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

Dear Sidney! You earlier wrote these words; "I thought this particular image was interesting because it dates from the time that the Old Basilica was still standing, and unlike most renditions of the event, does show the interior of the building quite clearly. The painter had also been to Rome and been into the Basilica, so it seems likely to be based on what he had seen himself.

If it looks like the Old Basilica is meant to look like, then it probably was the Old Basilica as it appeared in c.1460. Painters at this time were known for placing historical people within their (the painters)clothes and landscapes - the clothes and regalia in this painting date from the time of the painter, not from the date of Charlemagne, and so does the building. Its not evidence that this is how the building looked in 800, but I believe is evidence of how it looked in c.1460." I am ashamed to say that I read your post in such haste that I missed most of what you intended me to understand.

So yes, since it certainly looks nothing like the New Basilica, I would suppose that the interior of the building in my 1457 CE representation, could have looked such. But my expertise of the looks of the various building styles over the centuries is lacking.

But you were being gracious and even pointed out the timeline relationship.

Perhaps we are both correct?

Thanks so much,
Ron

Edited by opuslola - 04-Dec-2013 at 21:47

No medenaywe, there was not.

1586 it was moved near the Basilica(which was not that before!There is no Defense sign& Forbidden sign&language.

Sixtus V had Domenico Fontana move it in 1586 to the center of St. Peter's Square.

On floor are Maternal signs from Zodiac also Lions that protects It on the shoulders!

It is also a sun dial, its shadows mark noon over the signs of the zodiac in the white marble disks in the paving of the square. The obelisk rests upon four couchant lions, each with two bodies whose tails intertwine.

Now you have to go in topic about "Was cult of Great Mother exchanged with Jesus"!

NOTE:Link about it's arrival in Rome:(Tuthmosis II,obelis)

http://roma.andreapollett.com/S3/roma-co1.htm

Edited by medenaywe - 07-Dec-2013 at 07:58

Originally posted by medenaywe In official story Obelisk had been put on square by Caligula!It is a story tale indeed. Regards!Go in Origins,last page or two,look on basilica! http://saintpetersbasilica.org/Exterior/Obelisk/Obelisk.htm

Dear Med      , if you inquire enough you will find that (reportedly) that the "obelisk" originally stood in the middle of a great Roman Circus, where in the northern half of the Circus, was eventually covered by a Basilica, etc. According to our currently accepted sources, if it was still in its ancient location, it would be located just outside of the walls of the current basilica. There exists a few representations of it and two small domed edifices (or tombs) , that were later connected to the original basilica, and named after a couple of lessor known Saints.

So the movement of the "obelisk" was merely a matter of a few hundred yards or so. There even exists a representation of the erection of the obelisk online.

Regards, Ron

Sidney! Methinks you made a mistake in the above description of St. Peter's Basilica, certainly you meant to say upper center right?

Certainly that is San Angelo and Belvedere on the upper right, and in the lower left center is the dome of the Pantheon.

And, interesting to say the least, there appears no Obelisks anywhere!!

You wrote above; "Is your argument with Wikipedia, rather than recorded history?" The answer is "NO!" The official Roman Catholic history mentions but two building have been built on this site since the 4th century CE. After all, the church is the one that should know the facts? n'est-ce pas?

Again, just where are the hundreds of paintings, etchings, woodcuts of the original Basilica? Above you might have shown it, but I doubt it.

And, in the realcenter right of the depiction, you will notice a structure that really seems to portray a true Roman style Basilica. Perhaps this is the very building you had identified? It is located almost on the river and has four round arches!

This is, supposedly, a very famous Basilica in Rome across the River and is not St. Peter's.

Do you have any idea what it was?

Hint, the word Saxon is important! Smile

Regards,

Ron





Jump to: navigation, search



Edited by opuslola - 05-Dec-2013 at 21:14

I might well be wrong in my identification of the building Sidney, but this is the only structure that seems to fit.

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

Regards, Ron

http://saintpetersbasilica.org/Exterior/Obelisk/Obelisk-erect-engrav-fsp.jpg

Here is an old depiction of Rome that is interactive, so you can roam at will over the depiction.

Here again one can see a good view of St. Peter's (New) and the other great Basilica of the Saxons (Saxia). Many good sights can be found here. Note that it is reportedly dated as 1651 CE.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/1652_Merian_Panoramic_View_or_Map_of_Rome%2C_Italy_-_Geographicus_-_Roma-merian-1642.jpg

Regards, Ron

Edited by opuslola - 06-Dec-2013 at 14:41

Originally posted by opuslola Sidney! Methinks you made a mistake in the above description of St. Peter's Basilica, certainly you meant to say upper center right?

Absolutely correct. My apologies.

Hey! Thanks Sidney! Here we see another variation of St. Peter's, and Vatican City. This looks to be but a partial section of an even larger representation. Is the entire thing available?

But you can clearly make out the Pantheon, San Angelo, and the Coliseum, but no obelisks are to be seen which is strange.

Can this section be expanded so one can make out the lettering of the various items identified here? If so, can they be translated?

And what do you make of these words? "(Latin translation of Jacopo Angeli da Scarperia) 1469". I wonder in what language the original was written? I could only guess it was in Greek? And the date on the depiction, is it the date of the "translation" or the date of the original?

Thanks again to you and to Med...!
Ron

Regards, Ron

Edited by opuslola - 07-Dec-2013 at 06:39