
Matthew
https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/1-church-fathers-and-matthews-gospel/
Mark Authorship
https://renewal-theology.com/2019/04/15/2-church-fathers-and-marks-gospel/
References for Luke and John in the article below.
Who Wrote the Gospels?
Many have questioned who the original authors of the Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – were. Skeptics and those with a revisionist liberal agenda love to argue that the Gospels …righterreport.com
The early church fathers were liars....
their were no eye witnesses to the writing of the Gospels, just hearsay.
Wrong again - there were numerous eyewitnesses. As for hearsay,
If that's your standard you'll need to trash most of your history books, because an exceptionally large part of them are based on eyewitness testimonies and hearsay.
J. Warner Wallace, a former devout atheist for 35 years, and a cold case homicide detective familiar with the laws of evidence in a courtroom, commented on Eyewitness Reliability Related to Chronological Truths:
"The standard for establishing historical truths must, by necessity, be very different than the standard for criminal trials, unless, of course, we are willing to reject any claim of history for which we don’t have a living eyewitness (to cross-examine). History is established on the written testimony of eyewitnesses or the research of historians who have access to such testimony. If we rejected every claim about the past that couldn’t be supported by living testimony, we’d be forced to live in the present, unsure of anything that precedes us by more than two generations."
So, you ready to trash your ancient history books, based on your own standards of evidence?
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/why-the-hearsay-rule-shouldnt-apply-to-the-gospels/
I'm not saying that a person named Jesus didn't exist, I'm just saying that he didn't exist in the way that the Gospels portray him. There may have well been a Jesus walking around teaching the things he believed in but it was of no real importance, this is why there is no mention of him in the writings of Philo and just a short paragraph in the writings of Josephus (which have been proven a fraud). Religious teachers were a dime a dozen during the times of Jesus, so it was not surprising that he was not mentioned.Wrong again - there were numerous eyewitnesses. As for hearsay,
If that's your standard you'll need to trash most of your history books, because an exceptionally large part of them are based on eyewitness testimonies and hearsay.
J. Warner Wallace, a former devout atheist for 35 years, and a cold case homicide detective familiar with the laws of evidence in a courtroom, commented on Eyewitness Reliability Related to Chronological Truths:
"The standard for establishing historical truths must, by necessity, be very different than the standard for criminal trials, unless, of course, we are willing to reject any claim of history for which we don’t have a living eyewitness (to cross-examine). History is established on the written testimony of eyewitnesses or the research of historians who have access to such testimony. If we rejected every claim about the past that couldn’t be supported by living testimony, we’d be forced to live in the present, unsure of anything that precedes us by more than two generations."
So, you ready to trash your ancient history books, based on your own standards of evidence?
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/why-the-hearsay-rule-shouldnt-apply-to-the-gospels/
Actually only a few parts of what Josephus wrote about Jesus was what is known as an interpolation. The rest of it is real. Most scholars take that view. I can give you info on that if you want.I'm not saying that a person named Jesus didn't exist, I'm just saying that he didn't exist in the way that the Gospels portray him. There may have well been a Jesus walking around teaching the things he believed in but it was of no real importance, this is why there is no mention of him in the writings of Philo and just a short paragraph in the writings of Josephus (which have been proven a fraud). Religious teachers were a dime a dozen during the times of Jesus, so it was not surprising that he was not mentioned.
Logicman, don't assume I'm an atheist for I am not. I do not believe in an anthropomorphic God, my views and beliefs are more along the lines of Pantheism, there is no separation between this source called God and reality, all things are of it. So no I don't believe in the so call "supernatural" or "miracles" all things are natural, and so called miracles are just events that we fail to understand, because in Pantheism all things are endowed with this spirit we call God and therefore what ever traits you give God you must give to creation, again, they are not separate.Actually only a few parts of what Josephus wrote about Jesus was what is known as an interpolation. The rest of it is real. Most scholars take that view. I can give you info on that if you want.
Sounds like you don't believe in the supernatural / miracles. To date, science has never demonstrated that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist. People have been reporting miracles for centuries.
I believe God is separate from his creation.Logicman, don't assume I'm an atheist for I am not. I do not believe in an anthropomorphic God, my views and beliefs are more along the lines of Pantheism, there is no separation between this source called God and reality, all things are of it. So no I don't believe in the so call "supernatural" or "miracles" all things are natural, and so called miracles are just events that we fail to understand, because in Pantheism all things are endowed with this spirit we call God and therefore what ever traits you give God you must give to creation, again, they are not separate.
Actually only a few parts of what Josephus wrote about Jesus was what is known as an interpolation. The rest of it is real. Most scholars take that view. I can give you info on that if you want.
Sounds like you don't believe in the supernatural / miracles. To date, science has never demonstrated that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist. People have been reporting miracles for centuries.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?