Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

What if St. Peter's in Rome is not really Ancient?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>
Author
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: What if St. Peter's in Rome is not really Ancient?
    Posted: 13-Jan-2014 at 22:39
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Vittore_Crivelli_-_Saint_Bonaventure.jpg

I cannot stop my left hand from hitting the control button and I am then in a place I cannot explain! Sorry, but I am very old and oft makes a lot of mistakes!

So I will just post this here;

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Vittore_Crivelli_-_Saint_Bonaventure.jpg



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Vittore_Crivelli_-_Saint_Bonaventure.jpg


Ron

For some unknown reason I cannot access the above site. Can any of you?

Edited by opuslola - 29-Jan-2014 at 22:21
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Baron
Baron

BANNED TROLL

Joined: 25-Dec-2013
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 387
  Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jan-2014 at 18:35
Originally posted by opuslola

Originally posted by KongMing

I don't care. :|



And sir or lady, I don't care about you or your ideas, that is until you provide me with some ideas. LOL


Hey Ron, CHILL! Not everyone has the mental Capacity that you and I have.
But to address the question, perhaps the old building was so decrepit that no-one considered it worthy of their attention.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jan-2014 at 22:27
Originally posted by Sidney

View of Rome in 1493, with St.Peters in the centre-left background;



I think the original building of Constantine was extended, repaired and altered over the centuries. When the papacy decided to pull it all down and replace it in tota, the replacement was called the New St.Peters, which meant that in retrospect the preceding building(s) was called Old St.Peters, regardless of how many rebuildings had occurred over those years.

Is your argument with Wikipedia, rather than recorded history?


Sidney, just what is the four story round building on the far left of this depiction? It is directly left of the "rotunda" and the spiral column. It just has to be the great Coliseum. And please note that the great church of the Saxons is displayed also!

Do you concur?

And, just why would such a reduction of the city, which only included very few of Rome's features be represented in such a reduced manner?

Questions, questions?
Ron

Edited by opuslola - 14-Jan-2014 at 22:36
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jan-2014 at 23:08
Originally posted by toyomotor

Originally posted by opuslola

Originally posted by KongMing

I don't care. :|



And sir or lady, I don't care about you or your ideas, that is until you provide me with some ideas. LOL


Hey Ron, CHILL! Not everyone has the mental Capacity that you and I have.
But to address the question, perhaps the old building was so decrepit that no-one considered it worthy of their attention.


"A Stranger in a Strange Land!" Heinlein! LOL

So why did you post so?

Ron
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jan-2014 at 23:13
Originally posted by opuslola

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Vittore_Crivelli_-_Saint_Bonaventure.jpg

I cannot stop my left hand from hitting the control button and I am then in a place I cannot explain! Sorry, but I am very old and oft makes a lot of mistakes!

So I will just post this here;

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Vittore_Crivelli_-_Saint_Bonaventure.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Vittore_Crivelli_-_Saint_Bonaventure.jpg

Ron


I presume I posted this site for some reason, but since I sometimes post in an inebriated state, I don't know why I posted it here? But I might well have used the ornate visual aid of an old book that is held in the hand of the venerated saint? Why? Because in another post, I held that old book bindings were very different from the more modern ones. So that is it!

Regards, Ron
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jan-2014 at 22:48
Originally posted by opuslola

Originally posted by Sidney

View of Rome in 1493, with St.Peters in the centre-left background;



I think the original building of Constantine was extended, repaired and altered over the centuries. When the papacy decided to pull it all down and replace it in tota, the replacement was called the New St.Peters, which meant that in retrospect the preceding building(s) was called Old St.Peters, regardless of how many rebuildings had occurred over those years.

Is your argument with Wikipedia, rather than recorded history?


Sidney, (and others) just what is the four story round building on the far left of this depiction? It is directly left of the "rotunda" and the spiral column. It just has to be the great Coliseum. And please note that the great church of the Saxons is displayed also!

Do you concur? And this depiction also shows a depiction of the "castle"/ Palace"? , Belvedere! Sitting upon its own mount!

And, just why would such a reduction of the city, which only included very few of Rome's features be represented in such a reduced manner?

Questions, questions?
Ron


Just where does the spiral column and the obvious slope sided pyramid still stand>>?
Questions?

Ron

Edited by opuslola - 21-Jan-2014 at 23:13
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2014 at 21:44
And to support my contention that the "only" structure that preceeded the current St. Peter's basilica, was of a certain design, I.e. "Gothic!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_architecture

A number of examples are exhibited!

Ron

Edited by opuslola - 28-Jan-2014 at 21:45
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Sidney View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 31-Jan-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 690
  Quote Sidney Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jan-2014 at 18:59
Originally posted by opuslola


Just where does the spiral column and the obvious slope sided pyramid still stand>>?
Questions?

Ron

The spiral column is labelled "Columa Antoniana" and is the Column of Marcus Aurelius in the Piazza Colonna.



The pyramid is labelled "Meta Romuli" and was known as the tomb of Romulus. Part of it was demolished in 1499 when a new road was built between the Basilica and the Castle. Nothing remains of the building today.
Back to Top
Sidney View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 31-Jan-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 690
  Quote Sidney Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jan-2014 at 22:05
Originally posted by opuslola

And to support my contention that the "only" structure that preceeded the current St. Peter's basilica, was of a certain design, I.e. "Gothic!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_architecture

A number of examples are exhibited!

Ron


Why must there have only been one structure to precede the current basilica?
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jan-2014 at 22:11

Dear Sidney. Is the "Columa Antoniana" displayed in the correct area?

Just where is the "obelisk" within the Vatican walls? Certainly the Cathedral is displayed with this side easy to view?

And, you wrote; "The pyramid is labelled "Meta Romuli" and was known as the tomb of Romulus. Part of it was demolished in 1499 when a new road was built between the Basilica and the Castle. Nothing remains of the building today." And just where is the supposed pyramid of his brother?

I thought they were buried near to one another?

Just why would any society demolish a tomb of one of the city's founders for a mere road?

I always have questions and for the most part, you always seem to have the answers! Bravo!

Regards,
Ron
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jan-2014 at 22:12
Originally posted by Sidney

Originally posted by opuslola

And to support my contention that the "only" structure that preceeded the current St. Peter's basilica, was of a certain design, I.e. "Gothic!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_architecture

A number of examples are exhibited!

Ron


Why must there have only been one structure to precede the current basilica?


Because our currently accepted history says it is so! It either is correct or it is wrong! Just like it says that the obelisk within the Vatican City, was to the left side of the Cathedral, where nothing is seen in the above representation. OH! Yes there is a obelisk looking structure exhibited but it has windows, etc.! It looks more or less like hundreds of other lookout or bell towers found all over Italy.

Regards as always,
Ron

Edited by opuslola - 29-Jan-2014 at 22:15
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Baron
Baron

BANNED TROLL

Joined: 25-Dec-2013
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 387
  Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jan-2014 at 01:20
Opuslola: Mate, what's the point you're trying to make? The fact that the current building is not the original has been explained. What does it matter if the old building was demolished to make way for the new one? You've lost me. Are you saying that the current building has lost something that the original had?

Edited by toyomotor - 30-Jan-2014 at 01:22
Back to Top
Sidney View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 31-Jan-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 690
  Quote Sidney Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jan-2014 at 16:00
Opuslola, if we allow you to ignore all the images I have posted of the Basilica that disagree with your theory [and you haven't yet answered why they exist if you are correct], then perhaps the Basilica built by Constantine fell into disrepair (we are told that this happened), was repaired along the lines that you suggest(as seen in your Euclid illustration), and then rebuilt again as the modern Basilica that still stands.

Have you looked into any of the written accounts about the Basilica to see if the descriptions change over time? A written account from historical visitors to Rome can be as useful, if not more so, than scrutinizing a picture from an artist whom we don't know even saw Rome in person.
Back to Top
medenaywe View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Master of Meanings

Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 14778
  Quote medenaywe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jan-2014 at 16:05
My friend pictures from postcards Sidney!It's cheaper.Smile
Back to Top
Sidney View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 31-Jan-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 690
  Quote Sidney Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jan-2014 at 18:15
Postcard is not meeting its purpose without a written missive.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jan-2014 at 19:09
Originally posted by toyomotor

Opuslola: Mate, what's the point you're trying to make? The fact that the current building is not the original has been explained. What does it matter if the old building was demolished to make way for the new one? You've lost me. Are you saying that the current building has lost something that the original had?


Dear friends Sydney and Ian, I don't question anything concerning the New Basilica!

And yes, there exists numerous other representations (all differing from one another) of "The Old Basilica!"

I contend that to the best of my knowledge there exists no extant reliable information concerning the building of numerous examples at differing times on this spot of land. "The Catholic Encyclopedia" tends to state that "ONLY" two buildings of Catholic heritage have ever occupied this space.

That is about the most reliable source I can use! Can you name another source that should be as reliable as the actual encyclopedia of the Church itself?

If other versions of the Basilica ever existed then why were they "NOT" mentioned by any known reliable source (at least that I know.)?

I have examined the example that I posted, which seems to show a "Gothic" style building and from my examination it is too accurate in sight lines and the placement of other well known monuments in the background, to have been done by someone who was not totally familiar with his subject matter.

Take out the Old Gothic building depicted and insert the New building and almost nothing in the rest of the depiction will be changed.

Of course, this is just my contention and not a contention of anyone else known to me. But if my contentions are correct then we all have been taught a big lie! And, I contend that it is taught to extend the lifetime of both Rome and the Catholic Church in Rome by centuries.

I contend that my example is the only extant view of the "Original" Basilica, period!!

I hope this clears up any misinformation of conclusions that have recently been posted here?

Regards. Ron

Edited by opuslola - 30-Jan-2014 at 19:13
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Sidney View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 31-Jan-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 690
  Quote Sidney Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jan-2014 at 19:48
Originally posted by opuslola


Dear Sidney. Is the "Columa Antoniana" displayed in the correct area?

Just where is the "obelisk" within the Vatican walls? Certainly the Cathedral is displayed with this side easy to view?

And, you wrote; "The pyramid is labelled "Meta Romuli" and was known as the tomb of Romulus. Part of it was demolished in 1499 when a new road was built between the Basilica and the Castle. Nothing remains of the building today." And just where is the supposed pyramid of his brother?

I thought they were buried near to one another?

Just why would any society demolish a tomb of one of the city's founders for a mere road?

I always have questions and for the most part, you always seem to have the answers! Bravo!

Regards,
Ron

The column is displayed in its correct position - the Piazza Colonna. The building next to it on the picture is labelled Maria Rotuda - the St.Maria Rotunda which today is called the Pantheon. This is in the correct relative position.

The obelisk is present in the earlier images I posted dating from 1474, 1472, 1415 and 1334. It is in the 1493 picture also - it is indeed the object portrayed with windows, which is inaccurate, but it can be identified by the orb on the top (which in the Middle Ages was believed to contain the ashes of Julius Caesar), and by its position in front of the larger rotunda. The obelisk also appears in later images I've seen from 1500 - 1579. It was moved in 1586 to stand in front of the new Basilica. Why would the 1493 artist put windows in the obelisk? My guess is because the obelisk went by many names - a needle, a pyramid, and a spire. The artist was probably working from notes and sketches, not sitting at some panoramic point drawing this image. A monument described as a 'spire' would suggest a tower, which of course required windows. But this is only my opinion.

The Meta Romuli was only 'believed' to be the tomb of Romulus. There is no evidence that it really was, nor that is was called such by the pagan Romans - in fact their story is that Romulus vanished during a thunder storm and became the god Quirinus, so he certainly had no need for a tomb. That the Pope felt no need to preserve what was seen as a pagan tomb is not that surprising, surely? It did indeed have a matching Tomb of Remus, which still survives. Again, the attribution to Remus is fictitious, as the pyramid was built for one Gaius Cestius. It stands today near the Porta San Paolo in Rome;



Edited by Sidney - 30-Jan-2014 at 20:18
Back to Top
Sidney View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 31-Jan-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 690
  Quote Sidney Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jan-2014 at 20:15
Originally posted by opuslola


I contend that to the best of my knowledge there exists no extant reliable information concerning the building of numerous examples at differing times on this spot of land. "The Catholic Encyclopedia" tends to state that "ONLY" two buildings of Catholic heritage have ever occupied this space.

That is about the most reliable source I can use! Can you name another source that should be as reliable as the actual encyclopedia of the Church itself?

...


Of course, this is just my contention and not a contention of anyone else known to me. But if my contentions are correct then we all have been taught a big lie! And, I contend that it is taught to extend the lifetime of both Rome and the Catholic Church in Rome by centuries.

I contend that my example is the only extant view of the "Original" Basilica, period!!

I hope this clears up any misinformation of conclusions that have recently been posted here?

Regards. Ron

I'm not judging your contention either way, but if your theory is true, then you are saying the Catholic Church is lying about its history. So why do you say the Catholic Encyclopedia (produced by the Catholic Church) is the most reliable source there is? If the Catholic Encyclopedia is the most reliable source there is, then their portrayal of the old Basilica must be equally reliable. But you say it isn't. So if the history and the portrayal are not reliable, why can't we insert three, four or more buildings into the site's history? Because the official Catholic line says there has only been one building before the present one. So the Catholic line is true. Its just the design that is wrong? So the other images are all fakes, even though they agree with the official Catholic Encyclopedia, which you've said is the most reliable source there is.

You definitely need a better source to support your theory. One picture does not prove the earlier style Basilica did not exist. It might be evidence for rebuilding, which fits well with received history, and wouldn't be that surprising. Have you looked at any archaeological reports of the Basilica to see if such rebuilding is not reported? Have you read any Medieval Pilgrim guides for written descriptions?


Edited by Sidney - 30-Jan-2014 at 20:17
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Baron
Baron

BANNED TROLL

Joined: 25-Dec-2013
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 387
  Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jan-2014 at 20:37
That the Vatican is prepared to tell lies under certain circumstances, is beyond question. But you can't have it both ways, either they're lying or the Encyclopaedia is correct, which is it?
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jan-2014 at 20:47
"another, larger pyramid in Rome, known as the "Pyramid of Romulus" near the Castel Sant'Angelo. This pyramid did not survive the building crazes of later generations, and its marble was used in the building of the stairs at St. Peter's Basilica." Taken from; http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/pyramid-of-cestius

Yes I know of the re-identification of the pyramid, which was supposedly found inscribed on it hidden behind a bush, etc. chuckle

Yes, only in Roma and other numerous ancient sites do such things occur! Just how does such a plaque evade discovery for so many hundreds of years? But do I believe in the story of the foundation of Rome? Well of course not, since there exist numerous versions of it, and none of them have any way to be proved.

And yes the other one was reportedly near to the Tomb of Hadrian! But just why would an artist display it with curved walls? In other depictions of Rome that I have analyzed or searched, there supposedly existed a half dozen or so in various parts of the city and none that I can remember had curves.

And just why would a Pope mind the fact that the founders of Roma were pagans? Hells bells, most everything in this city that remained as ancient were built by them. How about the "rotunda", or the coliseum just to mention two. By the way in older times it seems that to Catholics you either had to be Jewish or pagan.

So? Regards, Ron   

Edited by opuslola - 31-Jan-2014 at 13:56
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.234 seconds.