Contemporary Evidence, Again

Chris Martin

status

I know I won't get a lot of Christians to respond to this post, but I'll try anyway.

What did the other historians of this day ever mention any of this?

Meme:

Three hours of midday darkness.
Earthquake.
Zombie prophets walking the streets.

Image of zombie apocalypse and fastidious Roman writer:

Probably not important
enough to mention.

Comment:

How did all the Roman, Jewish and
Egyptian historians and scholars
not notice this?

A

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"the other historians of this day"

Such as? Velleius Paterculus ceased writing three years earlier, arguably same day as the Sermon on the Mount (his final prayer is a good illustration of praying with "battologia" and it doesn't mean repeating phrases).

Labienus and a few more got their work erased, this lasted from Velleius Paterculus up to Tacitus' Agricola, and survive only in excerpts in Tacitus, Suetonius etc.

Tacitus, Suetonius and Dio Cassius wrote when Christianity was definitely already persecuted. Would you have liked providing an argument for Christians at that point?

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, are you saying that you believe there was no one at this time to even write about zombies, and 3 hour eclipses and earthquakes? No one in the whole surrounding area saw it or even heard about it and thought to jot it down?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin You are saying you have no clue about what writing was back then and what writing from these decades have survived.

In the Roman Empire, people dealing with contemporary historic events, not old history, not natural history, not philosophy, but contemporary history or recent history, for the decades between Velleius Paterculus' Roman History up to Tacitus' Agricola, fall into two classes:

• not preserved in their own integral works
• Matthew, Mark, Luke or Josephus

(John actually wrote the Gospel later).

a

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, 1. You didn't answer my question. Were there no other people surrounding these events that were writing about things?
2. Please refrain from telling me what I'm doing or saying. I'm perfectly in control of my words and actions and bases of knowledge. I do actual research and have actually read the bible. All of it.

Also, John would have been long dead before the book with his name added to it was written.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin "and have actually read the bible"

But not the historians you refer to, implicitly.

When was last time you read Velleius?

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg,1. you assume entirely too much, sir. Please stop doing that.

2. You still have not answered my question. One more chance to be a participant in an actual conversation before I move on to others.

3. Velleius wrote about histories around the Trojan war. What does he have to do with Jesus?

David Ewers

Hans-Georg Lundahl Velleius Paterculus did not write about Jesus. As a Roman historian who served under Tiberius and published his Compendium of Roman History around \(30\text{ AD}\), his work covers the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius but contains no mention of Jesus of Nazareth or early Christianity.

guess you did not read it. just throwing out garbage

Hans-Georg Lundahl we have no idea of any of the authors of the nt ither than paul

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin I think my presumption is proven, you didn't read Velleius. His history starts at the Trojan war and didn't end there.

Now, the point is, we have a very good indication of when he wrote and also why he didn't mention Jesus.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David Ewers If Velleius came to know about Jesus after the Crucifixion and Resurrection, we would not know.

He finished the work in the year or next year after Jesus started the 3 1/2 year public ministry in the Holy Land only.

When is the next author of Roman contemporary history of whom we have full texts preserved?

I gave you Matthew, Mark, Luke and Josephus, and YOU reduce that to Josephus only. He was born after the facts.

Can you give me the next specifically Pagan ROMAN historian of contemporary events? I can. And it doesn't suit your or Chris' case at all.

b

David Ewers

Hans-Georg Lundahl this as currect t then, not a single word. josephus talked about this period

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David Ewers Josephus, both as adopted by Flavians persecuting Christians, and as Jewish and eager to be accepted by a community that rejected Christianity had a special motivation not to mention this.

David Ewers

Hans-Georg Lundahl false. the testimony is one of je most debated in all of his works. the idea of persecution is invented by Christians. nero could not have done anything to them in the colosseum since it had not been built yet. and rome put down the jews too at the same time. you want to elusively look at history. there is zero actual evidence, of the jesus of the bible, no evidence of where he went, who he talked to and what he said. you came with an empty box of nothing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David Ewers If Nero killed no Christian in the Colosseum and if Flavians built the Colosseum, that could argue that the idea Nero killed Christians in the Colosseum is a conflation of Nero killing them elsewhere (Peter and Paul were both killed elsewhere) and of Flavians killing Christians in the Colosseum.

I wasn't talking about the TF anyway.

The list I gave was not of people testifying the three hour darkness at the crucifixion, it was the grand total of preserved authors from the relevant decades who in some systematic way wrote contemporary events.

a or b
or both continued

not all that sure on which of them Ewers answered.

David Ewers

Hans-Georg Lundahl that is dumn, beyong any caopacity to think critically. and this conceot of Christiana being persecuted is way ovr blown, the data does not support it this is also circular reasoning, using the bible to prove the bible/ and you have zero evidence about jesus coming back to life. not a critical thought ever

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David Ewers You seem unable to read.

You pretend I'm "proving the Bible from the Bible" without presenting any kind of case how.

As to data, you don't give any precisions where you get your data from. Data from the period are not all that abounding overall.

If it's a case of discounting all and any Christian sources, that's a very heavy bias you bring INTO the analysis, rather than getting it out of it.

Whether Josephus was 1/4 historians from this time or 1/1, that's too few of them to be sure to find someone supporting (if there is support) another 1/4 (at best). And I mean contemporary history ones and preserved ones. Velleius lays down his pen while Jesus is in full freedom. Tacitus takes it up when it's certain that Nero has already killed Christians in Rome decades earlier. Those between are, at best, dispute as many as you like, it only makes the remainder fewer:

Matthew, Mark, Luke, Josephus.

You can't take out Matthew from the actual historians JUST because he by himself constitues the 25 % of these who mention the darkness. You'd have to do it, if at all, on other grounds.

And you can definitely not discount that Josephus was under pressure from other Jews, besides being born too late to have seen it himself.

David Ewers

Hans-Georg Lundahl you really are one ignorant person of the bible. its really bad

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David Ewers What were you saying about one Christian Apologist in 2024?

"He is very abusive to everyone who disagrees with his position. He starts called them every name in the book."*

You called me ignorant after accusing me of circulus vitiosus, you seem to have the behaviour you attributed to him.

*footnote

available from his profile. I blocked him after that abusive comment.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"How did all the Roman, Jewish and Egyptian historians and scholars not notice this?"

Someone's attributing to this time period a kind of plethora of these categories.

As to Jewish ones, how about bias forbidding them from commenting?

B

Tony English

Thallus (c. AD 52) — The Earliest Reference
Thallus was perhaps the earliest non-Christian writer to refer to Jesus. His work has been lost, but a fragment was quoted by Julius Africanus around AD 220, which itself was quoted by the Byzantine historian Georgius Syncellus. Africanus writes: “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus in the third book of his History calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.”

Notably, Julius Africanus pushed back on Thallus’s “eclipse” explanation, pointing out that a solar eclipse cannot occur during a full moon — which Passover always is.

Phlegon (c. AD 140) — A Greek Historian
Julius Africanus also mentions a historian named Phlegon who wrote a chronicle of history around AD 140. Phlegon records: “In the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth to the ninth hour.” This matches the gospel timeline precisely — noon to 3 PM.

What Scholars Note
If Thallus’s statement refers to Jesus’ crucifixion, it indicates that (1) the Christian gospel was known in the Mediterranean region by the mid-first century AD, (2) there was a widespread darkness implied to have taken place during the crucifixion, and (3) unbelievers were already offering rationalistic explanations for supernatural claims not long after they were first proclaimed.

The Apologetic Significance
The interesting thing is that both Thallus and Phlegon were trying to explain away the darkness as a natural eclipse — which actually backfires as an argument, since as Africanus pointed out, a solar eclipse is astronomically impossible during Passover’s full moon. Their attempts to rationalize it end up confirming that something unusual happened that needed explaining.

This is a solid piece of evidence in historical Jesus discussions — skeptics in the first and second centuries didn’t deny the darkness occurred, they just tried to give it a natural cause.

Truth-hurtz Jones

Tony English they try to give it a natural cause...

They didn't know how it happened , which is proof that it didn't happen because of people got up out of their graves or they would have simply said that

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Truth-hurtz Jones People getting out of their graves was local to Jerusalem.

The darkness wasn't, and the ancients were so scientifically illiterate that they could believe in a solar eclipse at full moon, with some exceptions who has read Aristotle.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, "local to Jerusalem"...historians and other writers in the area (Paul) would have heard about it, yes? And they eould have mentioned it, yes?

Truth-hurtz Jones

Hans-Georg Lundahl hey buddy...

If you believe that the earth is older than the sun then nobody can help you...

Ignoring

the jab, going for the argument:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin "historians and other writers in the area (Paul)"

Historians in the area would be limited to Matthew and Josephus, for some time Luke. Other writers would have been doing other kinds of things than mentioning historical events.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, lol. 1. Paul was the first human that we know of to write about Jesus.

2. Historians and writers of the time and in the area would write about big eventd and things they found interesting.

3. Your defense is very much lacking any seriousness.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin In reverse order:

3) Your defense is very much lacking in knowledge.

2) You are giving a total a priori that lacks any perspective on what we have from this period.

From 30/31 AD to c. 90 AD we have AT MOST these four men setting down in writing contemporary events: Matthew, Mark, Luke, Josephus. Take away Matthew if you like, even Mark and Luke, that leaves Josephus. It doesn't offer you any more than the four. Note, I didn't say "there were" but I said "we have" ... some others also were writing down contemporary events and they are lost or only preserved in quotes.

1) Your view on the redaction of the Gospels lacks ancient sources, not just from the decades in question, but from ensuing centuries, unlike mine. Paul is anyway out of the discussion, since doing tractates, not contemporary events. I recall sth like NT having 260 chapters and Paul writing 100.* A Gospel is 16 to 28 chapters long. 16 is like the longest book by Paul, and that one is as densely packed with argument, often about ancient Israelite history or Roman institutions, as the Gospel of Mark is packed with the life of Jesus. 100 - 16 = 84, divide that by 13, the average book by Paul is short, and it's a tractate. Not a cue for details on the crucifixion, and he presumably had the Gospel of Luke to preach that from.

* footnote

"I recall" ... found the reference:


Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: ... against aboKhansa
Wednesday, February 21, 2018 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 4:20 AM
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/02/against-abokhansa.html

Relevant excerpt:

M 28 chapters Tens = 70
M 16 chapters Units = 19
L 24 chapters Total = 89 chapters
J 21 chapters Typically a chapter is about a page long

I can add, the four Gospels are, as said, 89 chapters. Acts another 28, so 117 chapters.

The books by St Paul are not so many chapters, only 100 : 16 + 16 + 13 + 6 + 6 + 4 + 4 + 5 + 3 + 6 + 4 + 3 + 1 + 13 = 100.

Then there are the books placed in the collection after the epistles of St Paul:

5 + 5 + 3 + 5 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 22 = 43

43 + 117 = 160 [non-Paul + 100 ch. Paul = 260]

So, St Paul wrote a minority of the New Testament. Less than 40 % of it, and it is the shorter Testament.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, 1 and 2 combined. I don't know nor care what you seem to think the length of the writing has anything to do with my topic here. Paul was the first person to write anything about Jesus, to our knowledge, correct? Luke and Acts (supposedly) are Paul's tellings of Jesus and the apostles and to state that he (likely) would have mentioned any or all of these three events is appropriate. Also, we know that Paul was around the area when Jesus was there and would have heard of these eventd. We literally do not know who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

3. Your defense lacks logic and literally must be taked from the context.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin "Paul was the first person to write anything about Jesus, to our knowledge, correct?"

No.

"Luke and Acts (supposedly) are Paul's tellings of Jesus and the apostles"

Luke is Mary telling Luke about Jesus and Acts involves Luke observing Paul.

Matthew was earlier.

"to state that he (likely) would have mentioned any or all of these three events is appropriate."

Not given all the rest there was to mention too and that Matthew had already mentioned it, but even if you discount traditional authorship of Matthew, that doesn't help your point.

"Also, we know that Paul was around the area when Jesus was there and would have heard of these eventd."

He could theoretically have been outside Jerusalem and come in after Pentecost, but discounting that possibility, he first hand experienced both darkness and just people walking out of their graves. Like the High Priests and the Pharisees, he didn't from this conclude that Christianity was true. Most of them remained opponents, and he was converted by sth else.

A very good reason why he would not think himself fit to narrate the events.

"I don't know nor care what you seem to think the length of the writing has anything to do with my topic here."

Try copying a scroll by hand and then imagine composing it. Without typewriter or computers. If you have small space, you include the details YOU (and not someone else) find important for YOUR purpose, not the ones a heckler 2000 years later pretends "you should have noticed and written down" ...

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, none of what you just stated is supported by scholarship.

The letters of Paul outdate the gospels (M,M,L,J) by 20 to 50 years.

Mark was the first gospel written followed by Matthew.

Luke and Acts came around 60AD

With John coming in around 90.

We aren't working with the same sets of facts which will lead us nowhere.

Fortunately for me, the majority of Christians and Secular scholars agree with me.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin "none of what you just stated is supported by scholarship."

You mean the specific scholarship that came to prominence in the Kulturkampf in the 1880's in Germany?

Or 1870's ...?

The Prussians and their imitators have an axe to grind. If Matthew is the first and if it's close to the events, that dooms any "Christianity" with nothing like a papacy (see chapter 16 verse 19).

Bismarck was very much NOT keen on the papacy.

The one thing I support is, John wrote down the Gospel after 90 (when he wrote the Apocalypse) so, c. 100 AD.

"We aren't working with the same sets of facts which will lead us nowhere."

We both know, or should know, what I present represents traditional authorship assignment.

We both know or should know, the scholarship you reference came to prominence first among Protestants and among these first among the very Liberal close to Atheist ones in Evangelische Kirche, Germany. 1880's or 1870's.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, no, sir. My support comes from centuries of study and is resupported every single day still today by continued scholarship. Yours is just the tradition and apologetics. It isn't supported by evidence. Just an abundance of claims.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin The Kulturkampf (lit. 'Cultural Struggle') was the seven-year political conflict (1871–1878)

THAT's the exact era, and it's less than 200 years ago, when Marcan priority came to the forefront. It had been very marginally upheld before that, maybe Astruc was one (but I recall him for the JPD hypothesis on the Pentateuch) was an earlier proponent.

"is resupported every single day still today by continued scholarship."

Lazily repeating things from the Kulturkampf.

" Yours is just the tradition and apologetics."

It's in fact the tradition .... of the community of the first audience, which is usually evidence of authorship and originally perceived intent. It's not about specific truth claims in the work and most historic works do contain mistakes, and some contain lies, but this is the evidence we go by.

I believe Lord of the Rings is a work of fiction and was written by JRRTolkien because of tradition. If you say we have statements by Unwin, well, the tradition of the Catholic Church has statements by Papias.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, why should we carw what Papias said. He wasn't born until 30ish years after Jesus died.

As for scholarship, I don't know anything sbout this German thing you keep mentioning but I can list off multiple modern day scholars (christian and non) that provide the support for the things that I state.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin "why should we carw what Papias said. He wasn't born until 30ish years after Jesus died."

Why would we care what Wilke, Weisse and Holzmann said?

They were born more than 1700 years after he died?

In 1838, two theologians, Christian Gottlob Wilke[9] and Christian Hermann Weisse,[10] independently extended Lachmann's reasoning to conclude that Mark not only best represented Matthew and Luke's source but also that Mark was Matthew and Luke's source. Their ideas were not immediately accepted, but Heinrich Julius Holtzmann's endorsement in 1863 of a qualified form of Marcan priority[11] won general favor.

To return to Papias, if someone said right now that Tolkien was author of Lord of the Rings as a work of popular fiction and someone in the future had no earlier sources about authorship and intent, he would be wise to trust a source from 2026, even if that's near 53 years after he died.

The point is, Papias claims to have known a man who knew the Apostles, as I recall. Again, not the earliest thinkable confirmation, but it's the earliest we have.

"I can list off multiple modern day scholars (christian and non) that provide the support for the things that I state."

And they were born before Heinrich Julius Holtzmann's 1863 endorsement which got really popular in the Kulturkampf? No, after.

And Heinrich Julius Holtzmann was of the Evangelische Kirche. I i theological liberals.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, "Papias claims to have known someone who claims to know something about an extraordinary dude".... do you see how that's not good evidence to believe extraordinary claims?

As for your Tolkien example... if zero other corrobrating evidence to support or deny it, I suppose we would accept it. However, if there were an extraordinary claim added to it "Tolkien traveled through time to write it", we wouldn't believe it, correct?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin "if zero other corrobrating evidence to support or deny it, I suppose we would accept it."

Exactly.

"However, if there were an extraordinary claim added to it 'Tolkien traveled through time to write it',"

I would have believed he made the claim. Just as I believe Cyril Henry Hoskin made the claim to be channeling Lobsang Rampa.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, what? Who would care if someone made the claim, would you believe the claim? That's the point, right?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin Depends on the evidence.

You know, claims are always evidence of something. Of truth observed, of truth divinely revealed, of a misunderstanding, of a liar making a false claim.

Sometimes the alternatives to truth can be eliminated. Pretty often they can.

For non-Christian religions, whether Hercules worship or Mahabharata or Islam or Mormonism, I can take the *historic* parts of the claims without concluding anything divine. Historic here defined as visibly and before witnesses.

Christianity, specifically Catholic Christianity, is pretty unique insofar as you need to make a hairbrained revision of the bibliographical evidence in order to discount the divine claims.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, bro...there is no "biblical evidence" of the divine claims. They're all just claims.

A claim isn't evidence of anything other than words were spoken.

A claim can be based off all of the things that you listed.
Truth claim
False claim
Mistaken claim

And, the only thing that makes a claim more than a claim is evidence. Without evidence, it's just words.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin "A claim isn't evidence of anything other than words were spoken."

False.

"A claim can be based off all of the things that you listed.
Truth claim
False claim
Mistaken claim"

In theory, yes. True claim being the most often one, followed by mistaken.

"And, the only thing that makes a claim more than a claim is evidence."

Again, a claim IS evidence. Then the question is WHAT it is evidence of.

Suppose the claims INSIDE the Gospel are so internally solid that your BEST option is, contrary to bibliographical common practise, to ignore the tradition of authorship and intent, that makes the internal evidentiality of the claims fairly extraordinary.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, Let's put your thoughts to the test.

I can fly!!

1. This is true
2. You can't prove I can't
3. If you don't believe me you will lose all of your taste buds.
4. Also, 1,000 people have seen me fly.

Now, is my claim here more likely true or more likely false?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin I don't see any community that's likely to involve your 1000 people.

With the 500 "many of whom are still alive" St. Paul was referring to people inside a specific community, the Christian Church.

The same community in principle he was adressing. And served as an officer of.

If you were a police prefect in France, visiting Nantes, would you be likely to lie about sth that had happened before witnesses in Paris, even before videos?

Chris Martin I'm very willing to make a different assessment, if you meant you have a licence for an airplane.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, wait...did you just discount or dismiss my evidence? My evidence is absolutely as good as Paul's seeing as how he did NOT tell you who they are where they came from. So, you should start believing that I can absolutely fly. (Without a motor of any kind)

Chris Martin

later

Hans-Georg, that's it, brother? No more responses? Are you really resting your entire belief system on "claims are evidence"?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin Claims are evidence of sth.

One needs to find out what. Deliberate fraud being statistically significantly the least probable after truth and honest mistake, it's not the first thing you pull out, unless you have very strong evidence AGAINST a claim.

Even for Hercules being "son of Zeus" that could have been an honest misunderstanding, or even half truth if Satan had kind of adopted him (as with Theseus and probably the upcoming Antichrist). However how this mythological Zeus differs from a theologically correct Satan would have been honest mistake on his part ... up to a point. I obviously have very strong evidence against this being simply the truth, namely in Catholic theology.

Every appearance is prima facie evidence of what it is the appearance of. One needs strong evidence against that in order to make it evidence of sth else.

"seeing as how he did NOT tell you who they are where they came from."

He could have been perfectly willing to provide that information on inquiry and I think he did. It's just not in the letter. It would have been a risk on his part to pull a bluff, seing one could write back and ask precisely that.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, are you telling me you have solid evidence that I cannot fly?

Cite your source behind the claim that fraud us "statistically' the least probable behind truth and honest mistake, please because I believe that to be a made up claim.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin "you have solid evidence that I cannot fly?"

Chris Martin is a man. Now, men cannot fly. Therefore Chris Martin cannot fly.

A syllogism is pretty solid.

"the claim that fraud us "statistically' the least probable behind truth and honest mistake,"

Take a look at history books. Suppose Leo Taxil's work was a hoax or suppose his retractation was an (imposed hoax), either way, a hoax was involved.

Then take in that the Taxil hoax is remembered and a few more hoaxes, while loads of true claims (about electromagnetism or inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego) or honest mistakes (about animal magnetism, false understanding of hypnosis, or Darwins understanding of the Fuegans, false understanding of "primitive" culture) are remembered from the 19th C.

Note how

he doesn't get into that. He tries another angle.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, 1. Jesus was a man. Men cannot be resurrected after death. Therefore Jesus was not resurrected?

2. Jesus is the son of god. There is no evidence of god. Therefore, Jesus is not the son of god.

See how the claim isn't evidence?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin 1) Men cannot resurrect themselves after death. However, they can be resurrected by God. Jesus had done so by Lazarus about a week before. So, if Jesus resurrected Himself, He was God.

2) There is evidence of God in the sky and atmosphere every day and night, because none other and nothing else could turn the visible universe around us in c. 24 h (actually some minutes less, the Sun lags behind). There is evidence of God having a son in the OT, and Jesus resurrecting Himself is evidence of His being that Son, especially as He had claimed it.

1 & 2) Jesus resurrecting Lazarus and Himself, and OT being from the actual God of the universe (see for instance marching through the Red Sea or commanding Sun to stand still) requires eyewitnesses, which are less numerous than the 8 billion eywitnesses we have every day for Geocentrism.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, "turn the visible universe around us"...do you think earth is the center of the visible universe?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin This is what we directly observe.

As said, whatever in any way seems so and so presumably is so and so, unless there is a stronger argument against that.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, this may be what it "looks" like to our naked, untrained eyes, but it is absolutely not what is actually happening, though.

Do you recognize this as being true?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin I recognise your claim as unproven.

And therefore no match for what we see, either with naked eye or with any telescope on Earth.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, "unproven"? Dude, this has been proven for 100s of years. We've been sending people out to see it for 80ish years. We have cameras out there flying all around one of which has flown all the way outside our own solar system. This is all very verifiable information.

Do you believe the earth is flat?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin I believe in Geography and History and a few other items of "brute fact", so I believe the flightroute Sydney to Santiago de Chile argues a round Earth, along with a few other things, like the four corners.

"Dude, this has been proven for 100s of years."

Reputed proven.

"We've been sending people out to see it for 80ish years."

Seing the earth turn from the moon is like seeing the Eiffel tower turn from a chopper.

"We have cameras out there flying all around"

See previous.

"one of which has flown all the way outside our own solar system."

Cameras are turned off in Voyager 1 and in Voyager 2. The only thing we have from them is radio signals going out to them and back to us, counting the time.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, 1. What do "4 corners" and "round earth" have to do with each other?

2. Reputed essentially means accepted by the masses. Is "reputed" the word you mean? Also, it has been demonstrated in every way imaginable aside feom putting you specifically on a rocket snd foring you out there to see for yourself.

3. "Seeing earth turn from the moon..." is a strawman as we literally have 1,000s of cameras in orbit all around the earth looking in any direction we want them to.

Granted...the cameras died but we still receive the signals (or at last time I checked) and readings.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin 1. A modern flat earth map has three corners to the continents, four corners is by now only feasible on a globe.

2. "Is "reputed" the word you mean?"

Yes. Held in reputation of having been proven. In the rumour of having been proven.

"Also, it has been demonstrated in every way imaginable"

According to a rumour you have accepted.

3. "we literally have 1,000s of cameras in orbit all around the earth looking in any direction we want them to."

And each of them, or most, turning around earth. So, seing the Earth TURN is still in each case like seing the Eiffel tower turn when observing from a chopper.

If it had been about Earth being ROUND, that was already granted.

Perhaps you are confusing Geocentrism with Flat Earth? That confusion seems to be very popular too these days.

Chris Martin

Hans-Georg, again...the cameras around the earth can point in any direction and can look away and SEE that we are not the center...the sun is. It can be seen and demonstrated and the understandings of our rotations is how we can navigate outside of our own orbit.

I still feel like you are strawmanning when you use your Eiffel Tower analogy. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, though.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Chris Martin "the cameras around the earth can point in any direction and can look away and SEE that we are not the center...the sun is"

Oh, you mean centre of pretty close to circles ... sure. Annual, not daily movement. I misunderstood what you were talking about.

Again, not an argument. We or Sun being centre for the annual movement is equal, either way an ellipse close to a circle.

However, if we are the centre, this means for instance Venus or Mars is making a circle around a circle, since circling around the Sun. Too complex a movement for gravity and inertia to make and an argument for angels, like the daily movement is for God.

"the understandings of our rotations is how we can navigate outside of our own orbit."

Relative movements are equal in either system.

"when you use your Eiffel Tower analogy."

That was against an argument that Armstrong et al. from the Moon saw Earth turn around itself, i e about the daily movement.