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

IMO, saying DaVinci painted the last supper scene with hidden "proof" of Jesus and Mary's relationship is fine with me. In this spirit, I have additional proof that they had a relationship or were married.

The rock opera Jesus Chist Super Star, by Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber released as a double-album in 1970 proves this relationship, just like DaVinci proves it.

Within the list of songs, there is one which Mary sings about Jesus called,
"I Don't Know How to Love Him".
Certainly this corroberates DaVinci

I looked at the wiki page, and then I went and looked at the high res image and zoomed in on the parts.

If these things were done, it wasn't something that was done to be made apparent. The claims in them were a bit of a stretch. The arrows pointing down aren't really arrows point down IMO.

The baby on the thumb simply doesn't exist. If you zoom in deep, you can see it's actually a fingernail, and the cracks in the painting provide the rest.

I didn't see 2 of them going for the bowl at the same time either. You have to use computer graphical changes to get such an effect(how do you get Jesus's hand to the right side of it, when he standing to the left side of him?). I don't think I understand how that conclusion is gotten too.

It does look like a woman where it's thought to be John. The eyebrows are a dead give away, and one of the biggest features that determine a man from a woman. Women have high arches, while men have a more flat arch. You can see a flat arch on Jesus, while she has a high rounded arch like a woman.

Doesn't matter to me either way. But some of that seemed to be a stretch.

if judas embodies mans sin and he was betrayed by judas because of affinity for women then your postulation says much

Hey whatever to me these are all your opinions, just dont come here and say that there isnt a bloodline and thats that because in the end we are all just peasants trying to figure out a kings game. I saw this connection and presented my assumptions, maybe it is a stretch, then again maybe Da Vinci wanted it to be that way.

I base everything that i believe on my instinct and feelings, things that have to be proven by evidence has screwed me over countless times in the past. Like for example when my teacher in elementary school told me that drinking the tap water was better for my health then bottled water and that it was proven, luckily i never liked the taste of tap water and so never consumed the hazardous fluoride.

I felt that there was something in The Last Supper, thats why i spent so much time looking, and i just happen to find something no one else has ever found.


Also, something interesting to note is that i thought that the Mary's thumb looked like a baby before i found the chalice and two arrows, i actually found that last and it just all fit.

One more thing you will never know if Da Vinci was or wasnt in a secret society because you did not know him, and i really dont care how much documented evidence anyone might have, you still werent there at the time and you did not have a strong relationship with the guy, so please dont pretend you know all about a guy you've never met (for anyone who was thinking of doing this in the future)

Good work, has me thinking. You gotta expect the Christians to come in and try their best to blast apart any theories that don't fit their agenda. There are just too many things that are 'odd' about the painting, it's common knowledge Davinci put hidden stuff in all the work he did.

reply to post by tankthinker


so, this is proof that jesus has/had a bloodline. a painting, who's author itself has no evidence of jesus bloodline.

maybe i am missing something, but this has been debunked before. if you care enough to do a little unbias research you will see, im sure, that there is no evidence.

fact of the matter is, this is a painting, in no way shape or form is it proof. it doent matter to me either way, but to have " proof " in your title is misleading. just because a painting has symbols does not mean anything, do you really think davinci knew jesus, or what he looked like in the first place?

it is a well written article i suppose, so kudos for that. but i " respectfully " disagree that there is any evidence, much less proof in this.

Originally posted by pureevil81
reply to post by tankthinker

 

so, this is proof that jesus has/had a bloodline. a painting, who's author itself has no evidence of jesus bloodline.

maybe i am missing something, but this has been debunked before. if you care enough to do a little unbias research you will see, im sure, that there is no evidence.

fact of the matter is, this is a painting, in no way shape or form is it proof. it doent matter to me either way, but to have " proof " in your title is misleading. just because a painting has symbols does not mean anything, do you really think davinci knew jesus, or what he looked like in the first place?

it is a well written article i suppose, so kudos for that. but i " respectfully " disagree that there is any evidence, much less proof in this.

*Snip* - Play nice now. -Alien

The title specifically states that there is NEW Proof that DA VINCI knew (or thought, depending on which perspective you take) about a bloodline, not that this is proof that there actually is one.


[edit on 18-11-2008 by alien]

*SNIP*

Please Stay On Topic

[edit on 11/18/08 by niteboy82]

Personally I find this a fasinating topic for the reasons being brough up in this thread.

I think the proof is in the pudding, but Jesus, Mary M, and Leonardo all deceased... I'd say the recapie's a bit old to make.

Great thread! I caan't wait to see how it unfolds!

**Attention**

Please stay on topic. Discuss the POST not the poster.

The topic is 'New proof that Da Vinci knew about Jesus' bloodline.'

Thanks for your attention and happy posting.

-Badge01
Forum Moderator


[edit on 11/18/2008 by Badge01]

]Originally posted by tankthinker

Originally posted by pureevil81
reply to post by tankthinker

 

The title specifically states that there is NEW Proof that DA VINCI knew (or thought, depending on which perspective you take) about a bloodline, not that this is proof that there actually is one.

sorry for the misunderstanding, i will try again.

all i am saying is how is there " *NEW* Proof that Da Vinci knew about Jesus' bloodline " when you yourself said its not proof there is one?

maybe i am the one misunderstanding here. i am interested in this topic, and if you have knowledge i do not, please share.

so let's try again here in a much nicer way, no wire's crossed.

i was thinking also, if judas and jesus both had claim to marys baby, that would be an interesting twist. but to date i have not seen anything that even implies that, thats all i am saying ok.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by pureevil81]

[edit on 18-11-2008 by pureevil81]

Originally posted by imd12c4funn
IMO, saying DaVinci painted the last supper scene with hidden "proof" of Jesus and Mary's relationship is fine with me. In this spirit, I have additional proof that they had a relationship or were married.

The rock opera Jesus Chist Super Star, by Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber released as a double-album in 1970 proves this relationship, just like DaVinci proves it.

Within the list of songs, there is one which Mary sings about Jesus called,
"I Don't Know How to Love Him".
Certainly this corroberates DaVinci

of course how could all us christians be so blind a painting done in the 1400's and a rock opera done in the 1970's such irrefutable proof is astounding

/sarcasm

dont even know why you bothered posting ....

reply to post by pureevil81


well i dont think that there is no proof i just dont have any so im not gonna go around saying i do, you know what im saying

i just found this info and thought it would be cool to know what others thought about it.

also the thing about Judas and Jesus having claim to Mary's baby is totally based on my interpretation of the signs.

again anyone is free to interpret it how they want, just do it respectfully

reply to post by Demandred


I really don't know why you bothered posting, im not saying that a painting proves that all Christians are wrong

im saying that its proof that Da Viunci thought that all Christians were wrong, big difference

whether you want to put "faith" in Da VInci is totally up to you, but i have chosen to believe in his work.

This is a good compilation of the 'supposed' lineage of Jesus' on through the Merovingian bloodline.
These people believe themselves to be direct descendants of Jesus' relation to Mary Magdeline. It didn't happen, but they don't care. Antichrist will probably come from it, in keeping with 'royal lineage'.
Thirteen bloodlines.

Originally posted by tankthinker
One more thing you will never know if Da Vinci was or wasnt in a secret society because you did not know him, and i really dont care how much documented evidence anyone might have, you still werent there at the time and you did not have a strong relationship with the guy, so please dont pretend you know all about a guy you've never met (for anyone who was thinking of doing this in the future)

I take it this is directed at me. Obviously no one can claim they knew Leonardo. BUT someone can claim that they've studied his history, his work and his life, long before Dan Brown made him "popular" (and frankly disgraced his name). So it may be possible that this someone may have extensive knowledge of Leonardo Da Vinci? It doesn't have anything to do with "relationships". Leonardo's life was well documented - by himself - that is why we know so much about this guy that lived 600 years ago.

If I say Leonardo was a Satanist, would you believe me? Well there is no evidence that he either was or wasn't. What are you more inclined to believe? That he wasn't, right? We can throw many words in there, like "Da Vinci had an affair with the Pope", "Da Vinci had 93 children" and so on. We can make up endless claims - such as “Da Vinci was a member of a Secret Society with knowledge of Jesus' bloodline” - but in the end we have to bring something to the table to make it remotely believable.

"Da Vinci was a Satanist."
"Really!? How do you know that?"
"Well there is no proof that he either was or wasn't. I'm just assuming that he was."
"...Riiiight..."

Do you hear what that sounds like?

It would be like Einstein going...
"Hmm, let's assume that light travels at say, plus-minus 299 792 458 m/s then e=mc2 must be a fact..."

To begin his theory Einstein had to know the speed of light, because if he didn't then his theory would consist of wild assumptions and he might just as well have decided that e2 = mc if he assumed the speed of light wrong.

Another point you've been ignoring, that many people have made, is that Leonardo was an artist. As I previously mentioned - Leonardo have painted everything from Dragons to Angels - does that mean that he had extensive knowledge of any of those "mythical creatures"?

Have you studied the "Mona Lisa" with the same scrutiny? Or the "Baptism of Christ"? Or the "Adoration of Magi" (see if you can spot the dragon)? And if you were looking for "symbolism" of Jesus' Bloodline in each of his paintings would you find it? Do you even know how many Paintings Leonardo painted, and how many of them contains a religious theme?

Did you decide on "the Last Supper" because there was a clear historical indication that there was "more" to the painting, or did you go to that particular painting because Dan Brown told you to do so?

Have you ever heard of Occam's razor? It goes something like this: "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". It's a simple law of science which comes down to "Keep things simple". In other words, when numerous competing theories are equal in other respects, the law recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities.

So, in conclusion - your title "Proof that Da Vinci knew about Jesus' bloodline" is wrong. You have NO proof that Da Vinci knew anything about Jesus' Bloodline. All you have are "instincts and feelings" about your own interpretations of a very old, cracked mural. That, sir, is not proof.

Edit: Grammar

[edit on 19-11-2008 by Gemwolf]

elowww. why dont you read "The Secrets of the Da Vinci's Code" by Dan Brustein.... available somwhere...

reply to post by Gemwolf

"Proof that Da Vinci knew about Jesus' bloodline"

The REAL Question should be. Any evidence-proof about a 'Jesus-bloodline?'.

Originally posted by Gemwolf
I take it this is directed at me. Obviously no one can claim they knew Leonardo. BUT someone can claim that they've studied his history, his work and his life, long before Dan Brown made him "popular" (and frankly disgraced his name). So it may be possible that this someone may have extensive knowledge of Leonardo Da Vinci? It doesn't have anything to do with "relationships". Leonardo's life was well documented - by himself - that is why we know so much about this guy that lived 600 years ago.

If I say Leonardo was a Satanist, would you believe me? Well there is no evidence that he either was or wasn't. What are you more inclined to believe? That he wasn't, right? We can throw many words in there, like "Da Vinci had an affair with the Pope", "Da Vinci had 93 children" and so on. We can make up endless claims - such as “Da Vinci was a member of a Secret Society with knowledge of Jesus' bloodline” - but in the end we have to bring something to the table to make it remotely believable.

"Da Vinci was a Satanist."
"Really!? How do you know that?"
"Well there is no proof that he either was or wasn't. I'm just assuming that he was."
"...Riiiight..."

Do you hear what that sounds like?

It would be like Einstein going...
"Hmm, let's assume that light travels at say, plus-minus 299 792 458 m/s then e=mc2 must be a fact..."

To begin his theory Einstein had to know the speed of light, because if he didn't then his theory would consist of wild assumptions and he might just as well have decided that e2 = mc if he assumed the speed of light wrong.

And how do you know that these documents from Da Vinci werent forged, were you there at the time when he wrote it, all i am saying is that many things in history have been falsified and i dont like it when people say,- "well Da Vinci was never a part of a secret society, its proven fact that he was just a regular man and artist." when in fact they will actually never know because they weren't there, they didnt know him. You can always assume but that is not irrefutable proof. Things like mathematics for example are always there and can always be looked at, it stands through time so that cant really be used as an argument.

btw i dont think i intended this as a specific target to you as I state that that paragraph was for anyone who would claim the things i discussed in the future.

Another point you've been ignoring, that many people have made, is that Leonardo was an artist. As I previously mentioned - Leonardo have painted everything from Dragons to Angels - does that mean that he had extensive knowledge of any of those "mythical creatures"?

Have you studied the "Mona Lisa" with the same scrutiny? Or the "Baptism of Christ"? Or the "Adoration of Magi" (see if you can spot the dragon)? And if you were looking for "symbolism" of Jesus' Bloodline in each of his paintings would you find it? Do you even know how many Paintings Leonardo painted, and how many of them contains a religious theme?

Did you decide on "the Last Supper" because there was a clear historical indication that there was "more" to the painting, or did you go to that particular painting because Dan Brown told you to do so?

So, in conclusion - your title "Proof that Da Vinci knew about Jesus' bloodline" is wrong. You have NO proof that Da Vinci knew anything about Jesus' Bloodline. All you have are "instincts and feelings" about your own interpretations of a very old, cracked mural. That, sir, is not proof.

I actually know very little about Da Vinci, ive only like seen 3 of his paintings, but the reason i studied the last supper was because:

1. there was a previous thread on it that talked about symbolism in the painting so i got interested

2. again my instinct told me to, so i did

So to your question no, Dan Brown did not tell me to, if anyone told me it would have to have been god.

Also id like to apologize for the title of which i stated that it was proof, Gem is right. I have always thought Proof to be the same thing as Evidence and so i used one in the context of the other. But from learning their specific meanings i formally state the it should have read *NEW* Evidence that Da Vinci Knew of a Bloodline.

i want to thank you Gem for pointing this out to me, and for challenging my position, now i have to see if i can still change the title

reply to post by tankthinker


you slander my religeon with your anti-christian agenda then of course im going to defend it.

the sad part is you have no substance to back up your argument so this is all nothing more than yet another cheap shot at my religeon. hell you cant even substantiate what da vinci even intended, yet you come here with your "im so superior" attitude telling every one you know the truth when the truth of the matter is there are far greater minds than yours that have been pondering these things for a great deal longer than you and still cant positivley say yay or nay about it all.