Heliocentrism, the concept that the earth revolved around the sun was first advanced by Aristarichus of Samos (310-230 B.C.), a student of Strato of Lampsacus (d. 269 B.C.) who is known primarily through references in the writings of various writers (Plutarch, Seneca, et. al.). However, He is often treated as little more than a footnote if at all. Aristarchus, following Hereclides, believed that the rotation of stars was due to the rotation of the earth on its axis. Aristaricus' theory came on the heels of Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) who had earlier advanced geocentrism, the notion that the earth was the center of the universe, around which all other heavenly bodies revolved. Who was more likely to receive public attention, The philosopher or an amateur mathematician/astronomer/philosopher? In this Aristarichus vs. Aristotle face-off, it was the latter who enjoyed much popularity for the following millenium. However, despite the overwhelming popularity of Aristotelian geocentrism, some individuals (such as Seleucus-150 B.C.) maintained the lineage of heliocentrism in which Copernicus would later follow. We must keep in mind that during the golden age of Greece, empiricism and scientific observation did not enjoy the popularity as they did later in the renessiance and enlightenment periods. The favored schools were rationalism and mathematical certainty. Observation was limited to the unaided human senses. This was partly due to the Greek/Roman distaste for anything they considered manual labor such as experiments which was only fit for slaves, not freemen (Greek and Roman citizens at that).
The perception regarding Christianity's alleged preference of and influence upon society as to geocentrism is suspect especially in light of the fact that 1) the church didn't come into being until A.D. 33; and 2) that Christians were hunted, persecuted, and martyred as an unlicensed, illegal & anti-Roman (treasoneous) sect for the next 300 years. The church was too preoccupied with simply staying alive to put much effort into subverting the philosophy of the larger culture. Though some early church theologians such as Origen (185-254) and his predecessor, Clement of Alexandria (150-220) sought to integrate Christianity with specific philosophical systems, according to Samuel Stumpf, Christian theology wouldn't realize itself "until Augustine had formulated his powerful synthesis of Christian and Plutonic thought. The decisive bridge between classical philosophy and Christianity would be the writings of Plutonus." After Augustine, Aristoleanism became integrated into Christian theology by Anselm (1033-1109), the archbishop of Canterbury who is often considered the father of scholasticism, had inherited and revived the church's interest in Aristotleanism from Boethius (480-524). Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) the scholastic philosopher indicated an interest with Aristotle and the ability to thoroughly Aristotleanize Christian theology. During this time, the Aristotlianized frame of Christian theology was itself becoming accepted as orthodoxy. Therefore, the Catholic church didn't disagree with Kepler/Galileo on theological grounds but on philosophical ones. As we shall see later, reasons of denominational polity added to this fire. What later became to be adopted as the Roman Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility (though not officially adopted until Pope Pius IX decreed it in 1870, it was initially advocated publically by Peter Olivi, a 13th century Franciscan monk, and exercised by Pope Nicholas II (1277-1280), the notion that the Roman Catholic was the harbitor of the key of truth grew, it became imperative that reform was in order. Tradition had now come to share the same throne as scripture.
Regarding our original question as to whet her Christianity opposed scientific progress, particularly Johannes Kepler (Lutheran), Nicholas Copernicus (Catholic), & Galilei Galileo (Catholic), I submit that No,Christianity did not. However, the institutionalized Roman Catholic church did oppose such things. The Roman Catholic church did not encourage new thought in such areas that it considered its sovereign domain. While Copernicus & Galileo were opposed by their own denomination's hiearchy and disciplined as wayward sons, Kepler's Lutheranism removed him from being under the authority of the Catholic church. The Catholic church opposed Copernicus' revival of Astarchian heliocentricism primarily because of his replacement of the Ptolemaic system with its Pythagorian alternative), and brought Galileo (who actually prefered the Ptolemaic system favored by Aristotle and the church Hiearchy) into conflict resulting in house detainment for his remaining 9 years. However, the leaders of the protestant reformation exhibited a very different response. It was Lutherans who encouraged & even financially backed Copernicus' writings. Witin the next few years, Calvinists went on to found the Royal Society in London. Alvin Schmidt indicates that "Galileo's observations were not well received by his Roman Catholic superiors, who saw Aristotle's views-not that of the Bible- as the final word of truth." The enemies of scientific progress were the same enemies who opposed putting the Word of God into the hands of the people in their own language so they could drink at the well of the almighty God and would no longer be hamstrung by the dictates of the spiritual elite.
Regarding the notion of a flat earth, while I cannot deny that some individuals may have held such an notion, it is more of a misunderstanding in regards to hermeneutics and literary genre than of science. Yet in comparison to its contemporary counterparts (a disk floating on an endless sea, held on the shoulders of Atlas, etc), it fits with the speculative cosmological theories of a prescientific age. Against critics who believe that the Bible teaches a flat earth and that Christians believe it, as early as Isaiah the earth is said to be round (Is. 40:22); it is "suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7), Inertia and that nature decays over time (Isa. 51:6).