It amazes me that the entire human race throughout biblical times thought the earth is flat, but it's not described as such in any verses I can find. Does that mean Jesus believed it in becoming human, or that he knew different and kept quiet ?
I'm not sure you're entirely accurate re: "the entire human race" take. Eratosthenese and others including Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, and Aristotle believed the earth to be round (even spherical) well before Jesus' time (500 or so years). Surely there were plenty of people in the Greek and Greek-educated world during the first century CE who understood how the earth was actually shaped.
I don’t see why the question should ever have entered his head during his entire earthly lifetime. He had a lot of other things going on, after all.
But as you've said on another thread, just because the Bible is silent on this particular issue, doesn't mean it didn't happen, for all we know. It may be more reasonable to believe it did. I'm not sure there's any good reason to believe he had any more going on than anyone else in 1st century Palestine. All we have is a patchwork of spotty vignettes from his last three years.
As a boy Jesus would have had some schooling of some sort, which would have included cosmography of some sort. Since it was widely known the Earth was round, a better question would be, did he think the sun revolved around the Earth. like he would probably have been taught, or did he know better? Or more controversesially, did he believe in a literal Adam and Eve, or did he actually know the facts of evolution?
I don’t see why the question should ever have entered his head during his entire earthly lifetime. He had a lot of other things going on, after all.
But as you've said on another thread, just because the Bible is silent on this particular issue, doesn't mean it didn't happen, for all we know. It may be more reasonable to believe it did. I'm not sure there's any good reason to believe he had any more going on than anyone else in 1st century Palestine. All we have is a patchwork of spotty vignettes from his last three years.
But people knew the wasn’t flat earth hundreds of years before his incarnation, in the Greek speaking world.
It depends on how far he emptied himself to become human. As a human being he could only know things that he had some way of learning as a human being. He certainly knew and said there were things he didn't know.
Incidentally, by New Testament times anyone with mathematical training would have known the Earth was a sphere.
(Although even quite well educated people would have missed out on mathematical training.)
I meant the man was utterly fixated on his mission, and though we see in the parables evidence of a mind that observed the world and thought deeply about it, he doesn’t seem given to scientific speculation. Much more interested in “What can people understand about God from this?” I’m sure there’s a proper philosophical term for that kind of thinking, but I don’t know it. But “random speculation” just doesn’t seem to be something he does, in the admittedly limited views of him we get.
But he wasn't always a man with a mission. He was a boy learning in some sort of schooling first and he would have been taught things we now know not to be true. Would he have believed them, or known better? That's the question.
As a boy Jesus would have had some schooling of some sort, which would have included cosmography of some sort. Since it was widely known the Earth was round, a better question would be, did he think the sun revolved around the Earth. like he would probably have been taught, or did he know better? Or more controversesially, did he believe in a literal Adam and Eve, or did he actually know the facts of evolution?
Then he wouldn't have been fully human. I.e. ignorant. If he were also fully God, by nature and will, incarnate he would have only needed qualitative moral instincts or essence. He did claim to have one memory that a human couldn't: 'I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven', Luke 10:18, back when he was Yahweh. But if he'd have known something impossibly anachronistic about nature, he should have said. That would prove at least more advanced aliens existed.
I meant the man was utterly fixated on his mission, and though we see in the parables evidence of a mind that observed the world and thought deeply about it, he doesn’t seem given to scientific speculation.
He had a relatively prosaic life before he started his mission. I see no reason not to think he believed - on average and modulo sin - about the same as everyone else of his age, time and station.
And it seems to me that you rapidly get into the territory of ancient heresies when you start to postulate that he had access to another source of information about things of this nature. Either you de-emphasize his humanity, or you start to merge his two natures.
Heh. Yeah, I find myself saying "he really should have done x" quite a lot. As if he'd listen to me!
There was also something about "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad" (John 8:56) which is another memory no living human being would have, as it means he saw Abraham's reaction to his incarnation. Now you've got me curious about what else I could dig up! Temptations, ah... I'm supposed to be packing.
PS about the schooling, wasn't it very narrowly focused--that is, learning to read and write, and then studying what we call the Old Testament? I doubt anywhere outside of Greece and maybe China had schools dealing with science/philosophy.
It amazes me that the entire human race throughout biblical times thought the earth is flat, but it's not described as such in any verses I can find. Does that mean Jesus believed it in becoming human, or that he knew different and kept quiet ?
"Biblical times" covers a fairly broad swathe of time. More than two millennia if you try to date pre-Exodus events as being in "Biblical times". It's quite a big assumption to postulate that everyone across this vast ocean of time thought the same thing. For example, as others have pointed out the sphericity of the Earth was fairly well known by Jesus' time. On the other hand Genesis presents us with a fairly Babylonian-style cosmology of a flat earth under the bowl-shaped vault of the sky that separated the waters above from the waters below.
For me the answer is "I don't know how much He knew about things like that as a result of His emptying Himself to become fully human, and I'll get to ask Him later."
Martin said,
He did claim to have one memory that a human couldn't: 'I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven', Luke 10:18, back when he was Yahweh.
Just point out that in Christian theology, He didn't stop being Yahweh when He became incarnate... fully man and fully God.
But if he'd have known something impossibly anachronistic about nature, he should have said.
I don't see why He should have said, unless it was relevant and useful for His mission.
For a long time, the questions was not whether the world is flat but about its diameter.
What Eratosthenese deduced, to striking accuracy for someone living in the 3rd century BCE, was earth's circumference. Surely knowing its diameter was close behind.
Matthew 4.8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. That's a bit difficult when the world is a globe. The author of Matthew must have thought that the earth was flat
Just to muddy the waters, why should we expect there to be chapter and verse on this?
We don't expect the scriptures to contain references to Sri Lanka, Papua New Guinea or Patagonia, do we?
I've heard fundamentalist Protestants argue that when Christ referred to mustard seeds being the smallest of 'your' seeds, he did so because as God he knew that there were smaller seeds in other parts of the world.
Like as if the whole thing collapses otherwise.
I agree with @chrisstiles on this one. So many ancient heresies lying around to trip us up if we get too speculative with this stuff.
Matthew 4.8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. That's a bit difficult when the world is a globe. The author of Matthew must have thought that the earth was flat
Or the author of Matthew understood how to use figurative language.
Matthew 4.8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. That's a bit difficult when the world is a globe. The author of Matthew must have thought that the earth was flat
It would be a bit difficult if the world was flat, too. He'd have to have supervision that would put Superman to shame.
Personally, I don't imagine that Jesus thought much about it one way or the other. What possible relevance would it have to his life or mission? For that matter, I don't think about it much, even today. Whether the sun circles the earth or the earth circles the sun is irrelevant to my day-to-day life. Indeed, I say things like "the sun rose" "the sun set" even though I, technically, know that the sun has done no such thing. It just looks like it does. I also, in day-to-day life, seldom have reason to contemplate whether the earth is flat or a globe. I know enough about the shape of the earth to get to and from work, the grocery store and other places I need to be.
Personally, I don't imagine that Jesus thought much about it one way or the other. What possible relevance would it have to his life or mission? For that matter, I don't think about it much, even today. Whether the sun circles the earth or the earth circles the sun is irrelevant to my day-to-day life. Indeed, I say things like "the sun rose" "the sun set" even though I, technically, know that the sun has done no such thing. It just looks like it does. I also, in day-to-day life, seldom have reason to contemplate whether the earth is flat or a globe. I know enough about the shape of the earth to get to and from work, the grocery store and other places I need to be.
Matthew 4.8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. That's a bit difficult when the world is a globe. The author of Matthew must have thought that the earth was flat
Or the author of Matthew understood how to use figurative language.
Why not just record it like Jesus said it happened ?
For me the answer is "I don't know how much He knew about things like that as a result of His emptying Himself to become fully human, and I'll get to ask Him later."
Martin said,
He did claim to have one memory that a human couldn't: 'I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven', Luke 10:18, back when he was Yahweh.
(a) Just point out that in Christian theology, He didn't stop being Yahweh when He became incarnate... fully man and fully God.
But if he'd have known something impossibly anachronistic about nature, he should have said.
(b) I don't see why He should have said, unless it was relevant and useful for His mission.
Matthew 4.8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. That's a bit difficult when the world is a globe. The author of Matthew must have thought that the earth was flat
Or the author of Matthew understood how to use figurative language.
Why not just record it like Jesus said it happened ?
Perhaps Jesus also understood how to use figurative language.
Matthew 4.8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. That's a bit difficult when the world is a globe. The author of Matthew must have thought that the earth was flat
There is a place for poetic language. Even in modern times people will sometimes refer to "every corner of the world", yet we don't take this to mean that they believe the world literally has corners.
Matthew 4.8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. That's a bit difficult when the world is a globe. The author of Matthew must have thought that the earth was flat
Or the author of Matthew understood how to use figurative language.
Why not just record it like Jesus said it happened ?
Perhaps Jesus also understood how to use figurative language.
For me the answer is "I don't know how much He knew about things like that as a result of His emptying Himself to become fully human, and I'll get to ask Him later."
Martin said,
He did claim to have one memory that a human couldn't: 'I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven', Luke 10:18, back when he was Yahweh.
(a) Just point out that in Christian theology, He didn't stop being Yahweh when He became incarnate... fully man and fully God.
But if he'd have known something impossibly anachronistic about nature, he should have said.
(b) I don't see why He should have said, unless it was relevant and useful for His mission.
(a) Which is all part of why theology can't work.
(b) Then his mission is irrelevant.
I miss the little animated emoji with the face beating itself against a wall in frustration.
We’re gonna just disagree on both of these things, Martin. I don’t believe my comments lead logically to your conclusions here. And I don’t know how fruitful it would be to debate this with you.
(One correction: I was trying to say “Just to point out that in Christian theology…” I.e., I was pointing that out, not telling the reader to.)
Matthew 4.8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. That's a bit difficult when the world is a globe. The author of Matthew must have thought that the earth was flat
The author of Matthew was a fairly well-educated person. Odds are he was exposed to better ideas.
Matthew 4.8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. That's a bit difficult when the world is a globe. The author of Matthew must have thought that the earth was flat
The author of Matthew was a fairly well-educated person. Odds are he was exposed to better ideas.
Also, I've generally interpreted that to be understood as a vision that Satan showed Jesus, with the mountaintop setting just thrown in for dramatic effect.
IOW, not something that indicates what the writer thought the world would look like from a mountaintop. Given that the writer likely knew about Egypt, Babylon, Rome etc, it seems unlikely he woulda thought they could all be seen from a mountain.
For a long time, the questions was not whether the world is flat but about its diameter.
What Eratosthenese deduced, to striking accuracy for someone living in the 3rd century BCE, was earth's circumference. Surely knowing its diameter was close behind.
And Jesus spent a decent chunk of time in greek influenced areas. So it would be easy for him to know. (Easy for him not to know)
Functionally in the then/there known world, you aren't getting much distortion. It's not like Paul would have tried going east to Spain
Regardless the world was pretty much partitioned into those who only knew about the America's and those didn't. So any "Jesus can't have known naturally, something I know (and in the case of Americans experience)" issues remain.
[Either solution, Jesus said something boringly factually wrong, Jesus had a magic library, and providence luckily kept him from being recorded from saying something stuoid]
Tldr: The specific dilemma we can easily totally avoid, the general dilemma we can't. Though neither of the options are repulsive (unless you are an atheist, but then the dilemma horn you have left has really no issue)
I doubt Jesus would have been educated in much of what was higher level maths at the time, because the shape of the earth (or the diameter) was not of great relevance to most peoples everyday lives.
Today it is more so as we have global communications, and the time differences that we can experience in news the reality of a spheroid planet are more relevant - on a regular basis. But also, most people on a day-to-day basis don't need to know the shape.
I think the evidence is that he was as educated as most others in his time - enough to function in life. He never commented on it in the same way that most people don't discuss string theory on a daily basis.
The author of Matthew was a fairly well-educated person. Odds are he was exposed to better ideas.
It seems that whoever he was (*) he didn't understand parallelism in Hebrew verse: for example he, unlike Mark and Luke, has Jesus riding a donkey and a colt into Jerusalem.
Of course someone can be fairly well-educated in one area and not educated in another.
(*) It's the only gospel for which our earliest attestation of authorship is unclear.
Matthew 4.8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. That's a bit difficult when the world is a globe. The author of Matthew must have thought that the earth was flat
Or the author of Matthew understood how to use figurative language.
Why not just record it like Jesus said it happened ?
Perhaps Jesus also understood how to use figurative language.
I will leave it there.
Well you've already dug yourself into a hole so it's probably best to stop digging.
There Gospels aren't a 'witness statement,' although I do believe they refer to actual events.
It's a bit like people who analyse the exchange between God and Satan at the beginning of the Book of Job, as if someone recorded it like they do when police are interviewing suspects.
I remember atheists, or really anti-theists, making much play with Christ's omniscience, e.g., did he understand the structure of the atom. It had a heyday, along with the dark ages, the destruction of the library at Alexandria, and so on, showing that Christians were a brake on progress, and that it's all nonsense. I think it has abated somewhat.
Sure. I've heard recently that the destruction of the library in Alexandria wasn't as simple as nasty beardy-wierdy monks going on the rampage.
@The_Riv - sure, but it's not as if Christian theologians haven't come up with solutions to the 'problem' of Christ being fully God and fully human at one and the same time.
Matthew 4.8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. That's a bit difficult when the world is a globe. The author of Matthew must have thought that the earth was flat
Or the author of Matthew understood how to use figurative language.
Why not just record it like Jesus said it happened ?
I didn't say/mean you personally. I just think there's a fair amount of evidence out there that shows The Church has, at times, opposed scientific advancement pretty vehemently.
Comments
But as you've said on another thread, just because the Bible is silent on this particular issue, doesn't mean it didn't happen, for all we know. It may be more reasonable to believe it did. I'm not sure there's any good reason to believe he had any more going on than anyone else in 1st century Palestine. All we have is a patchwork of spotty vignettes from his last three years.
But people knew the wasn’t flat earth hundreds of years before his incarnation, in the Greek speaking world.
Incidentally, by New Testament times anyone with mathematical training would have known the Earth was a sphere.
(Although even quite well educated people would have missed out on mathematical training.)
Then he wouldn't have been fully human. I.e. ignorant. If he were also fully God, by nature and will, incarnate he would have only needed qualitative moral instincts or essence. He did claim to have one memory that a human couldn't: 'I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven', Luke 10:18, back when he was Yahweh. But if he'd have known something impossibly anachronistic about nature, he should have said. That would prove at least more advanced aliens existed.
He had a relatively prosaic life before he started his mission. I see no reason not to think he believed - on average and modulo sin - about the same as everyone else of his age, time and station.
And it seems to me that you rapidly get into the territory of ancient heresies when you start to postulate that he had access to another source of information about things of this nature. Either you de-emphasize his humanity, or you start to merge his two natures.
There was also something about "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad" (John 8:56) which is another memory no living human being would have, as it means he saw Abraham's reaction to his incarnation. Now you've got me curious about what else I could dig up! Temptations, ah... I'm supposed to be packing.
PS about the schooling, wasn't it very narrowly focused--that is, learning to read and write, and then studying what we call the Old Testament? I doubt anywhere outside of Greece and maybe China had schools dealing with science/philosophy.
"Biblical times" covers a fairly broad swathe of time. More than two millennia if you try to date pre-Exodus events as being in "Biblical times". It's quite a big assumption to postulate that everyone across this vast ocean of time thought the same thing. For example, as others have pointed out the sphericity of the Earth was fairly well known by Jesus' time. On the other hand Genesis presents us with a fairly Babylonian-style cosmology of a flat earth under the bowl-shaped vault of the sky that separated the waters above from the waters below.
and he did not try to confuse people
Martin said,
Just point out that in Christian theology, He didn't stop being Yahweh when He became incarnate... fully man and fully God.
I don't see why He should have said, unless it was relevant and useful for His mission.
What Eratosthenese deduced, to striking accuracy for someone living in the 3rd century BCE, was earth's circumference. Surely knowing its diameter was close behind.
This.
We don't expect the scriptures to contain references to Sri Lanka, Papua New Guinea or Patagonia, do we?
I've heard fundamentalist Protestants argue that when Christ referred to mustard seeds being the smallest of 'your' seeds, he did so because as God he knew that there were smaller seeds in other parts of the world.
Like as if the whole thing collapses otherwise.
I agree with @chrisstiles on this one. So many ancient heresies lying around to trip us up if we get too speculative with this stuff.
It would be a bit difficult if the world was flat, too. He'd have to have supervision that would put Superman to shame.
Personally, I don't imagine that Jesus thought much about it one way or the other. What possible relevance would it have to his life or mission? For that matter, I don't think about it much, even today. Whether the sun circles the earth or the earth circles the sun is irrelevant to my day-to-day life. Indeed, I say things like "the sun rose" "the sun set" even though I, technically, know that the sun has done no such thing. It just looks like it does. I also, in day-to-day life, seldom have reason to contemplate whether the earth is flat or a globe. I know enough about the shape of the earth to get to and from work, the grocery store and other places I need to be.
(a) Which is all part of why theology can't work.
(b) Then his mission is irrelevant.
There is a place for poetic language. Even in modern times people will sometimes refer to "every corner of the world", yet we don't take this to mean that they believe the world literally has corners.
I miss the little animated emoji with the face beating itself against a wall in frustration.
We’re gonna just disagree on both of these things, Martin. I don’t believe my comments lead logically to your conclusions here. And I don’t know how fruitful it would be to debate this with you.
(One correction: I was trying to say “Just to point out that in Christian theology…” I.e., I was pointing that out, not telling the reader to.)
Peace be with you, regardless.
The author of Matthew was a fairly well-educated person. Odds are he was exposed to better ideas.
Also, I've generally interpreted that to be understood as a vision that Satan showed Jesus, with the mountaintop setting just thrown in for dramatic effect.
IOW, not something that indicates what the writer thought the world would look like from a mountaintop. Given that the writer likely knew about Egypt, Babylon, Rome etc, it seems unlikely he woulda thought they could all be seen from a mountain.
And to you @ChastMastr.
And Jesus spent a decent chunk of time in greek influenced areas. So it would be easy for him to know. (Easy for him not to know)
Functionally in the then/there known world, you aren't getting much distortion. It's not like Paul would have tried going east to Spain
Regardless the world was pretty much partitioned into those who only knew about the America's and those didn't. So any "Jesus can't have known naturally, something I know (and in the case of Americans experience)" issues remain.
[Either solution, Jesus said something boringly factually wrong, Jesus had a magic library, and providence luckily kept him from being recorded from saying something stuoid]
Today it is more so as we have global communications, and the time differences that we can experience in news the reality of a spheroid planet are more relevant - on a regular basis. But also, most people on a day-to-day basis don't need to know the shape.
I think the evidence is that he was as educated as most others in his time - enough to function in life. He never commented on it in the same way that most people don't discuss string theory on a daily basis.
Of course someone can be fairly well-educated in one area and not educated in another.
(*) It's the only gospel for which our earliest attestation of authorship is unclear.
Well you've already dug yourself into a hole so it's probably best to stop digging.
There Gospels aren't a 'witness statement,' although I do believe they refer to actual events.
It's a bit like people who analyse the exchange between God and Satan at the beginning of the Book of Job, as if someone recorded it like they do when police are interviewing suspects.
@The_Riv - sure, but it's not as if Christian theologians haven't come up with solutions to the 'problem' of Christ being fully God and fully human at one and the same time.
That's their job ... 😉
It happened?
I don't see that I'm losing perspective. Christianity has done plenty of bad things, but stuff like the flat earth gibe is ahistorical.