Perhaps just snippets showing the visual difference they refer to; would be interesting to view the development. Good idea.I can try scan the chapters from both books if you are interested.
Perhaps just snippets showing the visual difference they refer to; would be interesting to view the development. Good idea.I can try scan the chapters from both books if you are interested.
It's an interesting question I think, and I suppose there's a few things we can probably deduce right off.What was the intended original purpose behind their construction? Did the elaborate, coloured floral shaped windows have any functional significance other than aesthetics? Similarly, did the great organs have anything significant to do with resonance other than playing loud music?
I am reminded of how during the French Revolution, they turned Notre Dame in Paris from a cathedral to a "temple of reason"Could it be along the current modern lines of Renaissance = a type of Wokism with man at the center of the universe, a supposed “freedom from God” whereas Gothic = traditional, classical conservative spiritual values?
That's the ingrained concept and definition we have today and I'm questioning it. Was it ever something else, I have to wander.Cathedrals were perhaps the symbol of the connection of the rulers with god,
Since the title is cathedrals and churches I think it’s best to limit the scope to that. If temples from BC are included, it would tend to water down the investigation, I think, and I don’t see the original idea of this thread as going back that far.The answer to your questions requires some study. All resources are on Archive.org.
Re: Re Fomenko and History books, irrespective of how one looks at 'it', buildings were constructed, in Christian architecture, Byzantine architecture and Romanesque architecture before the Gothic architecture. As far as Roman architecture as a somewhat pinnacle of sorts one should start at least a couple of thousand years earlier, in the B.C. era with the Greek architecture.
Atlantean energy conduits? But, what we see now are just the spires. The rest is underground, and put there by the massive mud floods made with the secret Lemurian weapon?That's the ingrained concept and definition we have today and I'm questioning it. Was it ever something else, I have to wander.
If we didn't lough about our state of affairs, we'd go crazy, right? Gotta have some fun while learning.Atlantean energy conduits? But, what we see now are just the spires. The rest is underground, and put there by the massive mud floods made with the secret Lemurian weapon?
I think it is important to remember why, in the USA, they were so adamant about the separation of church and state. Monarchies ruled by the "divine right of kings". It was a tag team relationship between the church and the state...a two-headed behemoth before which all had to bow down, one way or another. The monarchies ("l'etat") derived their legitimacy from the church and the church got heavily involved in secular power politics. The church and state were two power hungry heavy-weights that worked together against "we the people", but often wrestled for power, forming various alliances, playing favorites, fighting wars etc. So the story goes.It's an interesting question I think, and I suppose there's a few things we can probably deduce right off.
Cathedrals were perhaps the symbol of the connection of the rulers with god, which many probably felt had abandoned them, they were also sources of monetary exchange, and reasons to visit a town which has it's own monetary benefit, even to this day we visit countries and towns because of their architectural beauty.
That's a good point, and going back to the initial question I suppose that cathedrals would have been a building, whether by design or accident, where a certain energy was concentrated by human activity and their focus.I think it is important to remember why, in the USA, they were so adamant about the separation of church and state. Monarchies ruled by the "divine right of kings". It was a tag team relationship between the church and the state...a two-headed behemoth before which all had to bow down, one way or another. The monarchies ("l'etat") derived their legitimacy from the church and the church got heavily involved in secular power politics. The church and state were two power hungry heavy-weights that worked together against "we the people", but often wrestled for power, forming various alliances, playing favorites, fighting wars etc. So the story goes.
I totally agree. I did not mean to suggest that the cathedrals were a locus of power politics. I agree with Fulcanellis point (and yours) that the cathedrals themselves express something divine and awesome. Once again it becomes a matter of juggling what we actually see versus the narratives. And it seems there are large parts of the narratives that are just missing.I must also say that there's another aspect to most cathedrals, medieval cathedrals, that I have visited, and the incredible amount of human beauty to be found in them is almost overwhelming. I think JPB mentioned it once, how the beauty of these amazing buildings were a testament to the incredible conscious effort of many human beings. So there's that as well.
Here's a somewhat "iconic" Roman style cathedral in France (wikipedia Le Puy Cathedral), built in an early christianized location.Perhaps posting a few pics of these stylistic differences
Yesterday I was near Trabes and took a monument to step into one of the many local churches in this city.Perhaps posting a few pics of these stylistic differences (which may also reflect psychic and other differences) would be a nice service. It does seem like there are style categories that may or may not relate to time periods as well.
Eglise Sainte-Thérèse de Tarbes interiorLa nouvelle église a été inaugurée en juillet 1845, elle devient alors église paroissiale et c'est à cette date qu'elle change de nom pour passer d'église des Carmes à église Sainte Thérèse d'Avila.L'église actuelle correspond à l'église de l'ancien couvent des Carmes de Tarbes fondé en mars 1280. La première église, dont sont issues la majeure partie des façades, a fait l'objet d’importants travaux à la suite de plusieurs incendies. Les réseaux de pierre des baies du chevet en témoignent, mais également une fenêtre géminée en façade ouest, inscrite dans la rose initiale.Après la Révolution l'église est transformée en magasin à fourrage. A ce titre, une porte est ouverte en 1838 dans la façade Nord, provoquant l'effondrement de cette dernière. Après ce sinistre, l’église est reconstruite en mars 1845.Malgré de nombreuses transformations, l’édifice actuel présente une grande homogénéité, laquelle résulte de l’adjonction soignée des ouvrages reconstruits sur les parties médiévales conservées.L'édifice est inscrit au titre des monuments historiques le 27 février 19461.
Indeed, which perhaps leads to the possibility that cathedrals can be a tool, beautifully constructed but like any other tool their use may change from time to time depending on who wields them.I totally agree. I did not mean to suggest that the cathedrals were a locus of power politics. I agree with Fulcanellis point (and yours) that the cathedrals themselves express something divine and awesome. Once again it becomes a matter of juggling what we actually see versus the narratives. And it seems there are large parts of the narratives that are just missing.
Yup. If you're not in the club of groupthink, and they are numerous, you will remain unsuccessful; whatever that really means.we can't expect any revelation from archeology anymore. All is already categorized, they aren't interested in discovering new things, just corroborating and never questionning what has been established before