Wolseley
Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
- Feb 5, 2002
- 21,925
- 6,610
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
And the explanation that it's a Satanic symbol does make sense? This can only mean one of several things:But the explanation about that this inverted cross being the cross on which the Apostle Peter was crucified does not make sense.
A) The inverted cross was used in a Papal Mass out in public because the Vatican is too stupid to know that it's really a Satanic symbol;
B) The inverted cross was used in a Papal Mass out in public because Satan is too stupid to know that it's really a Petrine symbol;
C) The inverted cross was used in a Papal Mass out in public because the Vatican is really controlled by Old Scratch, but they're too stupid to know that displaying the proof out in the open like that will quickly be spotted by clever Christians who will instantly recognize it for what it really is, and thus know what the Catholic Church is really all about (curses, foiled again!).
Oh, please.
I'd like a cite on this, too---which historical records indicate this, Catchup? (Standard bibliographic reference will be fine.)However, historical records indicate that, while Peter was nailed on the cross upside down, the cross was set in the ground just the same upright way that the Roman executioners always set it. In other words, the cross was not inverted! Peter was inverted, not the cross.
They nailed his arms to the horizontal beam okay; the problem were his legs, flopping over the top of the vertical beam at the knee......Hrm, can you explain to me then (given your *ahem* "historical factoids") how Peter's arms were nailed to the cross if the arm-beams were at his feet?
Upvote
0