Arcadia Discussion Zone

This may be the first time I've seen something in a DaVinci that may be credible evidence. I think Leonardo was trying to tell us something interesting with this gesture:-

So I pondered what it signified, is it number one? is he pointing up? Then I thought 'no he's holding his finger in front of his face'
Does that mean I need to hold my finger in front of my face the same distance he has his finger then look at the painting?
Tried it and what it does is quite good actually. In a world where there were no computers and technology to use, how do you get the Magdalene figure to nestle on Christ's chest just like in the DaVinci code movie? The easy way to do it is to go cross eyed but there is a problem with that. If you go cross eyed you can marry Magdalene to Christ but you cannot hold them there for more than a second. However if you place your finger in front of your face at a set distance and hold it there, focus on it then the Magdalene and Christ come together into the famous position and stay there in the back ground. So DaVinci gives us a simple key on how to interperate the painting properly. Try it, the easy way is to put your finger the same distance from your face as the man in the painting has his, aim at the magdalene looking at her at the same time then switch focus to your finger. You need to be about 18 inches from the monitor with your finger.

The more I look at this the more I'm convinced what I've explained is correct. I know it has been suggested before that this is how the painting should be interpreted but I think there is something in this that is not speculation and very credible.
It makes me wonder if we shouldn't be doing similar tricks with other paintings and this has given me something to work on.
Personally though, it doesn't suggest to me that Christ was married to the Magdalene. The reason I say this is because we don't know if the female in the painting is the Magdalene and we don't actually know if DaVinci is portraying Christ in the centre of the painting. The lack of a Grail is interesting unless of course the female in the painting is representing the Grail as suggested before by others.

From P Smiths website

NOSTRA – ‘BIZARRE NEWS’ N° 584, 1983.


Jesus Christ, his wife and the Merovingians

 By Philippe de CHERISEY



Two millennia are at last starting to come good!

The Christians always were in danger of forgetting to ask themselves whether the founder of their religion was married or not.

That sin of omission is now atoned for: the answer is ‘Yes, Jesus was married.’ At least, that’s what three English authors, who have written ‘The Sacred Enigma’ (1), and a French correspondent of Nostra (2) tell us. However, their conclusions differ as regards the date of the marriage, the identity of the bride, the destiny of the couple’s descendants and certain other points of detail. But there’s still a chance of reconciling the two viewpoints.

You have a choice between Theory A, that of the three English writers, and Theory B, that of the Frenchman. The source of the conflict between them is this: according to A, to be an unmarried male adult was regarded as something scandalous among the Jews; but Jesus never caused any scandal, ergo Jesus must have been married. If we remember that the adult Jesus died at the age of 33 after a public life of three years that began with the miracle at the wedding in Cana, it follows that the wedding in Cana was that of Jesus himself, who was then aged 30.  

According to Theory B, the ‘Gospel of the Holy Twelve’ (currently being translated) tells us that Jesus married at age 17, became a widower at 24, and then entered public life without remarrying.

At this level of analysis it is worth noting that Theory A is more attractive than Theory B. The really important thing is how we come to find ourselves now in the year 1983 A.D., and precisely what event in the life of Jesus marks the year 0.

On this point everything points to Jesus Christ having been born several years before Jesus Christ! The astronomer will perhaps date his birth from the phenomenon known as the ‘Star of the Magi’. Someone else might think that the year 0 is the date of the celebrated appearance of the child Jesus before the doctors of the law, while someone else will date the death of Jesus according to the calendar of Pontius Pilate, the procurator of Judea. The champions of Theories A and B therefore have the field pretty much to themselves in an area of study that has been amply explored for many centuries, and can present us with one or other new solutions or a link to some former hypothesis. I myself can furnish them with the basics of a very ample bibliography on the subject.

The second point at issue between the two theories concerns the identity of ‘Mrs. Jesus’. According to A, Mary Magdala of Galilee, known as Mary Magdalene, alias ‘the Sinner’, was the bride in the wedding celebrations in Cana. According to ancient custom, the wedding reception was held at the expense of the fiancée’s parents, either in their own home or at a restaurant. As the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus the young bridegroom interfered in something that was none of her business by encouraging her son to change the water into excellent wine (‘the best was saved for last’). Unfortunately the passage where the mother of Mary Magdalene congratulates her son-in-law on his excellent and discrete initiative aimed at saving the dinner has not come down to us. Subsequently it is Mary Magdalene that we find at the foot of the cross, in the company of Mary the Virgin, at the same moment when she has been a widow for at least three days.

Theory B says that Jesus did marry someone called Mary (Myriam) but that she was from Judea, not Galilee. This was the woman whose widower Jesus became three years later. Given that the relevant wedding announcements have been lost and that we know nothing at all about Mary the Judean, we are forced to rely on the testimony of the ‘Gospel of the Holy Twelve’, a priceless document that no copyist has altered (3) and which has the advantage of having been drawn up by the ‘Holy Twelve’ themselves working together at the same penholder.

On this point of detail we have an intervention from – if not the Papacy itself – then, at least, Father Biondi, the spokesman for Monsignor Lustiger, the Archbishop of Paris (who is of Jewish descent). ‘In the early days of the Church’, says Biondi, ‘no one would have been worried about saying that Christ’s disciples, with the exception of Saint John, were married. To say that the Christ was married is something that no one would have worried about – at least, not among Christ’s contemporaries. However, when the Gospel of Thomas says literally that Mary (i.e. Mary Magdalene) was ‘seated on Christ’s couch’ (in other words, on his bed), the commentaries on this image that have been written within the Church are alone sufficient to show that it was regarded as almost scandalous to suggest that any woman had approached him.’ (4)

It seems here that the church is leaning more towards Theory A, but Theory B has certainly not yet lost the battle. One might point out to Abbé Biondi that the Mary referred to by the Gospel of St. Thomas is not described either as a Judean or as a Galilean, but as a ‘Myriam’, as are a number others, and that she doesn’t have any ‘identity papers’ that we know of. We therefore await with impatience a comparative study of the Gospel according to St. Thomas and the Gospel of the Holy Twelve. From the text of his translation, theorist B quotes the opening of Chapter 48, verse 8, where Jesus, a widower and a single person, describes his own situation in the following terms:

48-8 ‘There are certain celibates who are born thus in their mother’s womb, and there are others who have been made into celibates by other people, and there are those who have made themselves into celibates for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let he who is capable of understanding try to understand this passage.’

A careful reading of this passage suggests that Jesus is actually posing a riddle with three possible answers, each with an equal chance of being incorrect.


Either:


I. Jesus was a bachelor because of his preoccupation with the kingdom of heaven, i.e. ‘My vocation is so time-consuming that a wife would simply be a nuisance’. Such has, in fact, been the general sentiment of Christianity for two millennia. Even if Jesus was married, Christian conscience would insist on his celibacy.

It is from this point that there arise the controversies regarding a mysterious ‘Mary’ who apparently got into his bed. This point of detail is only relevant today in the context of the possibility of priests getting married, but it could obviously not have arisen at a time when the priestly sacraments excluded this possibility.

Or:


II. ‘I am unmarried because men have interfered with my life as a married man’. The nature of the interference is not stated, but it could be the death of the wife or the castration of the husband. Whatever the details, the intervention seems to have been a very violent one.

Or:


III. ‘I am celibate from my mother’s womb’ could mean either that he has an innate vocation for celibacy or that he suffers from hereditary impotence.

Theorist B, forced to opt for I, II or III, presents a scenario in which a married Jesus has his vocation decided by the fact of becoming a widower, i.e. he deploys arguments II and III while completely ignoring argument I.

We eagerly await Theorist A’s formulation of a hypothesis on proposition III, i.e. on the political reasons for the castration of Jesus or the absence of his wife, who was presumably either killed or imprisoned. ‘Let he who is capable of understanding try to understand’ the text demands. At first sight I would say that this person who is ‘capable of understanding’ is the correspondent of Nostra, whom I have called Theorist B.

The third point of difference between the two theories is again raised by Theorist B. It concerns the progeny of Jesus and his wife Mary the Judean.

Theorist B quotes the ‘Gospel of the Holy Twelve’, chapter 10, verse 10, where Jesus declares that ‘He who does the will of my Father who is in heaven is my father and my mother, my brother and my sister, my son and my daughter (5)’. It follows from this that the Father in heaven corresponds to that which is commonly called ‘Our Father’, i.e. God the father of Jesus.

The father should be Joseph, the putative father of Jesus, and the mother should be Mary the Virgin, while the brother is one of the two saints James and the sister is someone else to be determined. The ‘son’ and the ‘daughter’ are therefore the children that Jesus and Mary the Judean had during their seven years of marriage.


Considering that Jesus, by definition, remained celibate during the nine years of his public life, the possibility of a second marriage with Mary the Galilean, known as Marie Magdalene or the sinner, can be excluded.

Apart from the fact that the wording of verse 10/10 seems to be confused, the idea comes into the reader’s mind that Jesus, who was engaged to Mary Magdalene before his death, could have married her after his resurrection. The 40 days that separated Easter from Ascension were more than sufficient for a couple in reasonable health to produce a child. Besides, we can point out that the life of Jesus during these ‘40 days of the glorious body’ was rather intangible, that we don’t find him meeting very many people, and that this period does not form part of his ‘public life’. It is superfluous to state that I accept full responsibility for this hypothesis, which I am surprised to be the first to formulate.

The next step puts the ball firmly in the other party’s court.

Theorist B states that the marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, the Galilean and sinner, produced progeny which would end in the royal family of the Merovingians, whose present head is Pierre Plantard de Saint-Clair.

Several items of evidence in fact suggest that the Merovingians were of Semitic origin. Grammarians have studied the mutation ‘Levi’-‘Clovis’-‘Louis’. There is the evidence in particular of the Mérovee-Levis, whose name gave rise to Levis-Mirepoix, and we all know the story of Frederick the Great showing the Duc de Levis Mirepoix a canvas representing the Holy Virgin and saying ‘A Levi, my dear friend. I won’t tell you anything about your grandmother that you don’t know already.’

If the fleur-de-lys is a royal emblem it is by allusion to the ‘lily that toils not neither does it spin’ sung by King Solomon, and which justifies the name of ‘rois fainéants’ (the useless kings) that the textbooks give to the Merovingians.

Theorist B then returns the ball to the other party’s court by eliminating these arguments (which, in fact, have no historical value) and reproaching Pierre Plantard de Saint-Clair for claiming descent from Jesus and Mary the Judean, although he is willing to concede that Mary Magdalene could have had one of the many males that paid court at his couch.

Without A’s knowledge, Plantard has risen to his own defence on this point. ‘I admit’, he says, ‘that ‘The Sacred Enigma’ is a good book, but one must say that there is a part that owes more to fiction than to fact, especially in the part that deals with the lineage of Jesus. How can you prove a lineage of four centuries from Jesus to the Merovingians? I have never put myself forward as a descendant of Jesus Christ’ (5).

Thus, thanks to Plantard, Theorist B finally has the opportunity of achieving a victory over Theorist A that he wasn’t expecting.

The interview that Theorist B gave after his victory shows a certain excess of excitement. His way of interpreting the motto ‘My Kingdom is not of this world’ leaves the listener hungry for more. The links between divine law and political law that could be used to substantiate connections between two Jewish royal families, that of Jesus and that of Herod, are indeed mentioned, but are immediately followed by a deafening silence.

One would like to think that the Massacre of the Innocents and the condemnation of Jesus for which the Herods were responsible have only a moral or mystical significance.

Whatever may be the case, we await with impatience the publication of ‘The Gospel of the Holy Twelve’. The extracts that Theorist B has already published suggest that it is one of those deliberately ambiguous texts, like all the writings worthy of the name of Gospel. We hope, however, that the translator will approach his task with a greater degree of subtlety.


Philippe de Cherisey




P.S. I am compelled to state that I myself figure very prominently among the collaborators on the ‘Sacred Enigma’, and that one of the three Englishmen involved, Mr. Henry Lincoln, is known to me. I do not share in the least the opinions of M. Plantard de Saint-Clair on the romanticised aspects of a work that was very carefully put together. It is in this capacity that I am taking the liberty of writing to you.


(1) Editions Pygmalion/Gérard Watelet. Paris, 1983.
(2) NOSTRA no 565 (7-14 April 1983),
(3) The italics are those of A.
(4) ‘Vous avez dit étrange’. Jacques Pradel on France-Inter on 18-2-82
(5) The italics are those of the translator B.
(6) ‘Vous avez dit étrange’. Jacques Pradel on France-Inter on 26-2-82.

From P Smiths website

NOSTRA – ‘BIZARRE NEWS’ N° 584, 1983.


Jesus Christ, his wife and the Merovingians

 By Philippe de CHERISEY



Two millennia are at last starting to come good!

The Christians always were in danger of forgetting to ask themselves whether the founder of their religion was married or not.

That sin of omission is now atoned for: the answer is ‘Yes, Jesus was married.’ At least, that’s what three English authors, who have written ‘The Sacred Enigma’ (1), and a French correspondent of Nostra (2) tell us. However, their conclusions differ as regards the date of the marriage, the identity of the bride, the destiny of the couple’s descendants and certain other points of detail. But there’s still a chance of reconciling the two viewpoints.

You have a choice between Theory A, that of the three English writers, and Theory B, that of the Frenchman. The source of the conflict between them is this: according to A, to be an unmarried male adult was regarded as something scandalous among the Jews; but Jesus never caused any scandal, ergo Jesus must have been married. If we remember that the adult Jesus died at the age of 33 after a public life of three years that began with the miracle at the wedding in Cana, it follows that the wedding in Cana was that of Jesus himself, who was then aged 30.  

According to Theory B, the ‘Gospel of the Holy Twelve’ (currently being translated) tells us that Jesus married at age 17, became a widower at 24, and then entered public life without remarrying.

At this level of analysis it is worth noting that Theory A is more attractive than Theory B. The really important thing is how we come to find ourselves now in the year 1983 A.D., and precisely what event in the life of Jesus marks the year 0.

On this point everything points to Jesus Christ having been born several years before Jesus Christ! The astronomer will perhaps date his birth from the phenomenon known as the ‘Star of the Magi’. Someone else might think that the year 0 is the date of the celebrated appearance of the child Jesus before the doctors of the law, while someone else will date the death of Jesus according to the calendar of Pontius Pilate, the procurator of Judea. The champions of Theories A and B therefore have the field pretty much to themselves in an area of study that has been amply explored for many centuries, and can present us with one or other new solutions or a link to some former hypothesis. I myself can furnish them with the basics of a very ample bibliography on the subject.

The second point at issue between the two theories concerns the identity of ‘Mrs. Jesus’. According to A, Mary Magdala of Galilee, known as Mary Magdalene, alias ‘the Sinner’, was the bride in the wedding celebrations in Cana. According to ancient custom, the wedding reception was held at the expense of the fiancée’s parents, either in their own home or at a restaurant. As the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus the young bridegroom interfered in something that was none of her business by encouraging her son to change the water into excellent wine (‘the best was saved for last’). Unfortunately the passage where the mother of Mary Magdalene congratulates her son-in-law on his excellent and discrete initiative aimed at saving the dinner has not come down to us. Subsequently it is Mary Magdalene that we find at the foot of the cross, in the company of Mary the Virgin, at the same moment when she has been a widow for at least three days.

Theory B says that Jesus did marry someone called Mary (Myriam) but that she was from Judea, not Galilee. This was the woman whose widower Jesus became three years later. Given that the relevant wedding announcements have been lost and that we know nothing at all about Mary the Judean, we are forced to rely on the testimony of the ‘Gospel of the Holy Twelve’, a priceless document that no copyist has altered (3) and which has the advantage of having been drawn up by the ‘Holy Twelve’ themselves working together at the same penholder.

On this point of detail we have an intervention from – if not the Papacy itself – then, at least, Father Biondi, the spokesman for Monsignor Lustiger, the Archbishop of Paris (who is of Jewish descent). ‘In the early days of the Church’, says Biondi, ‘no one would have been worried about saying that Christ’s disciples, with the exception of Saint John, were married. To say that the Christ was married is something that no one would have worried about – at least, not among Christ’s contemporaries. However, when the Gospel of Thomas says literally that Mary (i.e. Mary Magdalene) was ‘seated on Christ’s couch’ (in other words, on his bed), the commentaries on this image that have been written within the Church are alone sufficient to show that it was regarded as almost scandalous to suggest that any woman had approached him.’ (4)

It seems here that the church is leaning more towards Theory A, but Theory B has certainly not yet lost the battle. One might point out to Abbé Biondi that the Mary referred to by the Gospel of St. Thomas is not described either as a Judean or as a Galilean, but as a ‘Myriam’, as are a number others, and that she doesn’t have any ‘identity papers’ that we know of. We therefore await with impatience a comparative study of the Gospel according to St. Thomas and the Gospel of the Holy Twelve. From the text of his translation, theorist B quotes the opening of Chapter 48, verse 8, where Jesus, a widower and a single person, describes his own situation in the following terms:

48-8 ‘There are certain celibates who are born thus in their mother’s womb, and there are others who have been made into celibates by other people, and there are those who have made themselves into celibates for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let he who is capable of understanding try to understand this passage.’

A careful reading of this passage suggests that Jesus is actually posing a riddle with three possible answers, each with an equal chance of being incorrect.


Either:


I. Jesus was a bachelor because of his preoccupation with the kingdom of heaven, i.e. ‘My vocation is so time-consuming that a wife would simply be a nuisance’. Such has, in fact, been the general sentiment of Christianity for two millennia. Even if Jesus was married, Christian conscience would insist on his celibacy.

It is from this point that there arise the controversies regarding a mysterious ‘Mary’ who apparently got into his bed. This point of detail is only relevant today in the context of the possibility of priests getting married, but it could obviously not have arisen at a time when the priestly sacraments excluded this possibility.

Or:


II. ‘I am unmarried because men have interfered with my life as a married man’. The nature of the interference is not stated, but it could be the death of the wife or the castration of the husband. Whatever the details, the intervention seems to have been a very violent one.

Or:


III. ‘I am celibate from my mother’s womb’ could mean either that he has an innate vocation for celibacy or that he suffers from hereditary impotence.

Theorist B, forced to opt for I, II or III, presents a scenario in which a married Jesus has his vocation decided by the fact of becoming a widower, i.e. he deploys arguments II and III while completely ignoring argument I.

We eagerly await Theorist A’s formulation of a hypothesis on proposition III, i.e. on the political reasons for the castration of Jesus or the absence of his wife, who was presumably either killed or imprisoned. ‘Let he who is capable of understanding try to understand’ the text demands. At first sight I would say that this person who is ‘capable of understanding’ is the correspondent of Nostra, whom I have called Theorist B.

The third point of difference between the two theories is again raised by Theorist B. It concerns the progeny of Jesus and his wife Mary the Judean.

Theorist B quotes the ‘Gospel of the Holy Twelve’, chapter 10, verse 10, where Jesus declares that ‘He who does the will of my Father who is in heaven is my father and my mother, my brother and my sister, my son and my daughter (5)’. It follows from this that the Father in heaven corresponds to that which is commonly called ‘Our Father’, i.e. God the father of Jesus.

The father should be Joseph, the putative father of Jesus, and the mother should be Mary the Virgin, while the brother is one of the two saints James and the sister is someone else to be determined. The ‘son’ and the ‘daughter’ are therefore the children that Jesus and Mary the Judean had during their seven years of marriage.


Considering that Jesus, by definition, remained celibate during the nine years of his public life, the possibility of a second marriage with Mary the Galilean, known as Marie Magdalene or the sinner, can be excluded.

Apart from the fact that the wording of verse 10/10 seems to be confused, the idea comes into the reader’s mind that Jesus, who was engaged to Mary Magdalene before his death, could have married her after his resurrection. The 40 days that separated Easter from Ascension were more than sufficient for a couple in reasonable health to produce a child. Besides, we can point out that the life of Jesus during these ‘40 days of the glorious body’ was rather intangible, that we don’t find him meeting very many people, and that this period does not form part of his ‘public life’. It is superfluous to state that I accept full responsibility for this hypothesis, which I am surprised to be the first to formulate.

The next step puts the ball firmly in the other party’s court.

Theorist B states that the marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, the Galilean and sinner, produced progeny which would end in the royal family of the Merovingians, whose present head is Pierre Plantard de Saint-Clair.

Several items of evidence in fact suggest that the Merovingians were of Semitic origin. Grammarians have studied the mutation ‘Levi’-‘Clovis’-‘Louis’. There is the evidence in particular of the Mérovee-Levis, whose name gave rise to Levis-Mirepoix, and we all know the story of Frederick the Great showing the Duc de Levis Mirepoix a canvas representing the Holy Virgin and saying ‘A Levi, my dear friend. I won’t tell you anything about your grandmother that you don’t know already.’

If the fleur-de-lys is a royal emblem it is by allusion to the ‘lily that toils not neither does it spin’ sung by King Solomon, and which justifies the name of ‘rois fainéants’ (the useless kings) that the textbooks give to the Merovingians.

Theorist B then returns the ball to the other party’s court by eliminating these arguments (which, in fact, have no historical value) and reproaching Pierre Plantard de Saint-Clair for claiming descent from Jesus and Mary the Judean, although he is willing to concede that Mary Magdalene could have had one of the many males that paid court at his couch.

Without A’s knowledge, Plantard has risen to his own defence on this point. ‘I admit’, he says, ‘that ‘The Sacred Enigma’ is a good book, but one must say that there is a part that owes more to fiction than to fact, especially in the part that deals with the lineage of Jesus. How can you prove a lineage of four centuries from Jesus to the Merovingians? I have never put myself forward as a descendant of Jesus Christ’ (5).

Thus, thanks to Plantard, Theorist B finally has the opportunity of achieving a victory over Theorist A that he wasn’t expecting.

The interview that Theorist B gave after his victory shows a certain excess of excitement. His way of interpreting the motto ‘My Kingdom is not of this world’ leaves the listener hungry for more. The links between divine law and political law that could be used to substantiate connections between two Jewish royal families, that of Jesus and that of Herod, are indeed mentioned, but are immediately followed by a deafening silence.

One would like to think that the Massacre of the Innocents and the condemnation of Jesus for which the Herods were responsible have only a moral or mystical significance.

Whatever may be the case, we await with impatience the publication of ‘The Gospel of the Holy Twelve’. The extracts that Theorist B has already published suggest that it is one of those deliberately ambiguous texts, like all the writings worthy of the name of Gospel. We hope, however, that the translator will approach his task with a greater degree of subtlety.


Philippe de Cherisey




P.S. I am compelled to state that I myself figure very prominently among the collaborators on the ‘Sacred Enigma’, and that one of the three Englishmen involved, Mr. Henry Lincoln, is known to me. I do not share in the least the opinions of M. Plantard de Saint-Clair on the romanticised aspects of a work that was very carefully put together. It is in this capacity that I am taking the liberty of writing to you.


(1) Editions Pygmalion/Gérard Watelet. Paris, 1983.
(2) NOSTRA no 565 (7-14 April 1983),
(3) The italics are those of A.
(4) ‘Vous avez dit étrange’. Jacques Pradel on France-Inter on 18-2-82
(5) The italics are those of the translator B.
(6) ‘Vous avez dit étrange’. Jacques Pradel on France-Inter on 26-2-82.

I've read that before on several occasions aswell as many other arguments concerning whether or not Jesus was married. Thankyou for the post though. In the time of DaVinci such a subject was strictly taboo and I'm interested to know if DaVinci dared to suggest such a thing in the form of a painting like the last supper. Obviously he couldn't just paint such an obvious subject into one of his commissions without getting into a lot of trouble. I now believe he did do it in the way I've explained and no one clicked on at the time who was anything to do with the church.
I believe he may have painted a lot more of these tricks into other paintings. More interestingly though - how did DaVinci know Jesus was married? Catholic scriptures and gospels of the period suggested no such thing so how did this information come into the hands of DaVinci?
He must have been told and convinced at the same time by someone or actually read a gnostic gospel or something. It is suggestive that some form of free masonry was involved at this point in his life.

In the painting the lines represent what I call view points.
Meaning from those angles (meaning you have to turn the picture as your doing your search), there is something hidden with each view point. (Note: this should only be tried with out the lines not with them)
In each view point there is mostly 1 hidden item (some do contain more then one).
Now, how do you do it you ask? Go to this site and learn how to do this process then come back and apply it to these angles and you'll find something (magiceye.com).
This process was known by Masters who incorperated it into their paintings. It's in many of them and its usually hidden in a 75 degree angle within the painting. This angle can be a arm or a tree limb that is more predominate then the others, it can be anything and its usually noticable once you understand and have tried it a few times.

It does work and it is being applied in this painting and other master pieces.

I know you don't believe me.

I know its hard to do.

I know you probably won't try.

I know you'll attack.

But what the heck, I tried. The older you are the harder it probably is because of your eyes. Good luck.

One thing you'll find hidden is a knight. You'll see him hidden in the characters when your holding the painting upside down.

It really works and they did use it.

Get off my thread water or should I say secretofnine.

Why dont you try it and see if you can discover the passage way that is hidden in the painting.

Each qt turn reveals something hidden. O and the corner marks I made are off, they should line up with the lines they almost follow.

Spend more time trying, then hating.

One painting worked out, another dozen to go.

Are you even aware of the fact that most of what you're looking at isn't Leonardo's original work?

TCP

You're making a lot of unfounded assumptions here, starting with that figure some people like to call Mary Magdalene, but who is actually John. If you had any familiarity with other contemporary paintings of the Last Supper by other artists, as well as how John was usually depicted in art of that period, you might see your own folly.

Here's a start - there are two known contemporary copies of Leonardo's Last Supper painted by his students, in oil on canvas. Find these and compare them to photos of the fresco to see how much the latter has changed over the course of centuries' worth of botched cleanings and restorations. See for yourself how the color palette is entirely different, and how the background has changed. See for yourself what was there at one time but isn't now. You may find it enlightening, depending on how wedded to pseudohistorical fakery you might be.

TCP

Like this one:-

An even more feminine John.
Or perhaps this one:-

These two also have no chalis. Where is the grail?
The eye/finger effect also works on these quite superbly. Give it a try, you know you want to.

Who says there should be a chalice on that table? And if you do as I suggested and look at the copies, you'll see plenty of glassware on the table that you don't see on the fresco now. And more food.

TCP

Hi,

Doesn't the Leonardo painting of Saint John, and the supposed sketch of Salai, Angel Incarnate, show that Leonardo liked to depict some men as particularly effeminate, specifically with long red hair and even the 'hint of a bosom'...?!

Regards,

Spartacus

P.S. I'd upload both images if I had a clue how to, but they're easily found.

Tim, I know we have been over this ground before, but from a slightly different angle, if that figure is indeed John, then da Vinci created them as gay.

Also, remember the artists who created the copies would not have been in on Leonardos little plan.

Indeed, and in fact it was customary in that period to paint young men with more effeminate features to denote youth.

TCP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giacomo_Raffaelli

It's all in the detail...

yes we talked about this picture this is the picture commissioned by Napoleon

and Napoleon was interested in bloodlines

it was a gift for his new bride

why did he commission it what was the reason?

this DaVinci like Last supper is symbolic ...I don't think Napoleon was hinting at Jesus's friend John as being a homosexual

I think this is a WOMAN sitting next to Jesus sharing the table with him

its reflection of a BLOODLINE a Holy Family ...

but thats the great thing about art
the viewer must participate for it too really work

Yeah, and...? Leonardo was himself gay and many of his young protégés/students who served as his models were his lovers. Does that create any issues for you, Bill?



The artists who created the copies were Leonardo's pupils. They painted near-perfect likenesses of their master's works, often alongside him as he created the originals. If they were re-creating his master works down to the smallest detail then it wouldn't matter if they were in on his "plan" or not. Then again, this "plan" is nothing more than a recent narrative theme based on nothing pseudohistorical speculation and driven by book sales.

The National Gallery and Tongerlo Abbey copies are nearly exact copies to one another in form, perspective, and most importantly color. These were painted from the original at Santa Maria della Grazie in Milan before it deteriorated. The original was subjected to a series of shoddy repairs and eventually was almost entirely repainted in the 1770s using a Baroque color palette of pastels and soft shades, not even remotely close to the vibrant jewel tones used by the Master himself. To get any sense of what Leonardo painted, the only clue we have at hand today are the two copies. Less than 20% of the color applied to the wall at Santa Maria della Grazie by Leonardo exists today, in fact it hasn't existed in over two hundred years. Much of the detail is long gone from the original, the background elements are repositioned. Ergo if Leonardo had any "plan" its evidence is long gone. That's what cracks me up about people whose grasp of history has no more depth than a single page of The Da Vinci Code - they don't even know what they're looking at.

See this fellow?



His name was Gian Giacomo Caprotti, called by Leonardo Salai or Il Salaino, the "Little Devil". Leonardo took him in as a servant and pupil in 1490 when the boy was about ten. Salai remained with him for the remainder of Leonardo's life.

And this fellow?



Leonardo's famous rendition of St. John the Baptist, painted between 1513 and 1516 and though to have been his last painting. Does the model look familiar? A bit more masculine but still with obvious traces of femininity. Salai would have been in his thirties when the sat for this painting.

This one is contemporary with the last:



Same subject, same model, more masculine but still "pretty".

How about this one?



Detail from Leonardo's Virgin and Child with the Infant John the Baptist and Saint Anne. Does the lady on the right look familiar?

Or this one:



On the left, of course, is the famous Mona Lisa. On the right, a portrait of Salai superimposed on the former. Separated at birth?

Is Mona Lisa actually an anagram for Mon Salai? There are more than a few qualified art historians who believe this may be the case.

Here's Leonardo's Last Supper as it appears today:



Here is the Giampetrino copy at Magdalen College, Oxford, owned by the National Gallery:



Here is the Tongerlo Abbey copy:



You'll see quite a bit more similarity between the two copies than either of them to the original.

Now, look at this young "lady":



Notice the heavy eyelids, the curve of the cheek, the line of the nose, and the long auburn ringlets and tell me you do not recognize the model, who would have been between fifteen and eighteen years old when the painting was created. A model who had posed for more than one depiction of a male saint in Leonardo's paintings, as well as female. And tell me again why you think the St. John figure in the Last Supper is obviously not male and not St. John. And while you're at it, tell me why Saint John isn't in the picture when he should be.

TCP

Thinking out loud again.


The Last Supper I believe is.

The women is pregnant. I believe she's the one who was forced by the guards to be with Jesus. I believe it's a bloodline of rape, but being shown here in this painting differently. I know there's no mention in History of this forced rape, but I tell you truthfull, I found the information, that says it happened and no I will not disclose this, I'm only sharing (like I do way to much as it is).
So I think the painting is making a reference to the bloodline and giving a false pretense of a caring nature of lovers rather then a sharing nature of the truth of what did happen, that day at crucifixion.

You see there lies the problem. The truth of Crucifixion was never told to the public 100%.It's because of this, that most of all this information that is being found, can't be understood properly or put together properly to form it's conclusion.

If you want your reflection of the truth, then tell the truth of the Crucifixion of Jesus.

One day Truth looked into a Refelection of itself and said within "That is not me, I'm different". That was his downfall. his hope now is, to build what he believes is his truth and prove the Reflection wrong.

Isn't Da Vinci brilliant!!!

this lady or young man sitting next to Jesus
can be interpreted many ways by the viewers seeing it

One thing is for certain Peter who was supposedly chosen by Jesus ....was MARRIED

there are MARRIED MEN at this table

DaVinci by using a androgenous man/woman
incorporates bisexuality homosexuality heterosexuality and celibacy

there can be all men disciples or a mixture of men and women disciples

He really had a vision that this painting would be talked about for centuries

the Acadiens saw something in this painting also ...the carved it into their altars

water a forced rape...why would they do that?

for what purpose?