The real "code," but was it Da Vinci's?

[Theoryofrelativity]

Hey Circe, where's you get that picture of Madonna on the Rocks? When I look it up on the internet, most pictures don't have the girl on the right pointing a finger, onle one does.

Finger pointing: http://www.artchive.com/artchive/l/leonardo/leonardo_virgin.jpg


Hand down: http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/disksite/pages/madonna.html

One is also missing halos and baby John's staff. Not to mention in one, the girl's cloak is completely different. Not just the (restored?) coloring, but look at the left shoulder. Baby Jesus also has hair in one but not the other.

Which is DaVinci's?

- N

My understanding based on documentary I saw is there is ONLY one painting.
The one on display is the second one, the first picture is taken from the underdrawing of that. I presume it's a reconstruction of how the painting should have looked? The underdrawing was discovered by Dr Maurizio Seracini using ultrasound.
At least this is what I saw in the documentary.

 

[charles cure]

Eeeeeeee Gads, I watched a documentary about this book and the mystery of how it fooled thousands and the trickery employed by the author to do so!

I could write a book about me and write about the famous group known as the 'Brownies' and mention the group known as the 'zulu warriors' real groups but I wasn't a member of either. EVERY book ever written contains genuine facts as nothing would make sense, ie trees are generally described as green leafy not blue stringy! They may include real street names, real groups, real historical facts etc etc doesn't make the plot real!

This plot is NOT real and DOES NOT claim to be. It's all in your heads. Cor makes a nice change being on this side of the fence

You want proof here is the authors website

http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html

THE AUTHORS OWN WORDS

"The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations. My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history.

BUT DOESN'T THE NOVEL'S "FACT" PAGE CLAIM THAT EVERY SINGLE WORD IN THIS NOVEL IS HISTORICAL FACT?
If you read the "FACT" page, you will see it clearly states that the documents, rituals, organization, artwork, and architecture in the novel all exist. The "FACT" page makes no statement whatsoever about any of the ancient theories discussed by fictional characters. Interpreting those ideas is left to the reader.

IS THIS BOOK ANTI-CHRISTIAN?
No. This book is not anti-anything. It's a novel. I wrote this story in an effort to explore certain aspects of Christian history that interest me. The vast majority of devout Christians understand this fact and consider The Da Vinci Code an entertaining story that promotes spiritual discussion and debate. Even so, a small but vocal group of individuals has proclaimed the story dangerous, heretical, and anti-Christian. While I regret having offended those individuals, I should mention that priests, nuns, and clergy contact me all the time to thank me for writing the novel. Many church officials are celebrating The Da Vinci Code because it has sparked renewed interest in important topics of faith and Christian history. It is important to remember that a reader does not have to agree with every word in the novel to use the book as a positive catalyst for introspection and exploration of our faith.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF CLERICAL SCHOLARS ATTEMPTING TO "DISPROVE" THE DA VINCI CODE?
The dialogue is wonderful. These authors and I obviously disagree, but the debate that is being generated is a positive powerful force. The more vigorously we debate these topics, the better our understanding of our own spirituality. Controversy and dialogue are healthy for religion as a whole. Religion has only one true enemy--apathy--and passionate debate is a superb antidote.

PARTS OF THE DA VINCI CODE DESCRIBE THE ACTIVITIES OF THE RELIGIOUS GROUP OPUS DEI. HOW DOES OPUS DEI FEEL ABOUT YOUR NOVEL?
I worked very hard to create a fair and balanced depiction of Opus Dei. Even so, there may be those who are offended by the portrayal. While Opus Dei is a very positive force in the lives of many people, for others, affiliation with Opus Dei has been a profoundly negative experience. Their portrayal in the novel is based on numerous books written about Opus Dei as well as on my own personal interviews with current and former members.

SOME OF THE HISTORY IN THIS NOVEL CONTRADICTS WHAT I LEARNED IN SCHOOL. WHAT SHOULD I BELIEVE?
Since the beginning of recorded time, history has been written by the "winners" (those societies and belief systems that conquered and survived). Despite an obvious bias in this accounting method, we still measure the "historical accuracy" of a given concept by examining how well it concurs with our existing historical record. Many historians now believe (as do I) that in gauging the historical accuracy of a given concept, we should first ask ourselves a far deeper question: How historically accurate is history itself?

ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN?
Yes. ......... "

try paying attention to what i said. we all know the novel is ficticious, but that doesn't mean there are no facts in it. what you seem to be saying is that because it is fiction, the basic premise of it cannot be true. wrong. there is a whole group of people that find the basic premise of the DaVinci code - that jesus had a wife, mary magdalen, and that the church has suppressed evidence or mention of this for many years - to be accurate. some of these people have felt this way long before the DaVinci code was ever conceived, hundreds of years in fact. today, these people rely on their own sets of evidence to corroborate their belief, much of which is far more convincing than any evidence that has ever been offered up to corroborate the bible's portrayal of jesus. thats what i was saying, dan brown wove a fictional story around some factual guideposts. that is indisputable. lots of the documentaries and other trash hopping on the DaVinci code debunker bandwagon are even more inaccurate than the book itself.

 

[charles cure]

My understanding based on documentary I saw is there is ONLY one painting.
The one on display is the second one, the first picture is taken from the underdrawing of that. I presume it's a reconstruction of how the painting should have looked? The underdrawing was discovered by Dr Maurizio Seracini using ultrasound.
At least this is what I saw in the documentary.

the first painting - the madonna of the rocks that was originally done for the confraternatiy of the immaculate conception in milan still exists. its in the louvre. it was rejected by the patrons and leonardo kept it. he then did a revised version of it where he presumably took out whatever it was that the confraternity found unacceptable. that painting now hangs in the national gallery in london. as far as i have ever heard, that painting is definitely davincis work, but certain elements of it, such as the cross that is held by jesus are the later additions of a different artist. parts of the second madonna of the rocks probably were painted by a different artist. in those days, works that were of less significance or of lesser interest to the artist were often farmed out to different apprentices and trainees who worked in the artist's studio. it is often suspected that the master has only done a minimal amount of work and fine tuning to the painting that is attributed to him in works both before and after this period.

as far as i knew, the only significantly different underpaintign found in any of davincis works was the one found beneath the adoration of the magi.

 

[Circe]

the fact that it is the school of athens though, makes your comparison even less relevant, especially considering the fact that the area of the painting you chose to compare to DaVinci's madonna of the rocks is not the focal point of the work. it is to the far right of center in the painting and typically when employing symbolism in a work, an artist will either place the significant symbols in or around the "center of attention" so that they are prominent and have a high probability of being noticed by someone who can understand them, or the entire work is symbolic and interwoven throughout with symbols supporting the true message of the work

I disagree. To those who know where to look, and what to look for, no matter how subtle the symbols, they will always stand out. For example, you may not notice anything unusual in the van Eyck's Ghent Altarpiece, however Albrecht Durer who was taught certain things by Luca Pacioli, did. Conversely, to "the uninitiated" symbolism even in plain sight is meaningless.

I pretty much agree with what you're saying about Leonardo and John the Baptist, though.

you may find splenty of symbolism in the works of other artists, but you don't often find symbolism that apparently flies in the face of accepted doctrine and possibly indicates an alternative truth. that is what differentiates davincis symbolism from that of others.

I beg to differ and I repeat: there were others.


Btw, Raphael has Euclid drawing a pentagram (School of Athens) which is, as some say, also very much linked with da Vinci.

 

[charles cure]

Btw, Raphael has Euclid drawing a pentagram (School of Athens) which is, as some say, also very much linked with da Vinci.

yeah, but that's not symbolism, it accuracy. euclid was a pagan. its not a pentagram he's drawing - its a pentacle and it has all kinds of positive connotations in the ancient world. a pentagram is what it turned into after the christians co-opted pagan symbols as signs of the devil and demons in order to paint paganism as evil and destructive so that people would be scared of the rituals and traditions of certain pagan sects, therfore making them obselete or dead belief systems.

 

[charles cure]

I beg to differ and I repeat: there were others.

i'm not saying there weren't others, both before and after. poussain is a good example, botticelli, bosch, plenty of them. in large part, what the symbols mean is up to interpretation. the thing about the madonna of the rocks however, is that you have corroborating evidence as to the nature of the symbolism. the evidence consists of the fact that the confraternity of the immaculate conception rejected his painting when he was already a well-known painter, and asked him to do a different version of it because they didn't feel that the original was appropriate. in addition, the surviving second version of the madonna of the rocks that the confraternity did accept shows obvious alterations. the difference between the two paintings is what is meaningful in terms of the symbolism, because presumably davinci had to take out what was deemed unacceptable. thats pretty unique in the world of art.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

try paying attention to what i said. we all know the novel is ficticious, but that doesn't mean there are no facts in it. what you seem to be saying is that because it is fiction, the basic premise of it cannot be true. wrong. there is a whole group of people that find the basic premise of the DaVinci code - that jesus had a wife, mary magdalen, and that the church has suppressed evidence or mention of this for many years - to be accurate. .

OF COURSE Jesus was a real man and of course it is possible he therefore has a blood line...so what? Don't all atheists here and a lot of non Christian thesits accept that already? Where is the mystery in conceiving Jesus was not the son of God?

Meanwhile re arguing about the possibility of a code relating to this in Da Vinci's paintings: I am saying to you that the author got this idea NOT from any evidence of any codes but from the scientist who studied his work. IT was AN idea. NOT based on fact. The DA Vinci code is fiction and NOT fact and never claims to be. So when people here discuss codes in relation to DaVinci they are discussing fiction. Many parts of book may be based in fact the Da Vinic code is NOT.

The ideas in the book re Jesus bloodline are NOT original, they were discussed in an earlier book. Do you think Jesus was the son of God? No. Therefore no real 'unveiling' of truth in the book is there? Thought provoking , interesting but nonetheless there is NO DA Vinci code in real life. You may find a text somewhere that has a base in fact ie Dead sea scrolls?

http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/educational_site/dead_sea_scrolls/

but not in these paintings.

 

[MetaKron]

A fascinating thought about this is that what someone knows and believes imprints itself on what he does. The code is there not because someone tried to write a secret message. It is his mental fingerprint, his pattern of associations, so that when you try to read it like a cryptogram, you might get consistent results. Here is a good idea for a science fiction story, I think.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

the first painting - the madonna of the rocks that was originally done for the confraternatiy of the immaculate conception in milan still exists. its in the louvre. it was rejected by the patrons and leonardo kept it. he then did a revised version of it where he presumably took out whatever it was that the confraternity found unacceptable. that painting now hangs in the national gallery in london. as far as i have ever heard, that painting is definitely davincis work, but certain elements of it, such as the cross that is held by jesus are the later additions of a different artist. parts of the second madonna of the rocks probably were painted by a different artist. in those days, works that were of less significance or of lesser interest to the artist were often farmed out to different apprentices and trainees who worked in the artist's studio. it is often suspected that the master has only done a minimal amount of work and fine tuning to the painting that is attributed to him in works both before and after this period.

as far as i knew, the only significantly different underpaintign found in any of davincis works was the one found beneath the adoration of the magi.

*************
M*W: The Madonna of the Rocks famously portrays a penis and vagina in the background of the painting. Da Vinci painted this as a mockery to the Church. There were other clues in this and other Da Vinci paintings, but I believe both versions contained the same background even though there were significant changes in the forefront of the paintings like missing haloes, cross, and the hands of Mary or Elizabeth were somewhat exaggerated looking claw-like. The question of who was Jesus and who was JtB was also riddle-like.

 

[charles cure]

OF COURSE Jesus was a real man and of course it is possible he therefore has a blood line...so what? Don't all atheists here and a lot of non Christian thesits accept that already? Where is the mystery in conceiving Jesus was not the son of God?

first off, the world already knows where jesus's divinity comes from - the council of nicea in 325 ad. its that simple, everybody disagreed about it before that, there was never any evidence to prove he was divine, legend was turned into fact in order to minimize growing chaos in the roman empire and lend to christianity a commonality with pagan religions who believed in a dying/rising man god. if jesus had a bloodline, then the whole idea of celibacy as virtue propogated by paul goes down the drain. the churches legacy of misogyny would become a hideous atrocity based on a misinterpretation of history rather than a venerable christian tradition. in addition to that, in the unlikely event that jesus was actually divine, if he had a bloodline that still exists today, that would mean that his existing relatives are demi-gods with powers that far supercede that of the papacy and would overthrow whatever power the temporal church has over christian societies. that to me seems like a reason for suppressing any mention of all of this and attempting to misinform or misdirect public knowledge about the issue in any way possible. but you go on thinking it wouldn't be a big deal if you want.

Meanwhile re arguing about the possibility of a code relating to this in Da Vinci's paintings: I am saying to you that the author got this idea NOT from any evidence of any codes but from the scientist who studied his work. IT was AN idea. NOT based on fact. The DA Vinci code is fiction and NOT fact and never claims to be. So when people here discuss codes in relation to DaVinci they are discussing fiction. Many parts of book may be based in fact the Da Vinic code is NOT.

what kind of evidence do you need for the code? the paintings still exist, and as art, their messages are subjective and open to interpretation. the school of thought suggesting that DaVinci's paintings could be interpreted in the way they are in the DaVinci code is real. the interpretations are made from the actual objects. that, taken together with what is known about Davinci's life, his attention to detail, his flagrant disregard for church dogma, his obsessive planning, his penchant for "practical jokes", and his apparent veneration of john the baptist at every possible opportunity all coalesce to solidly support the theory that DaVinci used what could be seen as "subversive" symbolism in his paintings to great effect. however, no one at all has said that these symbols constitute some coherent message or directions or anything else. even in the DaVinci code, a big part of whats included in that title is the fact that in the story, codes are written on the DaVinci paintings in the louvre by someone else. that part is clearly fiction, but to say that it is a total falsehood that DaVinci's works could be interpreted as contianing heretical symbolism is ludicrous, especially when you take into consideration that there is no proof at all that he didn't include that type of imagery in his paintings either. so no, its not fact, but it is a valid appraisal of some artistic works, and its also a viewpoint that is gaining both respect and popularity.

The ideas in the book re Jesus bloodline are NOT original, they were discussed in an earlier book. Do you think Jesus was the son of God? No. Therefore no real 'unveiling' of truth in the book is there? Thought provoking , interesting but nonetheless there is NO DA Vinci code in real life. You may find a text somewhere that has a base in fact ie Dead sea scrolls but not in these paintings.

the ideas have been around far longer than any modern books. people have believed that jesus's divinity was a hoax for as long as christianity has existed.
by the way how is it that you think the dead sea scrolls have any more validity than the DaVinci code? all they are is different versions of stories found in the bible. they are interpretations of events, much like DaVinci's "code" issues forth from interpretations of his paintings. the gnostic gospels, the bible, the dead sea scrolls - they are all legends from an ancient world, like greek or norse mythology, only in this case, some of the material happens to disagree. 1,000 years from now, when christianity is a dead religion, humans will look back at our foolish divisions over whether jesus was divine or not and call us primitive and ignorant.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Speculation and subjective interpretation. HOPING something is there, believing something is there. No evidence anything is there. Who does that remind me of.....................? Theists??

The most your symbolic references can conclude is that DaVinci was anti church, anti christianity.

i'm not saying there weren't others, both before and after. poussain is a good example, botticelli, bosch, plenty of them. in large part, what the symbols mean is up to interpretation. the thing about the madonna of the rocks however, is that you have corroborating evidence as to the nature of the symbolism. the evidence consists of the fact that the confraternity of the immaculate conception rejected his painting when he was already a well-known painter, and asked him to do a different version of it because they didn't feel that the original was appropriate. in addition, the surviving second version of the madonna of the rocks that the confraternity did accept shows obvious alterations. the difference between the two paintings is what is meaningful in terms of the symbolism, because presumably davinci had to take out what was deemed unacceptable. thats pretty unique in the world of art.

CC Artists changing their work is NOT unique, art being studied so these changes are apparrant is uniqe, it's a new field and was pioneered by Dr Seracini, it's very new still. It took 2yrs to fully piece together the underdrawing of that picture to see what DaVinci's original painting was intended to be, not something anyone can afford to devote time or money to re every painting in the galleries across the world. VERY expensive process.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

I can't believe you are still talking about this Da Vinci code as if its real, as you say to theists, where is your evidence....peer reviewed papers? Scientific review? Objective study? There is NIL to demonstrate Da Vinci doing anything different to any other hot headed artist and putting some of his own views into his work, so he was an atheist...so what.

I'm wondering why this isn't in the art and culture thread. It's a good art & culture read, but does nothing to add to any religious revelations.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

1,000 years from now, when christianity is a dead religion, humans will look back at our foolish divisions over whether jesus was divine or not and call us primitive and ignorant.

Of course, just like we think peoples of 1000 yrs ago were primitive and ignorant. They'll be having a bit of a laugh too no doubt at how an author persuaded a large population that there are hidden codes in paintings .............even though he stated it was a work of fiction. pretty primitive too

It seems atheist or theist, human nature dictates we want MORE than what is on offer, and will look for it and 'make it so' even when there is nothing to see.

I see symbolism in many things, and guess what? I am called a crack pot
It's nice to NOT be alone anymore

 

[charles cure]

I can't believe you are still talking about this Da Vinci code as if its real, as you say to theists, where is your evidence....peer reviewed papers? Scientific review? Objective study? There is NIL to demonstrate Da Vinci doing anything different to any other hot headed artist and putting some of his own views into his work, so he was an atheist...so what.

I'm wondering why this isn't in the art and culture thread. It's a good art & culture read, but does nothing to add to any religious revelations.

you have a problem with reading for comprehension. in fact it seems like you skim my posts and then write whatever your opinion is anyway. first of all, what i said is that the DaVinci code is an idea, and one that can be supported with at least some type of evidence. i didn't imply that it was the truth beyond refutation, or that it was so significant that people ought to stop what they are doing and try to figure it out. i'm saying that its clear that DaVinci put some of his own ideas into his works. those ideas apparently ran contrary to religious dogma. this at the very least begs the question - why did he do it? what did a genius like DaVinci know that led him to disrespect the church in this way? i think these questions should be explored and that interpreting his paintings is part of that exploration. what you seem to be doing is writing the whole thing off as useless because no one is 100% certain or in total agreement that the "code" exists. well, research and study of this kind is how people discover truth and gain a better understanding of the scope, relevance, and probable accuracy of their own beliefs. i think that is a great thing. the fact that it may eventually shed light on the numerous flaws of catholicism is also exciting to me, since i consider it to be one of the most damaging forces at work in the world over the course of the last 2000 years. there it is. so what if the DaVinci code is fiction, why get angry about it? is it maybe because the popularity of the christian religion itself represents the ability of a ficticious document to have an enduring hold over the hearts, minds, and beliefs of billions of people? is that what makes dan browns book so threatening?

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

you have a problem with reading for comprehension. in fact it seems like you skim my posts and then write whatever your opinion is anyway. first of all, what i said is that the DaVinci code is an idea, and one that can be supported with at least some type of evidence. i didn't imply that it was the truth beyond refutation, or that it was so significant that people ought to stop what they are doing and try to figure it out. i'm saying that its clear that DaVinci put some of his own ideas into his works. those ideas apparently ran contrary to religious dogma. this at the very least begs the question - why did he do it? what did a genius like DaVinci know that led him to disrespect the church in this way? i think these questions should be explored and that interpreting his paintings is part of that exploration. what you seem to be doing is writing the whole thing off as useless because no one is 100% certain or in total agreement that the "code" exists. well, research and study of this kind is how people discover truth and gain a better understanding of the scope, relevance, and probable accuracy of their own beliefs. i think that is a great thing. the fact that it may eventually shed light on the numerous flaws of catholicism is also exciting to me, since i consider it to be one of the most damaging forces at work in the world over the course of the last 2000 years. there it is. so what if the DaVinci code is fiction, why get angry about it? is it maybe because the popularity of the christian religion itself represents the ability of a ficticious document to have an enduring hold over the hearts, minds, and beliefs of billions of people? is that what makes dan browns book so threatening?

If I didn't know better I'd think a theist wrote this

meanwhile you say:
" I'm saying that its clear that DaVinci put some of his own ideas into his works. those ideas apparently ran contrary to religious dogma. this at the very least begs the question - why did he do it?"

Because he was atheist? Atheism is not a new invention. Chruch dogma annoyed him the way it does you? (me too)

If you were asked to paint by the church, I am sure you'd put some of your own 'flavour' and 'views' in there. Programmers put codes (pictures) on chips they install in pc's and software etc. Artists do this! It's nbt new. You spend a long time doing something you have a little poke and laugh at your employer.

I watched the film, loved it, love the idea of these secret sects. Never thought Jesus was anything other than mortal man and that is without any teaching either way. Common sense dictates that one. Deffinately like to think there some truth in it, but re Da Vinci knowing all this, hiding codes in his paintings..nope. NO evidence whatsoever. As i said all this symbolism demonstrates is he didn't respect the church too much and was atheist.

 

[charles cure]

CC Artists changing their work is NOT unique, art being studied so these changes are apparrant is uniqe, it's a new field and was pioneered by Dr Seracini, it's very new still. It took 2yrs to fully piece together the underdrawing of that picture to see what DaVinci's original painting was intended to be, not something anyone can afford to devote time or money to re every painting in the galleries across the world. VERY expensive process.

it is unique considering that you have both versions of the same painting still in existence, and can compare them to one another to see what is obviously different. the second madonna of the rocks, most likely painted by DaVinci and several other artists, is indicitive of what the church expected from him in terms of a work of art that would serve to reinforce faith. this implise that the ways in which it differs from the first one are significant because the symbolism contained within the first were deemed inappropriate. why? the two paintings are so clearly alike in terms of composition that it is difficult to tell what exactly would have caused the confraternity of the immaculate conception to reject it as unfit for display in their church. this begs comparative analysis of the two in order to determine what the significant differences in symbolism are.
regardless of what the underpainting for the second madonna may have been, that doesn't eliminate the fact that as a finished product, when compared to the still existing first version, it lacks some specific symbolism.
the fact that both versions of this painting still exist, the knowledge of the circumstances that required the second version to even be produced at all, and the clear differences in composition between the accepted one and the rejected one constitute a unique set of circumstances.

 

[Enterprise-D]

***POSSIBLE SPOILER***
The DaVinci code was not named for something Da Vinci DID with regards to religion...the code is what some underground folks called the Priory of Sion assembled USING works of Leonardo. It was meant as a string of clues leading to their secret. Also...further to that the murdered character added to it by starting the "quest" USING existing works of DaVinci. So you're right, since the code itself is a conspiracy theory, there's nothing proving its reality.

However Theoryofrelativity, the fuss that the Church is making is certainly not about the so called "code", it is about the possibilities about the history of the Church and christianity. Brown alludes to studied issues (and NOTE i said "studied issues" IE already broached by modern scholars) in his book whereupon the Church of old has purposefully hidden facts, twisted truths and presented illusions to its followers.

While these published scholars may or may not be wrong, since the only people that can verify sit in power of the Vatican; such postulations DO present a possible alternative history line to the PR job done by the late great line of Popery and staff. That part of the book is what christians or theists would have to think about, and such free thinking is what is making collective Vatican knees knock ferociously.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

***POSSIBLE SPOILER***
The DaVinci code was not named for something Da Vinci DID with regards to religion...the code is what some underground folks called the Priory of Sion assembled USING works of Leonardo. It was meant as a string of clues leading to their secret. Also...further to that the murdered character added to it by starting the "quest" USING existing works of DaVinci. So you're right, since the code itself is a conspiracy theory, there's nothing proving its reality.

However Theoryofrelativity, the fuss that the Church is making is certainly not about the so called "code", it is about the possibilities about the history of the Church and christianity. Brown alludes to studied issues (and NOTE i said "studied issues" IE already broached by modern scholars) in his book whereupon the Church of old has purposefully hidden facts, twisted truths and presented illusions to its followers.

While these published scholars may or may not be wrong, since the only people that can verify sit in power of the Vatican; such postulations DO present a possible alternative history line to the PR job done by the late great line of Popery and staff. That part of the book is what christians or theists would have to think about, and such free thinking is what is making collective Vatican knees knock ferociously.

I agree with all this except this bit:
"the only people that can verify sit in power of the Vatican;"
I think it is verifiable Jesus was a mortal man, on account of we don't have any immortal men, oh and he did die, thus not immortal, as for resurrection, well where is the peer reviewed paper in respected scientific journal on this one?

 

[charles cure]

If I didn't know better I'd think a theist wrote this

why is that? all i'm saying here is that you are wrong in your appraisal of the situation. the daVinci code is neither totally ficticious nor totally true. thats how a lot of things are in this world, a blend of fact and fiction. fact is important, and every attempt should be made to seperate it from fiction before you go out and totally accept it as truth.

meanwhile you say:
" i'm saying that its clear that DaVinci put some of his own ideas into his works. those ideas apparently ran contrary to religious dogma. this at the very least begs the question - why did he do it?"
Because he was atheist? Atheism is not a new invention. Chruych dogma annoyed him the way it does you?

you're right. the major difference between myself and DaVinci however, is that i am not a world renowned genius, inventor, scientist, and painter whose ideas and thought processes are hundreds of years ahead of their time. i guess what can be gleaned from the "statement" DaVinci makes by inserting these symbols into his art is that arguably the finest mind that the world has ever produced felt that the church represented an oppressive and tragic obstruction to human progress. maybe we should pay a little more attention to that idea.

If you were asked to paint by the church, i am sure you'd put some of your own 'flavvour' and 'views' in there. Programmers put codes (pictures) on chips they install in pc's and software etc. Artists do this!

yet another crucial difference you have overlooked. if, as an artist or programmer today, i was to add some "flavor" to my work, it would probably be seen as a harmless and funny addition to the product. even if it was extremely inappropriate, the only real punishment i would face is loss of my job, or maybe a lawsuit. in DaVinci's day, were his anti-catholic additions discovered, it is likely that he would have been arrested, tortured, and executed. even recanting his heresy would only have gotten him a swift death. do you think that that raises the stakes of the game a little? i do. if i were to add flavor or my own views to my works, knowing full well that i could be killed if they were discovered, i would make sure they were a little more important to me than your average everyday bullshit. in fact, i would think that in order for me to risk that, my message would have to lead to a conclusion that i deemed to be of critical importance to many more people than just myself.

 

[charles cure]

This doesn't tie in with what I saw re Dr Seracini. From memory (so I could be wrong) the doc showed the underdrawing to be the one in the first drawing. Where does it say that the first version exists..in what form?
Is first one not recent repro of the underdrawing?

the first one is hanging in the louvre. its been there for a fucking real long time. it was painted in 1483-86. you can look at pictures of it and see how weathered and old it is. the second one hangs in the national gallery in london and dates from circa 1508. the first one is NOT a reproduction of the underdrawing.