What's with the statue of Peter in St. Peter’s Cathedral?

A_Christian,

For the fourth time: What fate were you talking about and why do you fear it will befall me?

In Christ,
Neal

 

You haven't really dealt with much. Everytime I ask you something you change the subject or don't answer the question and instead throw out a different accusation. I get the feeling I point out the obvious to you and you come back with, "But, but, but,...." However, I agree with you, this is just a waste of time here. Everything I have asked of has nothing to do with the statue. But you still don't get that, so the discussion can go no further. Please just answer my question I have asked four times about something YOU said.

In Christ,
Neal

 

tisk tisk - ranting instead of "details" again GS??

#1. I did "not" start this thread.

#2. I did not rant and whine about a document that I had not yet even read - as others have done on this board.

#3. All I did was suggest that the whining and ranting should first take the time to "read the document" that they were whining about instead of ranting out of the "void of what they had not read".

I am still waiting for Mioque "our resident historian" to come find the historic document -- since he has already come out against it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Well - Carson comes close to an error free statement to that point. I applaud him. That Franciscan seminary must be doing some good.


Unfortunately in Mark 12 and in Matt 22 Christ argues the point that the dead can not worship God in any way and that the ONLY way for them to be considered members of God's kingdom is for them to be resurrected from the Dead.

If you notice carefully Christ said "God is NOT the God of the dead" and slams the point home showing that ONLY the fact of the resurrection can then solve the problem of the statement that God makes to Moses about the dead saints - Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Devastating to Carson's preferred view - but nice of him to bring it up anyway.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Thank you Bob for ignoring what I said. I'm not surprised. You're never wrong, after all...but that's just because you only issue challenges, and never deal with them. And, of course, you don't truly listen to people's responses because in another few days, you'll start all over again with the same arguments and challenges that we've already answered.

Again, you did not address the "claims" issue I brought it. Answer it, please, Bob.

 

I did see you ranting about this thread existing - but I did not see you ask a question or issue a challenge -- what did I miss GS?

In Christ,

Bob

 

This is a statement of fact, made by you. If you want to say it's not a "claim," and therefore you haven't "made any claims," that's fine -- but you can see how I would perceive this as a statement of fact by you, right?

Then, in the next post on the thread, you said to Mioque:

From this, I infer that you have some reason for referring Mioque to that particular source -- that is, that you have reason to believe it might say something relevant about the topic of this alleged statue.

If that's not a fair inference, please let me know why.

If it is a fair inference, please let me know why you referred to that particular source. My assumption (which, again, I believe is a fair one) is that either:

A) You've read the "V.I. II" yourself, and recall finding relevant information there; or

B) You've seen someone else (Mr. Rivera, perhaps?) cite the "V.I. II" with regard to the statue.

Please let me know which it was, and if it's the latter, what that source was. I don't see why this should be a problem; feel free to look back over any of my posts on this board and I'll be happy to provide my sources in the same way.

Or, if there's some third explanation (e.g., "It was divinely revealed to you to say 'Mioque, go look at V.I. II,'" or "you just thought it would be fun to send Mioque on a wild-goose chase," or whatever, please let me know what it is.

Checking sources is not a new concept to me -- and it's what I'm trying to do here. I will appreciate any help you can provide.

In Christ,

Mark H. </font>[/QUOTE]Bumped for Bob Ryan.

Bo, how about addressing this?

 

From this, I infer that you have some reason for referring[ Mioque to that particular source -- that is, that you have reason to believe it might say something relevant about the topic of this alleged statue.

Only that the information I found - started with discovering that they were quoting the specific source I named in making the claims about the statue of Jupiter -- I mean Zeus --- I mean Peter. My point was that If the conclusion was going to be drawn that there is something lacking in the source - the first step would be to quote it and give details as to what the problem was "instead" of the mindless rant "If Jack Chick knows something - then it must not be true".

Perhaps you have "another" way to deal with documents. I am open to alternatives.

In the end - I did not start this thread nor did I post the rants about those sources being a problem without first reading them.

You will have to target someone else if you are trying to deal with that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Is it just me, or is bob dodging the question?

I noticed that he isn't responding to my quotes from the sda.org website (on another thread) concerning putting Ellen White on par with Scripture either. Anybody else notice that?

 

Hi Bob,

Thanks for replying. In your most recent post, you referred to "the information I found," which apparently quoted "Vaticano Illustrato II." My question is, where did you find "the information [you] found"? What is your source for suggesting that source?

I can't understand why you seem so reluctant to answer such a simple, straightforward question.

In Christ,

Mark

 

Let me quote you, Bob:

"It was removed from the Pantheon and "altered" in the 13th century for adaption into St. Peter's Basilica."

On page five, you then tried to back out saying that you "made no claims."

Well, Bob, if that quotation above is not making a claim and declaring a fact, I don't know what is.

Just another one of your dodges this thread. What is, that, like, four? I can't wait to see you ACTUALLY address the "details" Bob.

 

I was responding to our resident "historian" Mioque and pointing him to the source document - and indeed to the point that the document claimed a late change to the statue in question which accounted for the 13th century claims that Mioque was considering.

I did not mean to make it sound like a review of that document's source and etiology.

However you make a good point - my brief one line sentence does look like a judgment in favor of the claims made by that document. I really only meant to introduce the source document and what it said - as a thing to be reviewed before trashing it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

bump

By the way.
Bob do you any additional info on V.I. II?

 

Oh really? That's not what my screen is showing:

Originally posted by john6:63:
Then were did the statue come from? You’d think that the Catholic Church would know, right? No speculation to it. I mean St. Peter’s Cathedral is a Catholic structure, is it not?

Your entire response was:

It was removed from the Pantheon and "altered" in the 13th century for adaption into St. Peter's Basilica.

In Christ,

Bob

Not only did you lie about who you were resonding to, but you lied about the question you were responding to. John clearly asked a direct question about its origin, and you supplied a direct answer (no maybes, ifs, buts, or possiblies to be found).

Honesty is the best policy, Bob. You made a claim. Why not just stick with it?

 

Bob,

I'm beginning to get the impression that you're ducking my simple question -- on what basis have you cited "V.I. II" as being "the source document" on this issue.

Please answer. It's a very basic question, which I've now asked 3 times. Or is it 4?

Mark

 

The so-called "halo" that is above the head of the statue is in fact a "sun wheel".

Even John Henry Cardinal Newman (the Father of the Second Vatican Council) admits that many of the symbols used in the churches of Rome are of "pagan origin",and "turning to the East" is one of them.This is in regard to worshipping the sun:

Here are his own words:

"We are told in various ways by Eusebius , that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison , are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church."

So why would it be surprising that Rome would place pagan images in her churches.

Here is a site that has photograps of the so-called statue of Peter and the "sun wheel" can be plainly seen:

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/wheel.htm#palm

In His grace,--Jerry

 

Jerry,

You might want to repost those thoughts over on the "Pagan stuff" thread (or whatever it's titled). This thread is focusing on the origins of one particular sculpture, and I'd hate to see it get sidetracked.

Thanks,

Mark

 

Jerry,

You move from "it might be a sun-wheel" at the beginning to "it is a sun-wheel" at the end. All you did was offer a quoation on the adoption of pagan practices that become Christianized...you offered no proof for this particular statue, but then stated as a fact at the end that it is pagan.

Tsk tsk. Deceit will get you no where.

 

GraceSaves,

I never said the words you attribute to me.Both at the first and at the end I said that it is a sun wheel.

If you will go to the site where there are numerous of instances depicted of the pagan "sun wheel" there can be no doubt that the thing above the head in the statue is a "sun wheel".

You misquote what I said and then you accuse me of "deceit".

In His grace,--Jerry

 

I apologize for the misquoting and misrepresentation.

My point remains, though, that you move from the simple statement, say a bunch of other things that are not proof, and reassert it as fact, even when you have not proven it. It is a sun-wheel because you think it looks like one (and I have no doubt in my mind that this is not an original conclusion of yours, but you've learned it from elsewhere - this is not the first time I've seen such proclamations).

If Jack Chick or Hislop could, they'd accuse every instance of a circle in a Catholic Church as the work of Satan. I hardly think all circles refer to sun worship.