Jesus With a Crystal Ball?

reply to post by Toffeeapple


Or that....That's probably what Davinci intended.....

I interpreted the dress as an allusion to the dualism of masculine-feminine, the head being the masculine, while the body - wearing a female dress - as the feminine..

I think frater10 mentioned that a diamond was missing from the dress??? Maybe that's an explicit sign of the rejection of the feminine by mainstream society....The diamond being a symbol of clarity and inclusion.

Originally posted by Toffeeapple

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Frater210

 

What about the fact that Jesus is wearing a females dress??? Wouldn't this allude to the whole Androgynous fascination of Neo-platonism/Gnosticism?

Or a reference to the hidden Godess who's been blocked out of most mainstream religions perhaps?

Or the fact that there is no Goddess, but rather an anthropomorphic being neither male nor female, but ALL.

Man is not male or female, it is a species which is then divided into male and female.

God is neither male nor female. It is the whole, which is then divided and worshipped according to where one places their heart in accordance with their understanding within.

But, maybe not.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by Toffeeapple

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Frater210

 

What about the fact that Jesus is wearing a females dress??? Wouldn't this allude to the whole Androgynous fascination of Neo-platonism/Gnosticism?

Or a reference to the hidden Godess who's been blocked out of most mainstream religions perhaps?

Or the fact that there is no Goddess, but rather an anthropomopic being neither male nor female, but ALL.

Man is not male or female, it is a species which is then divided into male and female.

God is neither male nor female. It is the whole, which is then divided and worshipped according to where one places their heart in accordance with their understanding within.

But, maybe not.

With Love,

Your Brother

Yet wouldn't you agree that in the main religions, the God is invariably portrayed as a man, whereas references to women tend to be negative. That was my point really. I believe it to be deliberate deception. And I'm not convinced that God is, as you claim, neither gender, though possibly that's just because the idea of balanced male & female energies appeals to me.

Exactly, to many if your responses, as they were just what I was thinking while reading, but only saw this thread today. Yes, the first painting seems to clearly bear resemblance to Mona Lisa. Second, the "transparent" sphere seems to be all but Invisible. Next, alluding to the idea of a timeline--I submit that the sphere both represents the earth and time, as this is our measurement of reality. To produce invisibility, light is bent around and object, reflecting off of it, so as not to detect it. I submit the idea that through a Möbius twist, time is recursive,repetitive, a circle, as the orb he/she holds, almost comletely transparent....we see it just before what is happening renders it invisible. If time is a circle, then no possible timeline can yield any grounded clues, as the whole story has been redone in so many repititions, the real story becomes unknowable and undetectable. It may even be why we keep "discovering" such new works if old masters, and if this were true, who would even be able to know or shine a light upon who they really were, for they could also have been rather newly created to further bolster a totally new revision gone backwards with in that time circle, rather than time line.
If this were true, I would see this nearly transparent orb as a warning of the earth, and life's, disappearance, coded in a painting of a figure we assign the representation of the best of humanity, also disappearing.
As to the hand symbolism, I note that he is holding up the opposing digit, which is to separate humanity from most of the animal kingdom, in ability and function. Next, the first two fingers, in at least one painting appearing as almost crossed or twisted around one another which brings to mind nullifying what you are sayng by crossing your fingers, or twisting one thing into another.
But, before analyzing my take in this, I would still like to point out that the whole of my theoretical approach here is dependent upon and defined by my rejection as time in any kind of line.

Or: Christ is the head of the Church, the Church is the body. The femininity of the body is supposed to represent the Church, which is generally labeled with female pronouns.

The motion of his hand (the one not holding the orb) is clearly reminiscent of the Pantocrator, which is a trope in Medieval Paintings where one of Jesus's hands is held up crossed and the other is holding a book. It is referring to Jesus as the creator of everything. en.wikipedia.org...

In my (likely not fully formed) theory, this is probably a stab at the Catholic Church. The orb = falseness and lies and deceptions, being held by the Church (the body) of Jesus. Jesus looks pretty angry, probably implying that he does not feel as if his body is representing what it is supposed to represent. The Church is the Pantocrator, not Jesus, in this painting, implying that Jesus feels that the Church has created something out of religion that doesn't exist. Look at his hair - it is curly up until his chin starts, and then it becomes masculine again. (Not a stab on women, but a stab at the Catholic Church, which is characterized female). There is a dissonance between Jesus and the Catholic Church. That's my opinion as of right now on the painting, but I would have to do a whole lot more research to back up what I am saying with any certainty - it's just a theory.

(I am coming from my university program, which is a comprehensive study of Western civilization. We just finished Medieval and got to Renaissance, we have been studying culture represented in art.)

It also occurs to me that the point to us is that nearly everything we think we see is a lie, given the almost invisible nature of that symbol, and the androgynous nature of the figure. And that having taken place will perhaps augment the end of a planet and it's life, as it was known to originally have been, because as that circle disappears, it will no longer be possible to discern anything. Hope I'm wrong, but i don't think I am

The circle (orb) could also possibly represent a veiled refute of one of the church's biggest lies - its denial of reincarnation.

Originally posted by Toffeeapple
Yet wouldn't you agree that in the main religions, the God is invariably portrayed as a man, whereas references to women tend to be negative. That was my point really. I believe it to be deliberate deception. And I'm not convinced that God is, as you claim, neither gender, though possibly that's just because the idea of balanced male & female energies appeals to me.

This is man projecting his image on God. It happens I suppose. We find the answer that best suits our personal preference.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by Toffeeapple

Yet wouldn't you agree that in the main religions, the God is invariably portrayed as a man, whereas references to women tend to be negative.

Well, it differs from religion to religion.

Generally speaking, the reason God is referred to in the masculine, is because "creation", all things which exist and are expressed, are feminine i.e. the effects, relative to the underlying cause, which is regarded as masculine.

In the human analogy, man gives his seed - which contains the 'blueprint' and information of a life, to the female, which takes that seed and gives expression to it through pregnation.

Same thing with nature. The rain provides the basic needs for life to thrive, and the earth takes that raw potentiality, and gives expression to it through plants, animals etc.

This is the metaphysics behind why we refer to God in the masculine, and why we refer to nature i.e. "mother nature", in the feminine.

Some religions, like Christianity and Islam, give expression to the divine feminine in private, akin to how a man goes out into the world to find the sustenance for living (again, the masculine is always abstract, outside, potential) whereas the woman takes that sustenance and creates a home, within their own 'world', of the house (a feminine structure), and raising their children......

Should the feminine be publicized, without jeopardizing the divine dynamic found throughout creation?? some people think this is the root cause of disorder in the world. Its because man goes outside of the divine order of things, that disorder enters the world. Otherwise, some people believe, man would be above the fluctuations of this lower world; he would be as God intended: a Bnei Elohim.

Originally posted by Frater210





Christ, in this Salvator, wears the colors of the 'vault of heaven' as his Mother should. It is not totally unique but is notable.

The "mother" is not "Mary" as many may assume. The "Mother" is the institution which claims itself to be "The Queen of Heaven". She is, in actuality, the Harlot. And the many spin-offs of various denominations are her "daughters". This is all chronicled in scripture.

Originally posted by Frater210

But to me it looks like Jesus has some type of door lock on his chest. I went to look for example of renaissance door locks, Found plenty of padlocks and some German door locks. None are dead on so it is just guess work on my part.

You might want to check the keys on the Papal insignia and see if either of those keys fit that keyhole. I think the symbolism is a clue.

If this is indeed Simon Magus, the Don of all Mages, the sorcerer...then perhaps we have a depiction of the serpent holding the apple translated as a man holding a globus crucifer.

reply to post by dontreally

What about the fact that Jesus is wearing a females dress??? Wouldn't this allude to the whole Androgynous fascination of Neo-platonism/Gnosticism?

Ya got me on that one. I never really noticed all the androgyny. Truth is, I realized last night that I do not understand Da Vinci as well as I should. I am going to have to go and do the quick course on Johannites (started in last night) and take a closer look at the life of Da Vinci. That is a steep call considering I have homework and this is just a thread. Me and my big mouth, well, you can count on me sticking it through. As long as it does not go to a research thread. I am already committed to one.

So...

allegations of being a homosexual, association with secret societies, all seem to indicate that Davinci was a Gnostic.

Yep. Totally agree, though I don't know what it means yet. I have those pieces rolling around as well but I need the background I mentioned before I dare try to jam them together in any meaningful way. I am going to throw in with you; he was steeped in Plato and neo-platonism, so let's just call him a Gnostic.

And since i consider the core of Christianity, the Catholic Church, to be Gnostic, i naturally suspect that the Church would preserve pieces like this in their libraries....

Why?? I dont know...Why does the Catholic Church preserve Greek and Roman i.e. Pagan art??? They're duplicitous.

They follow the advice of Valentinus, even though they officially condemn Gnosticism as heresy; the inner religion, that of the theologians, priests, and political elite, is "Pneumatic" (gnosticism)

I have never considered the Catholic church as 'Gnostic'. Are they? I do know that this is fairly accurate, what IAMIAM has written here...

Many of the early church fathers were noted practitinoers of Scrying (Crystal ball viewers), Alchemy, Necromancy, and other forms of occult teachings. There are more secret societies (Brotherhoods) under the Catholic umbrella than any other entity in the world.

Do you mean that the Catholic curch is pneumatic because they believe in everyhitng being an emanation from the pneuma? Is that what you mean?

How do you consider the Neo-Platonian, and Gnostic characterization of the cosmos, and the Jewish God, as a 'demiurge', an error?? Clearly, its nonsensical, and counter-intuitive, but how could anyone be shown that it is a "error"???

It was a mistake that those that came after Plato made. The mistake lies in trying to characterize what would be called the Dynamis as an evil creator entity. The One can't be described and can only be ascertained at all by a Soul that has access to a properly developed Intellect. As the One emanates its way on down into creation it has to become One and Not One and this is initially expressed as the Dynamis which gives expression to all things. That's where folks got tripped up. They started to characterize this Dynamis as a being emanating more beings and thus you have the hypostatsis of the Archons.

Ooops!

Plotinus tried to clear it up but apparently no one was paying attention...

thriceholy.net...

In my opinion, the truth is between the two poles, of scientific reasoning/metaphysical speculation, and connection to the transcendent, unknowable godhead.

I totally agree.

I interpreted the dress as an allusion to the dualism of masculine-feminine, the head being the masculine, while the body - wearing a female dress - as the feminine..

Sounds good to me. I was wondering if you might know enough about the Johannites to give us a brief breakdown?

Thanks.

reply to post by Alethea

The "mother" is not "Mary" as many may assume. The "Mother" is the institution which claims itself to be "The Queen of Heaven". She is, in actuality, the Harlot. And the many spin-offs of various denominations are her "daughters". This is all chronicled in scripture.

Do you mean more like the Syriac Mary? I am not sure how the Eastern church was an influence on Da Vinci, if you do.

You might want to check the keys on the Papal insignia and see if either of those keys fit that keyhole. I think the symbolism is a clue.

Good freakin' job.

If this is indeed Simon Magus, the Don of all Mages, the sorcerer...then perhaps we have a depiction of the serpent holding the apple translated as a man holding a globus crucifer.

That gave me the shivers. Way to keep it creepy.

reply to post by spacekc929

There is a dissonance between Jesus and the Catholic Church. That's my opinion as of right now on the painting, but I would have to do a whole lot more research to back up what I am saying with any certainty - it's just a theory.

You killed it right there. Some of the best analysis yet. I am going with your nutshell version until we come up with a better one.

Thanks.

reply to post by Frater210

I have never considered the Catholic church as 'Gnostic'. Are they? I do know that this is fairly accurate, what IAMIAM has written here...

I understand that you want to err on the side of caution, but i think its fairly clear what the Catholic Church is.

Following Valentinian doctrine that the Pneumatics follow a higher form of religion, wouldn't it be completely logical for the institutionalized Christian Church - the Catholic Church - to maintain outwardly the same religion taught to the psychics, and even commission a body of literature attacking the higher religion as 'heresy', to disassociate itself from Gnostic belief and gain the trust of their adherents, but inwardly, to follow that very ethos which Christian religion is ultimately based upon? Namely, the metaphysics of the teachings of the gospels, and Pauline letters, which teach a non-legalistic i.e. antinomian, approach to the Godhead?? This is what Meister Eckhart, St. John of the Cross, and many other Christian writers allude to.

If there one thing that's peculiar particularly to the western mystery traditions, its an insistence to keep the oral teachings, the metaphysics, out of written works of theology. This is the case with Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But just because there is no official record of these teachings in written works, doesn't mean they don't exist. IAMIAM, made a good point by pointing out that the Catholic Church has many different monastic orders, which some Catholic writers say has been the vehicle for transmitting these secret metaphysical teachings to those interested in living the ascetic-monastic life.

In addition to the clergy, there are the Noble houses, the de-facto temportal authorities in the world, and these families too are initiated into the inner traditions, of both ancient Greco-Roman mystery traditions, as well as Christian traditions..... and since Christianity is actually the perpetuation of an older, perennial philosophy into a new era, it makes sense why the Catholic Church seeks to preserve the memory of Greece and Rome, since they form the basis of modern Papal rule. Indeed, the very language used by the Catholic Church - Latin - was originally a pagan language sacred to Roman religion.

Do you mean that the Catholic curch is pneumatic because they believe in everyhitng being an emanation from the pneuma? Is that what you mean?

Im referring to the Valentinian doctrine (Valentinus, the main Gnostic authority) of their being 2 types of souls; the Psychic is one who (according to Gnostic doctrine) only understands the moralistic sense of religion, while the Pneumatic perceives the deeper, transcendent, spiritual origin of religion. Thus, the Psychic perceives only the literal meaning of the sacred text, while the Pneumatic discerns the metaphorical, metaphysical significance.

Im saying the Catholic Church publicly preaches the latter, and even develops a theology that enhances the outer. But inwardly, there is a deeper, metaphorical, ethos which somewhat contradicts the teachings of the outer religion. It is in the essential paradoxical beliefs of Gnosticism that what appears to the psychic as a contradiction, is actually, as understood by pneumatic, an expression of the mystery of the Godhead.

I was wondering if you might know enough about the Johannites to give us a brief breakdown?

I know nothing about that...If you know something, id be interested in learning...

reply to post by dontreally


Whoa, I knew none of that about Valentinus and the pneumatics, psychics and hylics. Whoa!

That's gonna keep me busy for a while. Man that was a shot of good stuff.

Thanks, DontReally.

Unless someone beats me to it I should be back sooner or later with something on the Johannites.

I thought I might post this in the meantime (no offense, Tetra50. Get it?. )

...if for no other reason than that it is very beautiful. This is from that same article that I cited from 3Pipe...

The intricacy of work demonstrated on the tunic of Christ are also cited as proof of Leonardo's authorship. Vasari famously notes:

"He even went so far as to waste his time in drawing knots of cords, made according to an order, that from one end all the rest might follow till the other, so as to fill a round; and one of these is to be seen in stamp, most difficult and beautiful, and in the middle of it are these words, "Leonardus Vinci Accademia"."

www.3pipe.net...

reply to post by Frater210


Lol, ah yes, I get it. In the meantime and throughout, I am but a boelyn: the rabbit comes out of the hole, goes around the tree, back around the tree again, and back in the hole. Sailing, anyone, in the meantime?

Should have figured I would find you on this thread without even looking for you.....

reply to post by masqua


I often wonder if Di Vinci's DNA runs into the Meroveingian line.
I also wonder about the true spelling of Merovirginian.
And with that thought. I might as well add something you might enjoy masqua.



Off topic, I know but I couldn't resist.

Originally posted by Alethea

Originally posted by Frater210

If this is indeed Simon Magus, the Don of all Mages, the sorcerer...then perhaps we have a depiction of the serpent holding the apple translated as a man holding a globus crucifer.

And if it were this, Althea, is it not interesting that it seems to us at first to be Jesus, the savior, of the world, rather than the serpent holding the apple, and the destoyer of the world. And perhaps this is a message from the painter about the generality of the possible con here.