What was Leonardo hinting at with John the Baptist?

Was Leonardo da Vinci hiding a secret message within his paintings? I believe there is a not-so hidden message and I don't think "The da Vinci Code" had it quite right.

The theory behind the book is that Mary Magdalene is the holy grail and that her and Jesus were married and had babies together and that the church had covered up this fact for hundreds of years. I'm here to shoot that theory down (hopefully) and bring forth a new one: that the holy grail was in fact John the Baptist, a.k.a. Jesus Christ.

My main focus will be on two paintings by the genius himself, Leonardo da Vinci. While I do not claim that my theory is right, I do believe it has some weight behind it. While I will only be dealing with John the Baptist in this thread, I believe my theory goes much deeper than this including Mary, John the apostle, Peter, Paul, Judas, etc. I will try to get those theories out as well, but for now I only want to focus on John and Jesus and how the two were the same identity in my opinion.

John the Baptist


Bacchus (Formerly St. John the Baptist)


The first thing that strikes me odd is the positioning of John's hands in both paintings, in the first he points to the sky and his chest, in the other he points off to his left and to the ground.

My opinion on what these hand gestures mean is that as he points to his chest and sky, he's saying "I am god", him pointing to the left and down is him saying "Any other is Satan". Who else is supposed to be god and anyone else Satan? Jesus.

And to add, the cross in the first painting was not originally part of the picture, someone added it in at a later date. Could it be they were trying to draw attention away from him pointing to the sky?

Okay, you may be wondering who this Bacchus character is and why John was turned into him. According to Wikipedia, Bacchus was the Roman version of the Greek god Dionysus.

Dionysus was the god of the grape harvest, winemaking and wine, of ritual madness and ecstasy in Greek mythology. His name in Linear B tablets shows he was worshipped from c. 1500—1100 BC by Mycenean Greeks: other traces of Dionysian-type cult have been found in ancient Minoan Crete.

He was also known as Bacchus (pron.: /ˈbækəs/ or /ˈbɑːkəs/; Greek: Βάκχος, Bakkhos), the name adopted by the Romans[11] and the frenzy he induces, bakkheia. His thyrsus is sometimes wound with ivy and dripping with honey. It is a beneficent wand but also a weapon, and can be used to destroy those who oppose his cult and the freedoms he represents.

Dionysus was the last god to be accepted into Mt. Olympus. He was the youngest and the only one to have a mortal mother.[6] His festivals were the driving force behind the development of Greek theatre. He is an example of a dying god.

Source

So Bacchus was the Roman version of the Greek god of wine, theatre, and ritual madness. He was also a dying god who was the only god in the pantheon to have an Earthly mother and heavenly father. A dying god is a god that dies only to resurrect himself (ahem Jesus).

Being the god of theater and poetry means he was the god of make-believe writing (bible), and being the god of wine means he's the god of intoxication (we all know Babylon became "intoxicated" by the adulteries of the whore, another connection?).

Since Jesus was also a god who had a mortal mother and who resurrected, who also loved wine (even made it), that leads me to believe that Leonardo was hinting at John the Baptist being turned into a god of make-believe that was born from a woman impregnated by god and who resurrected, a.k.a. Jesus himself.

Other paintings of his also literally "point" to this theory as well. For example:

Virgin of the Rocks


Notice how the angel to the right is pointing at John the Baptist and is looking at the viewer with an almost smug look on his/her face. It's almost like she's pointing at John then looking at the viewer and saying "I know something you don't" with her facial expression, kinda like the Mona Lisa.

Now Leonardo was a very smart man, probably the smartest ever. He also had very close ties with the Catholic church, meaning he was allowed information that no one else could never know. He did hide a "code" within his paintings and I believe this is one piece of the puzzle. There are other pieces of the puzzle that I can present, if this thread garners enough interest, but for now I will cut it off here.

Let me know what you think and don't be afraid to call me crazy, I just want to know if anyone else "sees" it like I do. Thanks for reading.






ETA: In a nutshell, my theory is this: Rome killed Jesus then changed his identity to cover up his true identity.

Yep...You're crazy...like a fox...

Keep the info rolling...This is a very interesting theory...I'll do a little addition research myself and see if I can't connect a few more dots.

Judging by those pictures I would guess old Leo was hinting that John the Baptist was a dude in drag.

reply to post by TFCJay


That's where Mary comes in, but I'll save that for later.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I would say in both of those pictures "john" is pointing to the place where the son of God was executed...

In "John the Baptist" he points the staff he is holding which is a cross...

Notice the grin on his face? It kinda looks like he's saying "it wasn't what you think"

I believe Da Vinci might have been hinting that there was no cross...

When you look at the other painting... you can see the same character pointing at his staff again which literally a tree... Suggesting the actual place Jesus was executed was a "stake" which is the word that was actually used in the original texts.... "Stauros (σταυρός)

And again notice the very serious look in this painting... The stake is the actual translation...

The cross was a symbol that predates Christianity... they just borrowed it

cool thread S&F

reply to post by Akragon


Possibly, but the cross was not part of the original painting, meaning someone added it in later.

The cross may not have been a cross, but I don't think da Vinci would have gone through that much effort only to point out there was no cross, that seems kind of pointless to me. I think he had an even deeper meaning with the hand gestures.

Did you read about the similarities between Bacchus and Jesus. So John was turned into a god similar to Jesus... hmmmm.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1



We have nothing from John the Baptist to know exactly what he taught so theres no way to actually confirm or deny that theory...

In the bible he was portrayed as completely separate from Jesus... And there are other sources that also confirm he existed, but apart from that theres no way to know...

I don't think Da vinci had any material that we don't have access to at this time, but considering he was very religious and possibly had access to libraries we do not within the Vatican (maybe)

Who knows...

Now remember, Leonardo was a "mirror-writer" and it is theorized that "mirror-writers" have two language centers in their brains and can operate creatively and rationally at the same time hence their ability to read and write forward and reverse at the same time... Perhaps this will give some additional insight.

icniVaD odranoeL Leonardo DaVinci

Except the letters are reversed as in a mirror on the left column...but the example is there for you to ponder over...

Mirror-Writers in the general population are about 8 in 6000 people...you can do the statistics...

reply to post by Akragon


John the Baptist is only mentioned by Josephus, who was a Roman.

Since Jesus was killed by Romans and da Vinci's painting of John was turned into a Roman deity, that leads me to believe that Rome changed his identity at some point, and that identity was Jesus, since both him and Bacchus resurrected and had a god as their father.

Da Vinci probably did have access to the libraries of the Vatican, so he knew things no one else did or does. He is obviously trying to hint at something with John the Baptist, otherwise there wouldn't be much mystery behind their meanings.

reply to post by Akragon


Perhaps this could be the difference between states of being?

As in Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Christ - these are two different states of being.

People don't realize it but the "Christ" means a state of being which is an attribute of the name of Jesus...being of Nazareth he was just a man until baptized by John, then the when the "dove" came down on him he became "Christed?"

There are more than one duality in the Bible like Jacob and Joseph, Jesus and Lucifer, John and Jesus, 1st and 2nd covenant, unglorified and glorified...Saul and Paul...can you see the similarities yet?

reply to post by trekwebmaster


I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Could you elaborate?

OMG what about this jewel of wisdom?

Reading the above with the hand signs and the duality in mind, what if John were a "Christ?"

Then I'm reminded of Alpha and Omega and when you see the last book is Revelation of St. John what does that tell you? First and Last but he was just John the Baptist then at the end he is St. John. -- unglorified then glorified? There seems to be a moral that we can become better than we are by faith? True...

Interesting thread here OP...S&F...

reply to post by trekwebmaster


St. John and John the Baptist were not the same person in my opinion, but they were related very closely. That's for another time though.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1




One word: iconography.
(Something Dan Brown, by the way, wouldn't even know where to search for, judging by his oeuvre.)

Thorough research of the iconographic conventions existing at that time and place - often going back centuries - is essential, because it was the code that made reading of visual images possible.
People are no longer used to reading images, including architecture, which is only natural.
But in the Renaissance they most certainly would have depended on established iconography to read pictures. And that's why, invariably, artists relied on it, too.

The same goes for research of the patron who commissioned any given painting - of their specific tastes and personal philosophy - because they would have influenced heavily the codification of the picture.

And finally, to understand an ostensibly religious piece of art (not that Leonardo was particularly religious in the sense that appears to be used in this thread; Michelangelo was), it is essential not only to have a thorough grasp of the Scriptures, in this case the New Testament, but also of the theology - interpretation of the Scriptures - specific to the time and place of the picture.

About ten years ago I discussed this very gesture with two people who are arguably the world's foremost authorities on Leonardo.
After having researched every aspect of Leonardo's life and work for decades, neither had a clear idea on what it may mean.

That's how murky and complicated this thing really is.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


The dualism is fascinating though. There is a common theme that seems to be as from the old to the new, from one to the other, man to God, through inner and outer conflict? At least that's the way it seems to me...all of the parables of Jesus dictate this very clearly. And we need to take literal and parabola to come to a third interpretation which in-each enhance the overall meaning to provide a Higher Truth, perhaps?

Why does he have the face of a woman?

I don't get why all these old paintings depict men with such feminist features.

reply to post by trekwebmaster

Perhaps this could be the difference between states of being?

As in Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Christ - these are two different states of being.

People don't realize it but the "Christ" means a state of being which is an attribute of the name of Jesus...being of Nazareth he was just a man until baptized by John, then the when the "dove" came down on him he became "Christed?"

Jesus was Christ before he was born... He didn't become "christed" so to speak... Baptism is nothing more then symbolic ritual...

There are more than one duality in the Bible like Jacob and Joseph, Jesus and Lucifer, John and Jesus, 1st and 2nd covenant, unglorified and glorified...Saul and Paul...can you see the similarities yet?

You probably wouldn't like my opinion on these matters...

Jacob and joseph.... Makes no difference eitherway

Jesus and Lucifer... Theres vague references to this... Nothing solid as far as scripture goes though... I'll leave this to the conspiracy theorists.

John and Jesus... Already said my part on this... theres no way to confirm this theory

Saul and Paul... Same person... a liar, a thief and a murderer

Perhaps we should keep to the topic?

reply to post by MystikMushroom


Maybe he was trying to say something with the face?

reply to post by Akragon


Though it may not be provable, those with an inquisitive enough mind can grasp and pull out the meaning If they really try.

Is it only a coincidence that John has a womanly face and he was the one to baptize Jesus? Is it also another coincidence that baptism is symbolic of childbirth? John's womanly face, baptism, and birth. What's the connection here? And why would the Romans change "his" identity?

Originally posted by trekwebmaster

Reading the above with the hand signs and the duality in mind, what if John were a "Christ?"

The New Testament makes it very clear that John had been considered the Messiah.
It was common knowledge. (It still is among Christians.)