Did Jesus Believe The Earth Was Flat?

[Djewleu]

It appears so in Matthew 4:8.

 

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them" - KJV

[stryper]

First. Potential Troll alert.

 

 

Second. I doubt Jesus cared one way or the other. since the only nautical experience he had was on the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee both of which are just lakes with defined shore lines.

 

Third. Why does it freaking matter?

[Djewleu]

It matters, because it is a strong argument AGAINST his supposed deity: how come he would not know it wasn't a geocentric universe?

[stryper]

Perhaps......but everything we have as the words of Jesus were written down by mostly unknown authors at least decades and many times centuries after he lived. It is unlikely that line of thinking was every an issue. And with the passage of time, the legends grew beyond the man. IF there ever was one.

 

The world was simply the area that you knew. Rome to most common Romans was a far off place of wonders. Kinda like NYC or LA to many people today. Most likely most would never see it. Most likely few ever moved more than a few miles from their place of birth. So the lack of knowledge about the world would have limited the view to just the local area.

 

Additionally, at that time most sailors in the Med were usually within a day's sail of land. And we have no evidence of any civilization beside Polynesia making oceanic voyages. So the question was probably not considered by most.

 

Other then that the people would have been of their times and steeped in the myths and traditions of such. Thus, if it was a prevailing myth a la Babylon, Assyria or others, then it would hardly be uncommon or surprising.

 

Since many of the authors of the bible and Jesus texts were from their times, it is unlikely they would hold a view of the shape of the earth any different then their peers. They also were more interested in proving a religious point and increasing their own sect's prominence. The shape of the earth would have been left to Greek natural philosophers.

 

Finally, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth Aristotle postulated a Spherical earth in 6 century BC and by the 3rd it was considered widely known. Since many of the authors of the new testament would have been familiar with Greek writings...it seems unlikely they would have said otherwise.

 

As to Divinity, God was made man so he could experience life as a man. Thus he would have been a man of times.

[Eugene39]

It matters, because it is a strong argument AGAINST his supposed deity: how come he would not know it wasn't a geocentric universe?

 

You might enjoy the book "God vs. the Bible - How God's Creation Discredits Christian Scripture" by John Armstrong, and is available through Amazon. That is just one of many points he makes.

[Sybaris]

It matters, because it is a strong argument AGAINST his supposed deity: how come he would not know it wasn't a geocentric universe?

 

You could also use the verse in Matthew where he talks about Noah and the flood. If this Jesus fellow was truly omniscient he would know it never happened which quickly reduces him down to being a run-of-the-mill Essean priest with a savior complex. Afterall, they were kind of a dooms day sect and Jesus or whoever wrote his lines spoke of "end times" and his return. The guy was bonkers.

[Djewleu]

Jesus was a schizophrenic narcissist according to research on what is written in the gospels.

Of course I don't believe Jesus had a "temptation" described in Matthew 4, but fundamentalist fanatics will attack you and divide your family against you if you oppose their view of the whole saga.

 

Not for a moment do I believe Jesus was a real person and told his apostles he had been "possessed" by the Devil!

The gospel is a cheat from any angle.

 

Only that I like to discuss these matters related to the so-called "Temptation" because it is a good source of the ridiculous to expose the weak brain of Christians in general.

Is this an overstatement?

[R. S. Martin]

One logically concludes that Jesus, or those who wrote his lines, believed that the earth was flat, not only from the verse quoted in the OP but also other verses.

 

Matt. 24:31: And he shall send his angels witha great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. 

 

Mark 13:27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

 

Luke 17:24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.

 

"One end of heaven to the other" sounds like a rectangular or square covering a similarly-shaped earth, rather than an encircling or enveloping atmopshere surrounding a spherical earth. "From the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven" conveys similar images.

 

The cosmic view the Jews of Jesus's time most likely held was of a three-story universe, with the heavens above, the earth on which humans lived, and the underworld with pillars upholding the earth. See article and diagram here. This would coincide with the view held by the writer of the Noah's Flood story and the Job Story. In Noah's Flood the "windows of heaven" were opened. In Job, the writer refers to the "storehouse of snow, hail, rain, etc."

 

I've seen it explained that these people believed the earth was encapsuled or covered with a solid dome and that the elements of snow, rain, etc. came through openings in the dome. Stars and other celestial lights such as the sun and moon also shone through holes of some sort. Verses proclaiming the earth as God's footstool literally meant just that--that God sat on a throne on top of this solid dome that covered the earth.

 

The idea of a spherical earth also existed in the early centuries AD. Ptolemy, a Roman citizen of Egypt who wrote in Greek and lived from about 90-168 AD, made maps based on mathematical and scientific methods available in his day. See Wikipedia for an article on how he did it, and for a reproduction of his maps.

[Sunny49]

well, now it makes sense why they think hell is "under" the Earth..I never understood this...what means "under" if the world is round...

[Antlerman]

These arguments don't impress me. How many today say they saw the sun rise and set? What, are we all morons and don't know science? Moreover, to the point of the OP, Jesus didn't say those words. The author of the Gospel is telling a story using his words, so at worst it shows Matthew thought that, if it is relevant at all.

 

Even if one was to presume that the authors had some sort of divine scientific knowledge, for them to speak in scientific terms would be the worst possible way to communicate with their audiences. Using common figures of speech, such as sunrise and sunset, even if those were created out of a void of scientific knowledge is in fact an accurate way to talk to your audience. We still use such technical inaccuracies all the time today, within a scientific age. Example, tomorrow morning as you go into work say to everyone in the office, "It was the most beautiful earth-turn this morning! Don’t you agree?" Dare you.

 

My point, these are really weak arguments, except maybe to those who think the Bible was written and compiled to teach scientific knowledge. In which case at best, these arguments show their ignorance.

[Guest end3]

Reminds me of Bugs Bunny....the Chris Columbus episode...."she's round, she's flat.....Round! Flat!"

[Antlerman]

Reminds me of Bugs Bunny....the Chris Columbus episode...."she's round, she's flat.....Round! Flat!"

It's actually both round and flat, depending on your size and distance you're scoping out.

 

BTW, here is a brilliant articulation of arguments for a flat earth: http://haha.nu/interesting/iraqi-tv-debate...the-earth-flat/

[R. S. Martin]

These arguments don't impress me. How many today say they saw the sun rise and set?

 

Speaking only for myself, I wasn't trying to impress you or anyone else. I was only adding my own thoughts for what they were worth. Sorry if I appeared to be trying to impress someone.

 

As for our idiom about sunset and sunrise. We also use such ancient phrases as "every corner of the earth" and "the four winds of the earth." At the same time, it is also very common for us today to use terms like "around the globe" and "around the world" and "this planet." To me, this suggests that we are the children of our ancestors living in a modern era well aware of a spherical earth and scientific advancement.

 

In my opinion, it could be argued that since the Bible was written by so many different authors over such a long period of time, if there was an idea that the earth was spherical surely it would be obvious somewhere. It is not--at least, it wasn't when I was a child reading the Bible. I had just learned that the earth was round and that we are NOT inside a dome of some sort as I had logically assumed given what I could see when I looked at the sky. Thus, I was puzzled by phrases such as "above the earth" and "under the earth" and "pillars of the earth" and "the four corners of the earth," and lots more that indicated a flat earth. Finally, I asked an adult for the meaning and was informed that long ago people thought the earth was flat.

 

Admittedly, the most blatant of these are in the OT (esp. in Psalms and Job), and I think perhaps I see a difference or progression of thought between it and the NT. I'm thinking Greek and Roman insight could have had an influence on the NT writers.

 

Moreover, to the point of the OP, Jesus didn't say those words. The author of the Gospel is telling a story using his words, so at worst it shows Matthew thought that, if it is relevant at all.

 

Because others had already suggested that it may not have been Jesus speaking, I said "or those who wrote his lines." I personally do not think Jesus was an actual living breathing historical figure who walked this earth, but that is another story.

 

My point, these are really weak arguments, except maybe to those who think the Bible was written and compiled to teach scientific knowledge. In which case at best, these arguments show their ignorance.

 

Let's say some people teach that the Bible is absolutely true. Let's say they also teach that the Holy Spirit told the biblical writers what to write and that the Holy Spirit/God knows everything. Is it unreasonable to presume that under those circumstances the Bible would contain only scientifically correct inferences and implications?

[R. S. Martin]

One more thought. I had meant to include it above.

 

I understand that the conclusion of how the ancient Jews saw the cosmos is drawn not only from biblical writings but also from archaeological findings or other contemporary writings.

[Suzy]

Here is an article showing that the Bible is a flat-earth book: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

 

And Christians are very lucky that the Book of Enoch hasn't been included in the canon. But perhaps that's rather our luck. If it had been included then we would have not only evolution denying Christians today but also lots of flat earthers...

 

In fact, there are some - those who are observant enough to realize even without the Book of Enoch that the Bible actually has a flat Earth cosmology. There are also Christians arguing for geocentrism: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-07-04/news/ct-met-galileo-was-wrong-20110704_1_modern-church-universe-splinter-group

 

"Heliocentrism becomes 'dangerous' if it is being propped up as the true system when, in fact, it is a false system," said Robert Sungenis, leader of a budding movement to get scientists to reconsider. "False information leads to false ideas, and false ideas lead to illicit and immoral actions — thus the state of the world today. … Prior to Galileo, the church was in full command of the world; and governments and academia were subservient to her."

[Antlerman]

These arguments don't impress me. How many today say they saw the sun rise and set?

 

Speaking only for myself, I wasn't trying to impress you or anyone else. I was only adding my own thoughts for what they were worth. Sorry if I appeared to be trying to impress someone.

It's a figure of speech. I wasn't ascribing motives to people. It simply means these can be easily addressed. They're not that impressive of an argument. That's all it means.

 

As for our idiom about sunset and sunrise. We also use such ancient phrases as "every corner of the earth" and "the four winds of the earth." At the same time, it is also very common for us today to use terms like "around the globe" and "around the world" and "this planet." To me, this suggests that we are the children of our ancestors living in a modern era well aware of a spherical earth and scientific advancement.

This is true and you raise a good point. We do include a spherical earth reference in our idioms, as well as a flat earth. They did not include spherical earth idioms in the language of the OT, unless you include "He stands upon the circle of the earth", as one.

 

My point, these are really weak arguments, except maybe to those who think the Bible was written and compiled to teach scientific knowledge. In which case at best, these arguments show their ignorance.

 

Let's say some people teach that the Bible is absolutely true. Let's say they also teach that the Holy Spirit told the biblical writers what to write and that the Holy Spirit/God knows everything. Is it unreasonable to presume that under those circumstances the Bible would contain only scientifically correct inferences and implications?

And again, the counter argument would be that to use a spherical earth references to a culture that was ignorant of such a thing would fail to communicate meaning, and sound like nonsense speech. The point of the writings is about symbolic truth, not scientific facts.

 

What purpose such arguments does show is that the Bible is not about a scientific revelation, and that those so-called believers who view the Bible as a Magic Book are ignorant and foolish. These argument don't 'disprove the Bible', they disprove people's ignorant ideas. Again, if the purpose is to communicate, to speak of things like Newtonian Physics, or Relativity, even if somehow God is understood as an infinite library of human knowledge with no factual errors (a ludicrous definition of God, I'll add), would it be illogical or logical for that sort of an anthropomorphic deity to use the language and idioms of the day, rather than imposing a language and understanding of the cosmos particular to 21st Americans? You see my point?

[R. S. Martin]

Again, if the purpose is to communicate, to speak of things like Newtonian Physics, or Relativity, even if somehow God is understood as an infinite library of human knowledge with no factual errors (a ludicrous definition of God, I'll add), would it be illogical or logical for that sort of an anthropomorphic deity to use the language and idioms of the day, rather than imposing a language and understanding of the cosmos particular to 21st Americans? You see my point?

 

I see your point.

 

Now here's my point. An almighty all-knowing deity would be capable of using language that is meaningful both to prehistoric human and to highly-educated 21st century intellectuals and they would not have to compartmentalize to believe in him. Ambiguous phrases such as "standing in the circle of the earth" are one example, but an all-knowing deity would be able to come up with far better than that.

 

Such a deity would be able to circumnagivate anything remotely scientific altogether. Or he might have seen fit to tell Adam and Eve (if they existed) the actual story of how the universe began rather than the Garden of Eden story and Genesis Creation Story. He could have had Moses not strike the water with his robe to part it, but have explained the natural way things were going to happen. Etc.

[DesertBob]

These arguments don't impress me. How many today say they saw the sun rise and set? What, are we all morons and don't know science?

Not only that, but there's also another way to take the passage. There is no meaningful way to show someone "all the kingdoms of the world" from some great height in a way that would be attractive / tempting unless it was some kind of miraculous vision, so I always assumed that Jesus was "taken up into a high mountain" not physically but as part of the vision and then shown a series of images of the wealth and power of the various kingdoms that would be his. It would have just been a "mind's eye" vantage point.

 

In addition whoever wrote that had to initially make sense to readers of the day, and the imagery used is probably about all they could conceive of anyhow.

 

I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus but the OP's silly argument isn't why.

[DesertBob]

An almighty all-knowing deity would be capable of using language that is meaningful both to prehistoric human and to highly-educated 21st century intellectuals and they would not have to compartmentalize to believe in him. Ambiguous phrases such as "standing in the circle of the earth" are one example, but an all-knowing deity would be able to come up with far better than that.

Well, an all-powerful deity could do still better and just drop clear revelation and full understanding thereof into the mind of each and every person. Bugger all this clumsy inspiration and writing stuff down and translating moldy 10th generation copies of scrolls. Particularly for such supposedly critical info.

[Ouroboros]

When I was Christian, one argument we had that was against the idea that Jesus thought Earth was flat was Luke 17:31-36.

 

31 On that day no one who is on the roof of his house, with his goods inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. 32 Remember Lot's wife! 37 "Where, LORD?" they asked. He replied, "Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather."

 

The verse suggests that Jesus (in the story at least) knew there would be both night and day, simultaneous, at the moment of rapture, and that can only be true on a spherical (or semi-spherical) Earth. This means, I'm on Antlerman's side that this is not a very good argument since there are good counter arguments, like "Jesus knew the world was round, see Luke, but he used figure of speech about corners of the world, etc."

 

The history of "Flat Earth" vs "Spherical Earth" is quite interesting. I recommend WIkipedia's article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

[Ouroboros]

It appears so in Matthew 4:8.

 

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them" - KJV

Perhaps China wasn't considered a "kingdom"?

[R. S. Martin]

It appears so in Matthew 4:8.

 

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them" - KJV

Perhaps China wasn't considered a "kingdom"?

 

It probably was. However, just now I looked at my globe. From Jordon to the western edge of China there is not so much curvature that it is conceivable to think that they believed that from "an exceeding high mountain" it would be possible to see there.

 

From your other post:

 

When I was Christian, one argument we had that was against the idea that Jesus thought Earth was flat was Luke 17:31-36.

 

31 On that day no one who is on the roof of his house, with his goods inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. 32 Remember Lot's wife! 37 "Where, LORD?" they asked. He replied, "Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather."

 

The verse suggests that Jesus (in the story at least) knew there would be both night and day, simultaneous

 

I was going to ask how that depicts day AND night but then I noticed that you didn't quote all the passage that you referenced. Now I looked it up and found this verse:

 

³⁴

I tell you, in that night there shall be two

men

in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.

 

The following verses describe people going about their daily tasks such as women grinding wheat or men working in the field. So I can see where the idea comes from.

 

One thing that hits me in Verse 34 re two men in one bed is: Jesus condones homosexuality.

 

Okay, maybe that culture had other reasons for two men sharing a bed.

 

QUESTION: On what would you say the research is based that concludes that ancient Israel and surrounding peoples believed in a flat earth?

[Ouroboros]

One thing that hits me in Verse 34 re two men in one bed is: Jesus condones homosexuality.

Very true.

 

Okay, maybe that culture had other reasons for two men sharing a bed.

But still... the insinuation.

 

I learned once that David and Jonathan probably were gay. The story doesn't say it outright, but if you read between the lines.

 

QUESTION: On what would you say the research is based that concludes that ancient Israel and surrounding peoples believed in a flat earth?

What I learned is that ancient Greek started to believe Earth was spherical. One philosopher even calculated the circumference.

 

The Romans went back to the flat Earth belief, so it's possible that Jesus either was influenced by Greek culture and spherical Earth, or Roman culture and flat Earth. Maybe he believed both?

[Margee]

[★ Citsonga ★]

As for our idiom about sunset and sunrise. We also use such ancient phrases as "every corner of the earth" and "the four winds of the earth." At the same time, it is also very common for us today to use terms like "around the globe" and "around the world" and "this planet." To me, this suggests that we are the children of our ancestors living in a modern era well aware of a spherical earth and scientific advancement.

 

This is true and you raise a good point. We do include a spherical earth reference in our idioms, as well as a flat earth. They did not include spherical earth idioms in the language of the OT, unless you include "He stands upon the circle of the earth", as one.

 

I was going to point out essentially the same thing. Is there any evidence from the Bible and the cultures it arose from that they believed in a spherical earth and merely used flat-earth type phrases metaphorically, or do we just read our modern understanding back into it and assume it to not be meant literally? Personally, it seems to me that the very reason we have such idioms in our language is precisely because they were born out of cultures that believed in a flat earth. One can look at writings in our culture and know that we (at least most of us) know that the earth is spherical. I have yet to find anything in the Bible that indicates they were aware of the earth being spherical, while there is a good bit that is written from the perspective of the earth being flat.

 

As far as the "circle of the earth" in Isaiah, that one doesn't actually work. It doesn't say "sphere" (not in Hebrew either, and Hebrew did have a word for "ball," which Isaiah used elsewhere, but in the text in question it says "circle").

 

As far as whether or not the verse in the OP poses a problem to Bible believers, that will pretty much depend on what type of Bible believer we're talking about. For the conservative Christian who asserts that everything in the Bible is 100% accurate and is inspired by a perfect, all-knowing God, then it is a problem. For the more liberal Christian, though, it may not be.

 

I always assumed that Jesus was "taken up into a high mountain" not physically but as part of the vision and then shown a series of images of the wealth and power of the various kingdoms that would be his. It would have just been a "mind's eye" vantage point.

 

The text doesn't say it's a vision. If one wants to read a vision into it, then the only place I can see a remote justification for it is when it says that the devil "showed" him the kingdoms. However, that comes after it says that they went up on a high mountain, so we have to wonder, what would be the point in going to a high mountain to show a vision? It seems much more likely to me that the trip to the high mountain was meant to indicate that it was a real occurance and that they could actually see out over all kingdoms, not just that there was a vision. (That is, if we assume the Gospels were meant as literal history to begin with; I'm not so sure about that anymore, but I addressed it in that manner because many Christians take the Gospels as historical accounts.)