Da Vinci coda

[duendy]

i have never read te Davinci Code, but have heard about it
lst night therewas a programme on TV about it

3 people went on a 'pilgimage' to visit the sites mentioned in te book, and be challenged by sceptical experts

i mised the first part of the progrmme, but the bit i saw was very revealing on various levels

for exampl, the utter arrogance of so-called experts was there for tose with eyes to see
they went to view the pinting of the :Last Supper.........to Jesus' right is obviously a woman, the pople claimed it was secretly referring to Mary Magdeline.....but thepretnetious art historian with affected mnnerisms of elte knowhood would have none of it....he claimed that leonardo was Queer and liked to put into his work, effeminate figures.....when the three there pointed out that they could see efeminate figures, one or two, in the painting, but the figure next to him defo looked like a woman, te art historian condesendingly made out they were not looking right

The 3 also mentioned te V shape between Jesus nd @Mary' in thepainting. the art historian dick just couldn't dig it at all. he pontificatd thatthey were reading INTO te painting there was a V shape.....if tis shit wasn't bad enough, te programme also kept going to a psychologist who was reviewing the situation between these three 'pilgrims' and the 'experts'.....all his hit was obviously in favour of the experts/autority. he said that the 3 were obviously at odds with autority and were reading what they waned to read into the painting to justify their preconceptions....i was lierally watching all tis wit mouth hanging open, incredulous, tinking 'it is a fuking V for christsakes!!!!!!!! it is you two pretentiou' 'experts' who dont trust what yer eyes is teling you'

then they went to tis catyhedral, and another expert queationed their/the autor's take on the 'Grail'...tis expert was adamant that grail and spear were just what they said, and that the book as just fantasy. tere are no hidden symbolic meanings....silly twat. his manner was very authoritarian. when one of thethree challened his 'learning' he went all stroppy
then we get taken back to the resident psychlogist who 'informs us' how these peopl are not trusting of authority, implying they should be..what a wanker

to ell you the truth, before watching tis, i'd also been very suspicious of all the hulablulloo about tis book, but witnessing those idiots trying to undermine 'ordinary' peoples experience, i have looked at it wit a differnt light

for example, i feel autor goes wrong in his literalistic conclusions....it's hard cquse i aint read it, but i am presuming he is seeing christinity close wit paganism right.......but he fails to see, wit sayt the grail and lance its MUSHROOM symbiolism, which in ancient times was part and parcel with references to glans penises and vulvas!.....yeah? so he only goes half way if that right?

then he claims that 'Jesus' aactually existed...by c;aiming he married another mythical character. this is literalism and the reason i dont take his thesis seriously, but feel he had an inlinking of the symbolism being referrd to, such as references to the female private parts etc

but whateverrrr, he is FAR moe there than tose oter dikeds on tat prog last night. who cant eve trust their own vision, and dont kow about symbolism and how it's used in literature, yet imagine they are SO expert....myyyyyyarrrrrrse

 

[Bells]

It's only a book. As in a work of fiction...

 

[Trilairian]

Leonardo did paint himself into the last supper, but not as Mary Magdalene who sits next to Jesus. He is one of the appostles sitting to the left of Jesus(your right) facing strikingly turned away from Jesus, the next to last one in the beard. There is another shape in the last supper that holds Jesus and Mary in the bottom center. It is a symbol of romantic love, but before I say what it is why don't you all have another look at the last supper painting and see if you can find it for yourselves. I'll point it out if no one else finds it after a while.
<img src="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~lbianco/project/images/Ultima.jpg" width=690 height=275 border=0>
Jesus hand is at the bottom point of the image. Follow the line between his red and blue cloak. On the other sude follow the line of Mary's right arm. At the top, the image is formed by arches over one window and the door in the back ground. Over the window is is more carried by the contrast of light and dark shades where light is more present in the symbols interior.

 

[SkinWalker]

Mary isn't in the painting. John sits at Jesus' right side. If you look at Da Vinci's other works, then you will that Da Vinci always paints John in a very feminine manner.

The Da Vinci code is a fun read of fiction, I enjoyed it -read it in about a day. But it's fiction. Brown lied when he said everything was based on fact.

 

[Trilairian]

Mary isn't in the painting. John sits at Jesus' right side. If you look at Da Vinci's other works, then you will that Da Vinci always paints John in a very feminine manner.

And why do you think he does this? Nevermind, I will tell you. Because he is saying that John the beloved was called the beloved because she was really Mary Magdalene the wife of Jesus.

 

[SkinWalker]

Where's the evidence? Da Vinci hardly lived in the same period as the alleged "Jesus Christ."

There's more evidence that Da Vinci based his paintings on the mythology of the church and, because of his disdain for the church as an institution, decided to have some fun at their expense. Its not as if a painter really had a lot of choice when commissioned to create works for the Church or Church officials then, particularly if he wanted to remain in favorable status.

 

[Trilairian]

Have you seen the symbol yet, yes or no?

 

[SkinWalker]

I see a lot of symbols in this painting. I see various shapes and patterns formed by interconnecting elements within, but then I'm a pattern seeking animal as are all of my genus.

What about some evidence? Do you have any of that or not?

 

[Trilairian]

Fine I'll just show you:
<IMG SRC="http://www.geocities.com/osiris_dionysus1618/Ultima.jpg" WIDTH=566 HEIGHT=233>
As for evidence, I already gave you enough. If you want more, read the davinci-code or do a google search on: +"Mary Magdalene" +wife

 

[SkinWalker]

If you call that evidence, then I can see why you missed the sentence that I wrote which implied that I had already read it.

The "wife of Jesus" nonsense depends on a couple of premises: 1) that Jesus Christ was a real person and, 2) that Picknett and Prince (1998) were correct in their hypothesis that sangreal is really sang real instead of san greal. The former means "royal blood," the later "holy grail." Unfortunately for Picknett & Prince (where Brown "borrowed" much of his work), the term wasn't in use prior to the early Middle Ages.

What has been written about Jesus -indeed EVERYTHING ever written about Jesus (including the NT) was written after Jesus was alleged to have died. The early Christian church was concerned with spreading their "word" at all costs, these costs were often at the expense of other texts -the Christian church burned entire libraries, forever destroying whatever information they contained. In place of these books, the church supplied propaganda designed to justify and validate their positions.

But the Brown version of the story (remember, its a work of fiction...) is completely dependent upon a hoaxed document which alleges that a secret 'Priory of Sion' existed. This was demonstrated to be a hoax created by Pierre Plantard (see Olson and Miesel, 2004). The parchment Planard used to prove this secret society's existence was created in 1956.

References:

Olsen, C.E. & Miesel, S (2004). The Da Vinci Hoax. San Francisco: Ignatius Press

Picknett, L. & Prince, C. (1998) The Templar Revelation. New York: Touchstone.

 

[kenworth]

why does everyone who likes the da vinci code act like the last supper is a picture?its a painting which was completed about 1500 years after jesus died.if i paint an image of muhammed with a hooker in 1500 years are people going to take that as fact?

 

[charles cure]

Mary isn't in the painting. John sits at Jesus' right side. If you look at Da Vinci's other works, then you will that Da Vinci always paints John in a very feminine manner.

The Da Vinci code is a fun read of fiction, I enjoyed it -read it in about a day. But it's fiction. Brown lied when he said everything was based on fact.

i dont think he says that everything is based on fact. i dont think its a great book, but i think in the beginning he says that some of the things in the book are true and gives examples of what they are, like Opus Dei is a real organization, and the Dossiers Secretes are real...etc.

davinci is a truly interesting an enigmatic figure. i think he probably painted anitthetical themes into religious paintings. i think the first version of the virgin of the rocks holds up a lot better under scrutiny as being in line with this premise than does the last supper. the ambiguity between masculine and feminine themes was one of davincis favorite things to add into works of art, as he was almost undoubtedly homosexual or bisexual, im sure this would have seemed to be a funny little kind of inside joke to him. and the confusion deepens in the last supper, because john the beloved was almost always protrayed as a very young and effeminate looking man. when he does paint himself into religious paintings it is almost always in a way where he is looking away from the figure of christ, supposedly symbolizing his lack of faith in the church. he also had a special kind of love for john the baptist and is often thought to have venerated him above jesus christ, a particular twist of faith that the knights templar were also purported to have held. supposedly this stems from the belief that christ in fact stole most of his ideas and followers from john the baptist and then, contrary to bible interpretations, publicly ridiculed him as a false preacher. who knows, all this stuff is really interesting though.

much better reads than the davinci code present a lot more evidence for some of its premises, they include:

the templar revelation
holy blood holy grail
the messianic legacy
the temple and the lodge
jesus the magician
the woman with the alabaster jar
the dead sea scrolls deception
the hiram key
isis unveiled
the secret doctrine
the pagan dream of the renaissance

 

[Trilairian]

The "wife of Jesus" nonsense depends on a couple of premises: 1) that Jesus Christ was a real person and,

No it doesn't. Although I believe that Yeshua and his wife who Jesus and his wife Mary Magdalene were based on were real people, the idea that Jesus and Mary were supposed to have been married in the earliest of Jesus stories does not depend on this. It is Gnostic tradition which is about as early a Jesus story as we can find and it corresponds to the Osiris-Horus/Isis story on which the Jesus religion is ultimately based.

2) that Picknett and Prince (1998) were correct in their hypothesis that sangreal is really sang real instead of san greal. The former means "royal blood," the later "holy grail." Unfortunately for Picknett & Prince (where Brown "borrowed" much of his work), the term wasn't in use prior to the early Middle Ages.

No, although they were correct one need not assume this, as the marriage was a part of a Christian tradition that predates the Sang real term.

Yeshua and his wife set themselves up as Horus and Isis/Meri, but even if you don't want to believe that Yeshua and his wife were real people that doesn't change the fact that the Jesus story should have them married in correspondence with the Osiris-Horus and Isis paagan religions on which it is based.

 

[SkinWalker]

i dont think he says that everything is based on fact. i dont think its a great book, but i think in the beginning he says that some of the things in the book are true and gives examples of what they are, like Opus Dei is a real organization, and the Dossiers Secretes are real...etc.

Brown says on his own website, "...the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist..." and these words are echoed in the preface of the book. And much of it is true. But the story, as Brown tells it, depends upon the hoaxed Pierre Plantard document that created the "Priory of Sion" (see Olson and Miesel above).

davinci is a truly interesting an enigmatic figure.

Indeed. I've always held Da Vinci as one of my favorite characters and have tried to emulate some of his characteristics (though I fall miserably short) in my life.

the ambiguity between masculine and feminine themes was one of davincis favorite things to add into works of art,

He refered to it as "sfumato." But it applied to other things as well as androgeny. The Mona Lisa, for instance... her expression is very much in the sfumato style.

much better reads than the davinci code present a lot more evidence for some of its premises, they include:

the templar revelation
holy blood holy grail

I've not read the rest, but these two I have. They, too, rely too much on false premises, particularly with regard to the Plantard Hoax.

 

[SkinWalker]

No it doesn't. Although I believe that Yeshua and his wife who Jesus and his wife Mary Magdalene were based on were real people,

Believing it and being able to prove it are two different things. The notion that Jesus had a spouse does, indeed, depend upon whether or not Jesus actually existed. Simply believing he did doesn't validate him.

It is Gnostic tradition which is about as early a Jesus story as we can find and it corresponds to the Osiris-Horus/Isis story on which the Jesus religion is ultimately based.

For those of this thread & forum not familiar with Egyptian mythology, let me capsulate it:

Isis was the sister & wife to Osirus, who's brother was Seth. In a feud remaniscent of the OT's Cain & Abel story, Seth killed Osirus and Isis fled with her son, Horus. Isis protected Horus who grew up to become King.

"Throughout the 4000 years of Egyptian history every Pharaoh was the incarnation of the youthful Horus, and therefore the son of Isis, the Goddess Mother who had suckled and reared him. At death ... as Osiris he held sway over 'Those Yonder' in the shadowy kingdom of the dead.'" (Witt 1997)

Below is a Roman conceptualization of Isis with Horus circa 20 BCE

This and other Egyptian mythology points to an Egyptian/pagan origin of the Jesus myth. This would indicate that, since Jesus is myth/legend, that so, too, is the "marriage" of Jesus to Mary Magdeline.

If the Jesus story is based on the Osirus/Horus/Isis myth, then Jesus is certainly a myth. The Egyptian version dates back to predynastic Egypt. Moreover, the "Mary" of the story is Isis, Horus' mother.

No, although they were correct one need not assume this, as the marriage was a part of a Christian tradition that predates the Sang real term.

Then the "sang term" can be discarded altogether, eh?

Yeshua and his wife set themselves up as Horus and Isis/Meri, but even if you don't want to believe that Yeshua and his wife were real people that doesn't change the fact that the Jesus story should have them married in correspondence with the Osiris-Horus and Isis paagan religions on which it is based.

Isis and Horus were mother and son. Osirus was the father, slain by Seth and "resurrected" by Isis.

Every pharoh was considered to be the reincarnate Horus and son of Osirus and Isis. A "holy trinity."

The Da Vinci Code is bollocks. A fun read... good fiction. But as something to look at factually it is a load of bollocks.


Reference:

Witt, R.E. (1997) Isis in the Ancient World. The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD

 

[Trilairian]

Believing it and being able to prove it are two different things. The notion that Jesus had a spouse does, indeed, depend upon whether or not Jesus actually existed.

No it doesn't. Ask anyone whether Santa Claus is married.

If the Jesus story is based on the Osirus/Horus/Isis myth, then Jesus is certainly a myth.

That doesn't follow. If there was a Yeshua that set himself up as Horus after the myth and so became Yes-us/Jesus then Jesus being based on the myth does not imply Yeshua never existed.

Moreover, the "Mary" of the story is Isis, Horus' mother.

AND WIFE, which I explained before and you must have missed. Meh/Meri's identity was absoarbed into Isis who was wife of Osiris and mother of Horus. Since Horus was the reincarnated Osiris she was not only his mother, but also his wife. It was the majic of Isis that ressurected Osiris so to look for what figures represent her one would be the mother of Jesus Mary and the other would be his wife who would be first to see him ressurected and that was Mary his wife, Mary Magdalene. Its no coincidence that in the story they both share the same name.

 

[SkinWalker]

And here I thought it was because "Mary" was a common name... like Juan in Texas.

 

[duendy]

myth makes no sense literalized

to claim 'Jesus' married a 'Mary'.....and had kids. so what? what does that historical 'fact'mDo for me as a human being on planet Earth?....nuthin. it becomes the news dosn't it. the fact becomes historical process

myth properly understood however is now when bfore after...ispointing to an expanding present which is both in time and eternal

As i said, like many similar autors who go on about Jesus and the dead sea scrolls and lineage etc tc, yet usully fail to mention te mushroom connection.......propbably Leonardo did to. more taken in by the emphasis on mythical 'subversive' allusions to the feminine sexual part ala the Goddess

Well sorry to ess up yer safe little worlds you'll but la Mushroom will simply NOT go away....it is alays connected with te Goddess in myth, both positively from the Goddess perspective and negatively and/or appropriated by 'God' in tepatriarchal interpretation

the EXPERIENCE of la Mushroom is what connects all myth in an expanding present
of Deep Experience

 

[charles cure]

Brown says on his own website, "...the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist..." and these words are echoed in the preface of the book. And much of it is true. But the story, as Brown tells it, depends upon the hoaxed Pierre Plantard document that created the "Priory of Sion" (see Olson and Miesel above).

hes right, he didnt lie, all of that stuff does exist. i dont see where you think he lied. the priory of sion is proveable in the way that there is original, primary source documentation pointing to its existence in the 11th century. what their motives and actiuons were are the subject of speculation the modern priory of sion is what is thought to be a hoax and has been proved or disproved with dubious results on both sides.




He refered to it as "sfumato." But it applied to other things as well as androgeny. The Mona Lisa, for instance... her expression is very much in the sfumato style.

sfumato is an italian word that means "smoke" if im not mistaken. my understanding is that this refers to the quality of the brushstrokes and the way the images can appear as if they were under a very light haze or fog. i dont know that it has anything to do with the deliberate sexual ambiguity of some of his subjects but thats an interesting thought. do you have anything i could read about that?



I've not read the rest, but these two I have. They, too, rely too much on false premises, particularly with regard to the Plantard Hoax

i dont agree with that. neither of those books come to a concrete conclusion on whether the priory of sion exists or not. holy blood holy grail for one attempts to determine the authenticity of some of the documents in the dossiers secretes as they relate to a "real" priory of sion if there is one today, and they then attempt to present some evidence that certain alternatives to accepted christian history were possible if not proveable in their entireity. the templar revelation i think departs from reliance on the significance of the priory even further than hbhg. just my opinion, but i have read both books several times and in the case of hbhg all of the authors' related works that i could find.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

i dont think he says that everything is based on fact. i dont think its a great book, but i think in the beginning he says that some of the things in the book are true and gives examples of what they are, like Opus Dei is a real organization, and the Dossiers Secretes are real...etc.

davinci is a truly interesting an enigmatic figure. i think he probably painted anitthetical themes into religious paintings. i think the first version of the virgin of the rocks holds up a lot better under scrutiny as being in line with this premise than does the last supper. the ambiguity between masculine and feminine themes was one of davincis favorite things to add into works of art, as he was almost undoubtedly homosexual or bisexual, im sure this would have seemed to be a funny little kind of inside joke to him. and the confusion deepens in the last supper, because john the beloved was almost always protrayed as a very young and effeminate looking man. when he does paint himself into religious paintings it is almost always in a way where he is looking away from the figure of christ, supposedly symbolizing his lack of faith in the church. he also had a special kind of love for john the baptist and is often thought to have venerated him above jesus christ, a particular twist of faith that the knights templar were also purported to have held. supposedly this stems from the belief that christ in fact stole most of his ideas and followers from john the baptist and then, contrary to bible interpretations, publicly ridiculed him as a false preacher. who knows, all this stuff is really interesting though.

much better reads than the davinci code present a lot more evidence for some of its premises, they include:

the templar revelation
holy blood holy grail
the messianic legacy
the temple and the lodge
jesus the magician
the woman with the alabaster jar
the dead sea scrolls deception
the hiram key
isis unveiled
the secret doctrine
the pagan dream of the renaissance

*************
M*W: You have clearly researched this topic as have I. I believe the "secret" Sauniere took to his grave was that Jesus didn't exist, or if he existed, he didn't die, although this is contrary to the legend. After all the diggings, nothing has been found. On his deathbed, Sauniere was not given extreme unction. It had to be something he said.