My theory on the secret behind Rennes-le-Chateau

Originally posted by mr conspiracy
Jesus went into hiding at the heart of the Roman Empire.

Thats the last place anyone would think of looking for him


He came into south of France round about 50 AD.

This is why, despite persecution and threats from the Romans, his disciples travelled up north.







[edit on 30-10-2005 by mr conspiracy]

Actually what scattered the disciples was when the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. Persecution is what scattered them too. Jesus had told them to go into the world and preach the Gospel, not hang around in Jerusalem.

Okay, passing forward to the TENIERS and NO TEMPTATION parts of the decoded statement, we move to two works by David Teniers the Younger. Teniers lived at the same time as Poussin and was in very high circles. One of the more curious aspects of what we're about to discuss here is that once again we will be looking at two paintings that seem to be of the same location (or theme possibly), but with undeniable changes. The first being painted in the 1630's (as Poussin's Et in Arcadia Ego was) and the second painted after 1640 (as Poussin's Les Bergers d'Arcadie was). Which kind of makes the reader think - what happened around 1640???

The decoded message contains "NO TEMPTATION". I believe the "no" is as important as the "temptation" in Teniers' case. Teniers, in the 1630's painted the work entitled Saints Anthony and Paul in a Landscape.

First let us look at the importance of St. Anthony. St. Anthony lived ca. 250-350 (he is reported to have lived to 105 years of age). There are two important facets of St. Anthony's life that should be pointed out relative to the two paintings by Teniers.

1. St. Anthony founded monasticism. He was basically the first monk. The cloistered life he led is very important when we get to the second painting concerning his temptation.

2. St. Anthony traveled to Alexandria - the center of teachings that seemed to always be butting heads with that of Constantine's church - two times in his life. The second time, which was near the end of his life, was to preach against Arianism (not to be confused with Aryanism - this has nothing to do with purity of race). Arius and MANY OTHER EARLY CHURCH FATHERS believed Christ to NOT be equal to God, but instead a Creation of God subordinate to His authority - divine in nature, but not equivalent to the Creator. This is very important, because this I PERSONALLY BELIEVE, points to a FOUNDATIONAL DOCTRINE taught in the Catholic church and in the protestant churches that is FALSE.

Christ himself - in the RED LETTERS of my Bible - recognizes and clearly states his subordinate position to the authority of the Father.

In researching this I've just found out - I'm Arian in my beliefs. Take it for what it is worth, condemn me if you wish, but I try to follow the words of Christ and he says he is subordinate to the Creator, who am I to argue with it? And who was anybody else who decided to ignore those words???

This very point - that St. Anthony crawled out of his hole to rail against - could very well be the point the secret surrounds. We could have a foreshadowing of what it effects in the christian dogma of today.

So the following painting by Teniers is of St. Anthony with his disciple St. Paul (not of the New Testament). At first glance it appears as not much more than a landscape showing the two saints cloistered away on a cliff. But actually there is much more to this picture - and especially after it is compared to the later painting by Teniers.

NOTE: Again I point out that these observations are a collaborative effort between nerdling, Mirthful Me and myself. I will try my best to give credit where credit is due.



The first thing that should be done is to split the painting in half diagonally. As follows:



or as nerdling so succinctly puts it. Split the foreground from the background. Because they truly are two different worlds, as will be detailed shortly.

In the foreground we have Anthony and Paul discussing their manuscripts. To the immediate right, as nerdling so aptly noticed, we have a grotto - a church. The church is cast in darkness. Within the church we can see in the shadows a table on which sets a flask sealed with a spherical top. nerdling also feels he can see the spirit of the crucifixion in the shadows. I will leave that for him to demonstrate on his own. To the far right is the cross - propped up and beginning to fall over.

Now, let us look at the background, which seems to be intentionally separated from the world in which Anthony and Paul live by a great dark chasm or river??? (is this the underground stream?). Teniers has used a blatantly different color scheme in this portion of the painting to create a world that is clothed in color and light compared to the austere darkened world the saints live in. There is a castle that can be seen near the center of the painting in the distance atop a mountain. nerdling points out that it looks like an owl (wisdom?). Near the middle of this "land" is a naked figure running along the bank of the stream. nerdling wonders if this could point to Adam or an Adamic nature. It is very unclear.

But the most curious part of this painting is found to the far left of the background. Two men - dressed in modern-day garb stand atop a slight knoll overlooking the stream. They appear to be looking at something. A map? A compass? Who knows. But these are extremely anachronistic figures in two different ways.

1. Anthony and Paul lived in the 300's.
2. Teniers painted this in the 1630's.

Those men are wearing clothes from today. They are sporting haircuts from today. To prove this point I offer a few sketches of the fashions from Teniers' time:

From 1630:



In 1633 an edict was issued demanding that French men go to plainer clothes. Here are two examples of that "plainer fashion":





But as can be seen in this drawing from 1636 - the French men held to their "frills":



(Above images taken from www.costumes.org... .)

We will now move to the second Teniers' painting entitled The Temptation of St. Anthony painted after 1640.



The place in which St. Anthony is depicted is almost identical to that in the first picture. This painting has just a slight shift in perspective (a few feet to the left from the first one), and therefore centers not on a world separated in the background (in fact he further conceals the background, most notably the stream and the castle by placing a large tree and building up the mountain), but on the church. The church is now bathed in light. The table that sat in the shadows of the previously darkened church is now out in the open and St. Anthony actually sits at it. The flask with the spherical top sits on the table as well as the Arcadian skull. A decapitated ram sits just to the right of St. Anthony. Strange bat-birds hover over head - one possibly has something (a skull?) A snake slithers across the ground making the sign of Leo (as noticed by nerdling). A broom is planted in the ground in front of the shed (paganism?) (as noticed by Mirthful Me). The cross is gone and has been replaced with a trough possibly made from it. From this trough flows the Underground Stream. The temptation of St. Anthony appears to be from the woman (with horns coming out of her bonnet) pointing toward the stream - the secret knowledge.

And low and behold once again we have two characters that are anachronistic. The two observers? sitting on the ground by the shed. The one in blue appears to wear boots not reminiscent of 1630's-40's France, but more like military boots of the past century. Even his blue coat appears to be in line with a modern day parka of sorts. He holds something up to his face (a telescope?, a flute? who knows). But even more bizarre is the figure sitting to his left. Described has having a monkey's face or a ram's face - or maybe even a gas mask??? But not a human face.

When both paintings are combined (no temptation, and temptation), we find that Teniers tells a story as HE predicts it to unfold. This is our interpretation of what Teniers is trying to say:

The church which is founded on the cross is in darkness. The secret is hidden in the darkness of the church. But there will be people come from far in the future who will look for the secret...

when the secret is made public, the cross will be destroyed and the church "enlightened". This enlightenment will come from the Underground Stream.

I left something out. I believe Teniers used St. Anthony, due his founding of monasticism, as a symbol of the negligence that could occur in the church (i.e. men so buried in a world of study that they ignore what is happening).

[edit on 10-30-2005 by Valhall]

Any comments on the following items?

external image

Full size link:

img396.imageshack.us...

Well, I did discuss the flask with the spherical top. Don't know what to make of it (holy grail?)

I did bring up the decapitated ram. This can have several connotations. I'll do some research and get back on this.

I mentioned the thingy the guy is holding up to his face, but haven't got a clue what it is.

I did not mention the object sticking in the ground behind him, but we did discuss it. It looks like a knife or somthing.

I don't know what that is on the ground next to his feet, could simply be a rock...not sure.

The objects at the base of the table are books.

Originally posted by Valhall
I did bring up the decapitated ram. This can have several connotations. I'll do some research and get back on this.

Is that a gaping mouth to the right?

Originally posted by Valhall
I mentioned the thingy the guy is holding up to his face, but haven't got a clue what it is.

Is that a flute in connection with the serpent?

Originally posted by Valhall
I did not mention the object sticking in the ground behind him, but we did discuss it. It looks like a knife or somthing.

I don't think so...

Originally posted by Valhall
I don't know what that is on the ground next to his feet, could simply be a rock...not sure.

Scorpion?

Originally posted by Valhall
The objects at the base of the table are books.

A single book and something placed to hold it open?


[edit on 30-10-2005 by loam]

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by Valhall
I mentioned the thingy the guy is holding up to his face, but haven't got a clue what it is.

Is that a flute in connection with the serpent?


[edit on 30-10-2005 by loam]

That's an absolutely fascinating thought.

hmmm - care to interpret what that represents?

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by Valhall
I mentioned the thingy the guy is holding up to his face, but haven't got a clue what it is.

Is that a flute in connection with the serpent?


[edit on 30-10-2005 by loam]

That's an absolutely fascinating thought.

hmmm - care to interpret what that represents?

I too see it as a flute. A serpent with a flute would probably denote the power of evil to lead man with a sweet sound. In this picture we don't really see evil, it is hinted at subtly. I think this is one of them.

p.s. He sure liked his piggies.

I thought I would add this in from our discussion.

Look closely.

OK...I was thinking about the knife, and I now agree that it IS a knife. It occured to me that the object by the man's foot IS the sheep/ram's head! It is interesting to me that the knife and head are in proximity to the flutist.

The broom bothers me also....still thinking about that one.

BTW, regarding "The Secret" (movie)... I read quite a few sites and it appears related to Charles F Haanel's "The Master Key System."

The full text appears here:

www.psitek.net...

After reading it, I can see why the church would have banned it. However, I am skeptical as to whether this is the "secret" discussed in this thread. In my view, Haanel's notions aren't that revolutionary.

EDIT: One more thing... I am not convinced the shadow is caste correctly for the knife....

[edit on 30-10-2005 by loam]

hmm...

You have a man, playing an instrument. The serpent is coming towards the man. The man holds the only "weapon".

Flut = music = sound.
Snake = evil.
Knife = weapon = war.

False prophet maybe?

Something else on the bloodline idea.

Jesus said; "Whatever you do to the least of these, you do also to me.”

However we treat the poor, the sick, the weak, the homeless, the orphans, the fatherless, those in prison is also harming Jesus.

It is possible, by looking at the "rich", "elite", "Goverment", "Kings/Queens", we are looking to the wrong group of people. If anything, Jesus and his bloodline would have been the people working for equality not the one claiming to be "working for God" and harming people.

Just something I thought of.

Originally posted by loam
OK...I was thinking about the knife, and I now agree that it IS a knife. It occured to me that the object by the man's foot IS the sheep/ram's head! It is interesting to me that the knife and head are in proximity to the flutist.

Most exceptional vision! That is EXACTLY what it is.

B.S. thats all I have to say, why is every major religion based on the past 2000 or so years?? Why not since the "dawn of creation"? Im sure the holy rollers will have fun with me but remember I will always have the last laugh. Ever heard of a fishing story? I caught a fish this big ---------- when in reality it was this big -----

Valhall, in the first page you said you think they have bones. Bones of Jesus or a child of His.

My question is, so what? They(who ever they are) can't prove anything with old bones. There is no way to link old bones to a risen Lord.

They can lie about it I guess and some will fall for it.

God saw to it that nothing was left behind so we simple humans could not worship an object, we must go on faith.

Roper

Originally posted by Roper

God saw to it that nothing was left behind so we simple humans could not worship an object, we must go on faith.

Roper

We agree, Roper, on all points.

One of my major interests in all of this so far is the Ordre de Sion. The author of Holy Blood, Holy Grail makes several connections indicating that the Knights Templar may have been purposly formed to serve this Order. He also points out that the Order has direct connections to the start of the Crusaders (Peter the Hermit being a member).

I'm not fully convinced just yet that the Knights Templar found a "secret". Whatever they found in the old temple of Soloman seemed to have changed them greatly, but it could have been anything from a massive treasure (greed), to a Religion breaking 'secret'. But the book (so far) hasnt made a convincing explanation.

I still have a lot of reading to do, but one thing that's for sure, is this Ordre of Sion seems to have some kind of massive power at the time. When the Knights Templar broke off their relationship from the Ordre, they were slaughtered.

Also Valhall, I'm not sure if you know of this (I bought a revised version of Lincoln's book, with a bunch of new info added), but the Tomb found in the Les Bergers d'Arcadie was found near the chateau of Arques. There's very striking resemblance from the picture to the tomb found in Arques. Even the stone in which one of Poussin's shepard's rests his foot on was there.

Also, regarding the Les Bergers d'Arcadie, the shepard, as you stated possibly pointing at the shadow, seems to be pointing to the inscription on the tomb.

In my version of the book, theres a full page pic of the painting, and you can clearly see theres some kind of inscription there.. The book states that the inscription reads:

ET IN ARCADIA EGO

which translates to "And in Arcadia I ..."

The author goes on to state that the parchments found by Sauniere had relied heavily on anagrams, on the transposition and rearrangment of letters. He theorizes the ET IN ARCADIA EGO could have been I TEGO ARCANA DEI

BEGONE! I CONCEAL THE SECRETS OF GOD

Could the verb have been omitted so that the inscription would consist only of certain precise letters? Who knows. Even after rereading it several times while making this post, I don't comprehend how he came up with that translation.. he argues that the original inscriptions oddly leaves out a verb, indicating past, present and future. After rearranging the letters, he comes up with a verb.

Unfortunatly, the tomb as pictured is no longer there. I can't find the date, but the owner of the land destroyed it because too many looters were trying to break into it. It's reported that the tomb was empty.

Pic of Tomb: etinwebego.chez.tiscali.fr...

It's argued the tomb was erected by the landowner well after Poussin's painting, but Lincoln argues it's location, resemblance and accounts of local farmers and a mention of the tomb in a memoir dating from 1709.

I'm not convinced he's pointing at the shadow, but moreso, maybe they made the connection with the inscription and what it could mean?

Who knows.

Well i think everything in the picture is symbolic, down to the crook and flail in one of them which is the ancient egyptian symbol of royalty.

But why would an artist just pain a picture of symbolism ...a work of art is something that is preserved hundreds of years.

After looking at both the pics for days, and i still have to have a look at a few other things, I think all the symbolism is a throw off, it tells you what you have recognised, an occult work of art that has significant meaning......but its not about the meaning...its about the code he left there. I am still looking at this hard but at the moment we know the code is numbers


Poussin Teniers hold the key peace 681

681..... well then I wondered what could be counted in the pictures. It could be the bricks yes but again I keep being drawn towards the fingers and toes.
Especially in arcadie. Also what is the original width and height of the painting. There may be a grid formation able to be applied and construed.

The feet amaze me..only one foot of each person is displayed...four feet and toes displayed only out of eight possible.

Originally posted by Roper
Valhall, in the first page you said you think they have bones. Bones of Jesus or a child of His.

My question is, so what? They(who ever they are) can't prove anything with old bones. There is no way to link old bones to a risen Lord.

They can lie about it I guess and some will fall for it.

God saw to it that nothing was left behind so we simple humans could not worship an object, we must go on faith.

Roper

Laurence Gardner writes in his book "The Magdalene Legacy", pp 33-34 about a tomb which was found in excavations near Jerusalem in 1980 which contained ossuaries inscribed as follows:

Jesus son of Joseph
Mary
Joseph
Jude
[the name of one of Jesus' brothers]
Mary
[the name of one of Jesus' sisters]

This discovery was hailed as the greatest Christian-related discovery of all time. It wasn't, though.
As you say, there is no way of obtaining proof that a set of old bones belongs to Jesus or relative or whatever, but if that tomb was genuinely what the inscriptions claimed, then it sorts of pulls the rug under the whole idea of having Jesus' living relatives settling in southern France and siring a kingly bloodline...

There was also more recently a box discovered that said James, Son of Joseph, brother of Jesus, that was found to be a flat out fake, though it took a while to determine that. I think as time goes on and technology advances it becomes more and more likely that such tricks will appear.

The fact that nothing has been found in 2000 years ought to be a clue that such things do not exist.

I found something of interest concerning the images in Teniers' Temptation. Going with the symbology of the ram:

The ram is connected with Alexander the Great. He used this symbol (having his coins made depicting him with rams horns) to signify his self-proclamation of being the son of Zeus Ammon versus the biological son of Phillip II.

www.greenspun.com...

Zeus Ammon is the greek deity associated with the temple of Siwa in Egypt.

Alexander the Great decided he was the earthly son of Zeus Ammon after visiting the shrine of Zeus Ammon in Siwa (Siwah) Egypt. There are interesting connections in the historical record of his journey to the shrine:

In the winter of 331 BC Alexander led an expedition to the Oasis of Siwah in order to visit the famous oracular shrine of Zeus Ammon. This march was said to have been assisted by groups of snakes and birds who showed the way through the sandy wastes. Upon his arrival Alexander was hailed as the son of the god (a normal greeting for Pharaohs). The king either misunderstood or purposely misconstrued this salutation and began to claim divine parentage even among his Greek and Macedonian troops. Embassies from various Asian cities quickly affirmed the declaration of Zeus Ammon, adding to Alexander's growing megalomania.

(emphasis added)

www.seleukids.org...

Interesting that we have the ram, snake and bizarro birds all in this one pic.

[edit on 10-31-2005 by Valhall]

[edit on 10-31-2005 by Valhall]