*NEW* Proof that Da Vinci knew about Jesus' bloodline

It is my honest opinion backed by my own finding (of which to my extensive knowledge no one else has found out, therefore making this one of the first places on the internet this info is being revealed) that Leonardo Da Vinci knew about Jesus' bloodline.

Take a look and tell me what you think:

The Last Supper Secret

note: please no unprofessional bashing, if you disagree please do so respectfully, that is the only way I will give attention and consider your post.

Also if you have any other information on Da Vinci and the bloodline, it would be gladly appreciated.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by tankthinker]

Isnt there anyone interested in this new, never before (as far as i can tell from my investigation0 seen, information on Da Vinci's view of the Messiahs bloodline?

When you include all the non-canonized religious texts describing the accounts of Jesus, and even more of his spoken word, it stacks up more evidence that Jesus might have been married to Mary.

Also to note, it was quite rare at those times for a Rabbi to be unwed to begin with.

That said, I am a little confused. So before I address this material... are you saying this is your work, and this Wiki entry is you authorship?

Hey Man,

I read the Da Vinci Code, too. I also saw the movie, in which this is explained fully, so I'm not seeing any shocking new developments here. Not trying to be a jerk, but this is word-for-world what is put forth in the movie (which was an awful, awful movie).

- Boat

Well i did spend hours searching the painting for clues and i came upon this. I tried looking for anyone else who found the same thing but i cant find anything.

and yes i authored the tinwiki article.

great work! Goes into more detail then the book about this painting. thanks for posting this.

reply to post by Boatphone


well its the same message but different evidence, more insightful i find.

reply to post by amazing


no problem

i was actually debating whether i should or not, and decided that if i just kept the info to myself it wouldnt be doing anything, just sitting there gathering dust, so i let it free...

It's always been...I guess I'll use the term, "common knowledge" in my religion, that Jesus was married. We believe marriage is part of key to the gospel. Another point of view, is the Jewish culture...... Jesus was called Rabbi- one of the 613 Jewish commandments was that a rabbi must be married. A rabbi explained once to me, that then, women could not touch men that they were not married to. For Mary to have touched Jesus, and for Jesus to first appear to MARY after the resurrection, speaks volumes...to me anyhow!


When DaVinci Code came out... my initial thoughts were.... "well duh.."

ok Leonardo was born .. mid 1400's, Jesus was bour approx 1440 years before leonardo is it possible that the "last supper" was nothing more than his interpretation of what happened? and not "what actually happened"

a painting vreated 1400 years later is no proof of anything let alone when its factored in with that da vinci garbage that was created for no other reason than to make money.

its possible Jesus did marry mary, i doubt he did, but it is possible as to kids id find it highly unlikley, jesus wasnt put on this earth to play happy family he was put his to die for mans sins.

having said that it is still possible there are people alive today that can trace their ancestry back to jesus as he did have other siblings.


edit - sorry if my posts sounds alittle tough, but in reality when the writers first released the da vinci code they said it was nothin but fiction but when they saw the hugh money making potential they changed their story and strarted claiming it to be true, if i can find the news link from when it first came out and they say its fiction ill post it here.

i get alittle angry about this because people should be able to recognise fiction from fact especially when the writer himself said its fiction .. at least to start with.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by Demandred]

reply to post by angelique5


Jesus was not an official Rabbi holding an office. The religious leadership was at war with Him. He was called Rabbi because people saw Him as a teacher, not because the Temple priests conveyed that office upon Him. If He were a Rabbi, He would have been disciplined for claiming to be God. The Chief priest could not do that because he did not have direct jusdiction over Jesus as he would have if Jesus had been a Rabbi.

i pretty much completely agree with demandred. A painting created 1400 after The Last Supper is a mere interpretation of what the artist believed to have happened. The one thing i found completely weird about your "discovery" was the baby part. How in the world is there such fine detail in such an old painting? Couldn't that just be cracks in the painting due to something normal...like time? I saw the Da Vinci Code and yeah it was entertaining, but come on, the Saviour's life wasn't meant to be used as a puzzle to find hidden relations in. Yes, Jesus could have been married to Mary, but time has lost that detail. The fact that He appeared to her first does scream volume but...it's on mute.

I think of it as this, if (only an if) Mary and Jesus actually were married, hiding it is the only option. Does anyone notice how many people take the Lords name in vain? Countless that's how many. Why would He want the same for her?

Boatphone: you read the book...you saw the movie...where'd you see the details the OP presented. Go back to the movie you hate so much (don't forget subtitles, word for word remember?) and go to the part were the 2 main characters go to his colleagues house and he's showing the girl the painting on his snazzy monitor...yeah he moves Mary's figure over to the other side of Jesus but nowhere in the movie does it say anything about her thumb, or about the chalice with 2 arrows part. But maybe you saw some director's cut groundbreaking edition.

Overlooking all the other suggestions, interpretations and misplaced facts - how, in your opinion, did Da Vinci come to this "information"?

Originally posted by Demandred
If He were a Rabbi, He would have been disciplined for claiming to be God.

Like strung up on a cross and left to die?

**edited: nm I see your point. It was my understanding that he was in fact a Rabbi through the official channels as well. I am gonna look into that.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

Wasn't the movie about the 'Da Vinci Code' was based on a "version-interpretations and misplaced facts" of the two books. Oh! I am sure there was a 'Mary' whois the Mother of Jesus, and 'a nother Mary' that was a "friend" of Jesus.

Originally posted by Gemwolf
Overlooking all the other suggestions, interpretations and misplaced facts - how, in your opinion, did Da Vinci come to this "information"?

Da Vinci painted a time-machine and painted the past. Da Vinci brushed the so called facts and painted in Da Vinci image.

Originally posted by Demandred

ok Leonardo was born .. mid 1400's, Jesus was bour approx 1440 years before leonardo is it possible that the "last supper" was nothing more than his interpretation of what happened? and not "what actually happened"

a painting vreated 1400 years later is no proof of anything let alone when its factored in with that da vinci garbage that was created for no other reason than to make money.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by Demandred]

yea but i never stated that the story of Jesus' bloodline is real, i just said that this was proof that Da Vinci thought so. Interesting that we will actually probably never know, since we weren't there ourselves. I guess in the end it comes to our beliefs, in which i have chosen to believe in the bloodline story, and that his heirs are still alive today.

Originally posted by screamo
Boatphone: you read the book...you saw the movie...where'd you see the details the OP presented. Go back to the movie you hate so much (don't forget subtitles, word for word remember?) and go to the part were the 2 main characters go to his colleagues house and he's showing the girl the painting on his snazzy monitor...yeah he moves Mary's figure over to the other side of Jesus but nowhere in the movie does it say anything about her thumb, or about the chalice with 2 arrows part. But maybe you saw some director's cut groundbreaking edition.

yea seriously if you find anything tell me so i can stop taking credit for it.

Originally posted by Gemwolf
Overlooking all the other suggestions, interpretations and misplaced facts - how, in your opinion, did Da Vinci come to this "information"?

I personally think he was involved in some sort of secret society, maybe it was the Priory of Sion, maybe another we have never heard of, but i dont think he was in a high position of authority, as i hear he was kind of a loner and kept to himself, but i think he was connected.

Aside from that maybe he just had an opinion and wanted to present it a way that wouldnt get him killed. But i prefer the first.


Anyways so about the Rabbi thing (whoever stated it first) im sorry but i have never heard of this opinion before.

I was also on track to other things in the Last Supper Painting but i dont have time to follow them right now, University assignments and all, but during the break im going to look more extensively into these other leads, see if i find anything else.

the apostles would have been ecstatic if there was an heir to the throne

remember they were looking to the restoration of the kingdom to Israel...there simply were no heirs to Jesus, not a single one.


Acts 1:6

They therefore, when they were come together, asked him, saying, Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?

case closed...or are you hoping you are the heir?

Originally posted by tankthinker
I personally think he was involved in some sort of secret society, maybe it was the Priory of Sion, maybe another we have never heard of, but i dont think he was in a high position of authority, as i hear he was kind of a loner and kept to himself, but i think he was connected.

Aside from that maybe he just had an opinion and wanted to present it a way that wouldnt get him killed. But i prefer the first.

In other words, there is no evidence whatsoever that Da Vinci had any knowledge of the sort? Or put otherwise, your theory is based on a very broad assumption with little to no fact to support it?

I take it you know that Plantard's list and "evidence" of the Priory of Sion is pure fiction?

This is a huge problem I have with the whole "Da Vinci Code" debacle. People simply assume that Da Vinci had "secret knowledge", but there is NO indication whatsoever that the Master had any secret knowledge. He may have been a genius and had an amazing imagination, but that doesn't mean he knew anything about "Jesus' bloodline".

Don't you think that if you want to suggest a "Da Vinci Code" theory that you have to prove that Da Vinci actually knew something to begin with? He painted dragons and unicorns as well. Does that suddenly mean that Da Vinci had secret knowledge of the existence of these mythical creatures? No. It doesn't.


Edit: Format.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by Gemwolf]

I can't believe all this supposed information,the dude was a painter that painted a picture thousands of years later after the fact,I think some should get a hobby,not that I'm an accomplished painter but I could paint anything,would that mean I had some devine intervention? not likely,I believe it might have been his opinion ,and you know what they say about opinions!