Grail Trail: In Pursuit of the Da Vinci Code

[Topher]

I watched a show earlier [on ITV1] called the “Grail Trail: In Pursuit of the Da Vinci Code” earlier where 3 people, a lapsed Catholic, a non-believer and a devout Catholic travel around the world analysing The Da Vinci Code and speaking with various experts.

Anyone watch, or to open the discussion up, read the book? (I yet to read it yet but plan to shortly.)

Anyway, three points on the show that I found interesting:

A Catholic priest was questioned on whether the church still has the Pagan scriptures from before Christianity. The priest admitted that they were destroyed by the church. When asked why he said, you need to “destroy error” and “anything that is incompatible with the Catholic Church” I found that was quite insulting to the millions of people who don’t follow their belief. What happened to choice and making up you own mind? Fair enough, disagree, but to destroy history just because is goes against your view of it is another thing altogether. I saw that as trying to reduce the alternatives available to people, killing the competition so to speak.

An expert on the work of Leonardo Da Vinci was a devout Catholic. Hence he disagreed with every single alleged, “hidden message” in The Last Supper. While his analysis was quite possible, he simply rejected every theory, mainly stating it as “composition”.

There was also a man who was talking about the Holy Grail and was adamant that it didn’t exist, was just a made up story. When the people on the show tried to discuss various meanings of French text translations that could actually reveal some truth and such he went into one, saying there are too many people were blind to truth and just believed in stories. Which I found ironic considering he believed in the bible.

Anyway, if you watched it what was your take on the show, and/or the book.

:)

[Kwajman]

Quite the slick bit of marketing by the author eh?

[Wax]

I remember Dan Brown releasing a statement pressing the fact that it is a work of fiction. But then religion is full of instances of people taking a book to as absolute fact ;)

[RobP]

I saw that programme last night. Interesting how people view things.

The Catholic priest didn't quite say that

The art historian didn't say he was a Catholic, in fact he said he was more in line with de Vinci's way of thinking

The grail expert didn't mention the Bible as far as I remember and made a perfectly good point about the French (mis) translation.

The book is a work of fiction based heavily (some would say even derivative) of a number of other works (Holy Blood and Holy Grail, etc). Conspiracy theories always sell well - if you want thie biggest of all try Illuminatus by Robert Anton Wilson

cheers
Rob

[mike-IHF]

Homer,

I did not see the show you are talking about. However I have watched a few other shows on the subject, one I believe was done by channel 4. I have read the book 3 times actually. I'll start with the book.

The book is a great read. Even if you don't agree with anything in it, it is a very exciting book and is hard to put down once you start. So I would definetley recomend it to you. Now, let's dig deeper. The "holy Grail" as depicted in the story of Dan Brown's book is that it is actually the bloodline of Jesus. Now in my opinion I do believe in some parts of it, but not all. And let me say that my beliefs existed before the book even came out, so it has nothing to do with the book. One of the main theories of the story is that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and she was pregnant with the child of Jesus before his crucifixion, and because Mary was in fear for her life, and the life of the bloodline of Christ she fled to France.

Now in my opinion, I'm not to sure about the bloodline. Is it possible? sure. But if it did exist at one point, it would be so diluted by now, there is no way of telling yes or no. However with that said, I do believe that Jesus was married to Mary. For numerous reasons.

1: Contrary to most biblical scholars, it would not have made Jesus any less of the son of god, or whatever. And I do believe alot of the things that make Jesus more of a man (which he was) was taken out of scripture.

2: if you talk to any Jewish historian that studies biblical scripture, and knows Jewish culture of that time. They will tell you it would have been very unlikely that a Jewish man of Jesus's age would have not been married.

3: at the crucifixion, while all the other disciples fled for there lives there was only 3 people at the crucifixion. Mary mother of Jesus, James the brother of Jesus, and Mary Magdelene. Now for me, this shows that she was more than just a disciple or follower of Jesus. To me it shows that there was some sort of bond between them, like a husband and wife.

4: there are other sources that point to Jesus and Mary having this kind of bond. And also that Mary was to be the head of the Church that Jesus was trying to create.

So, yes I do believe they were married. Alot of people will disagree with that, and that's fine. But sometimes like you said you just have to follow common sense, and what yourheart feels.

Now on to De Vinci and specifically the last supper. Firstly, De Vinci was an incredible thinker, and inventor, painter and sculture. Now looking at the last supper there are certain things that must be looked at. One, is the picture of what is suppose to be John sitting left of Jesus. That is far as I'm concerned is not a man. It is a woman. Let's go deeper.

1: many people say that either it is John but it just looks feminine, or they say De Vinci made a mistake. I find this very stupid. Regarding art, De Vinci is not known for making mistakes, especially regarding paintings of people. He had a very deep understanding of the human body, anatomy etc. De Vinci was known to dig up corpses to study muscular structure, bone structure, etc. He definetely would not have made a mistake. If he wanted to paint a woman, or a man you can definetely see the difference. It is definetely a woman sitting next to Jesus.

2: now, look at the clothing between Jesus and what is suppose to be John. Jesus is wearing a blue robe with a red cloak or sash. And John (mary) is wearing a red robe and a blue sash. This may be opposite but I don't have the painting in front of me right now. But anyways this symbolizes the opposite of one another, intertwind. Meaning man and woman opposite from each other, but the same as flesh with flesh.

3: If you look at Peter who is seated two positions left of Mary (John). Who is known for having a hatred towards Mary Magdelene and this is known in biblical scripture, and in the Gnostic gospels. His left hand is by Mary's throat, in a position that symbolizes to kill. Just like you see in the movies where someone makes a cutting action on their throat to mean forthat person to be killed. Also, it is kind of small, but in Peters right hand he is holding a knife on the table. Now, could this all be coincidence? I suppose, but I don't think so. There is too much there. And to say De Vinci did not know what he was doing, or he made a mistake is just silly in my opinion.

[AZeitung]

The holy grail isn't really a Christian thing - it comes from pre-Christian Celtic sacred vessels and is more connected to King Arthur than anything else.

And from something I saw on the history channel about a year ago:

The pentagram doesn't represent the sacred feminine any more than it represents anything else.

The SP on the cealing of that church mentioned stands for "Saint Peter", not the priory of sion.

There's a reference in the book to a meridian in france that runs through several different places. These places, in fact, all lie on different meridians.

There's reference to an object that was used to transport texts by hiding them inside of it. This object is not hollow and does not have an opening, save for a very small indentation in one spot.

The priory of sion was founded in the 20th century and was basically a cult.

The Knights Templar made their fortune from international banking, not with secret knowledge about Jesus.

[mike-IHF]

The holy grail isn't really a Christian thing - it comes from pre-Christian Celtic sacred vessels and is more connected to King Arthur than anything else

I agree, that is one story of the grail. But in reference to the book, and other scriptures it is the theory of Jesus's bloodline.

[Topher]

I saw that programme last night. Interesting how people view things.

The Catholic priest didn't quite say that
Errrr..... yes he did.

What was your interpretation?

The art historian didn't say he was a Catholic, in fact he said he was more in line with de Vinci's way of thinking
While he didn't directly say he was Catholic, his reaction after trying to dodge the question head on revealed more than had he just answered it. He said his religious stance was irrelevant, but no matter how you look at it, his religion/views WILL drive his analysis. FACT! He also rejected other possibilities without question.

The grail expert didn't mention the Bible as far as I remember and made a perfectly good point about the French (mis) translation.

He did make a good point, but he too failed to even consider other points. One of the people on the show did make a good point that its translation did reveal info on the grail.

The book is a work of fiction based heavily (some would say even derivative) of a number of other works (Holy Blood and Holy Grail, etc). Conspiracy theories always sell well - if you want thie biggest of all try Illuminatus by Robert Anton Wilson
Of couse the book is fiection, even Dan Brown admits that. But the documents, rituals, organization, artwork, and architecture in the novel all exist. It's fictional characters in a real setting.

@Mike-IHF
Good post.

To add to that there was also the point that the disciples reacted badly to Mary giving Jesus a kiss, stating why didn’t he love them like he loves her. Some Christians dispute this kiss as a “holy kiss” or a kiss on the cheek or hand, which begs the question: why would his disciples react in the way they did if it was sexual and/or didn’t mean that much?

There was also the theory that Mary was the brain behind the religion and Jesus was just the front man and that the Catholic Church “amended” this to not reveal a woman had such stature. Don’t really know details on this one though

On the point re: the man/woman in the painting. The Da Vinci expert in the show said that da Vinci was homosexual and did depict men in a feminine way. That is a good point however if you look at the other men in the painting you can quite clearly see that their femininity doesn’t quite match that of the alleged woman. So if it was a man why was the womanly depiction so drastic than usual? I think it is a woman.

On the Holy Grail, what is the theory that it is the womb of Mary (or something)

Finally on Dan Brown’s web site I noticed this:

An Unbroken Code
There exists a chapel in Great Britain that contains a ceiling from which hundreds of stone blocks protrude, jutting down to form a bizarre multi-faceted surface. Each block is carved with a symbol, seemingly at random, creating a cipher of unfathomable proportion. Modern cryptographers have never been able to break this code, and a generous reward is offered to anyone who can decipher the baffling message. In recent years, geological ultrasounds have revealed the startling presence of an enormous subterranean vault hidden beneath the chapel. This vault appears to have no entrance and no exit. To this day, the curators of the chapel have permitted no excavation.

Anyone now what chapel this is?

[mike-IHF]

Homer,

To add to that there was also the point that the disciples reacted badly to Mary giving Jesus a kiss, stating why didn’t he love them like he loves her. Some Christians dispute this kiss as a “holy kiss” or a kiss on the cheek or hand, which begs the question: why would his disciples react in the way they did if it was sexual and/or didn’t mean that much?

As far as the kiss, it is hard to say whether it was more of a loving kiss or just a holy kiss. The scripture reads Jesus" and he lissed her on the blank". there is actually a whole in the paper, so no one knows where the kiss was.

The disciples reaction was for many reasons. One in Jewish culture woman were not seen as equal to man (no secret) it's like that in a lot ofcultures, but on to my story. So the disciples did not want to see a woman held in higher regards then them. Also, in the gospels, and also in the gnostic gospels there is a scripture that reads, that " mary recieved a vison of Jesus" and when the disciples asked her what he said she stated, "not only will I tell you what he told to me and not you, I will tell you what he did not want you to know". well, this furiated Peter to the point of well, you know. And Peter then said "is it true, that he loves a woman more than us".

There was also the theory that Mary was the brain behind the religion and Jesus was just the front man and that the Catholic Church “amended” this to not reveal a woman had such stature. Don’t really know details on this one though

Exactly. Why do you think it is women have no place in the Catholic church? It was written in the bible that women could not have the power of Profisy, or be ministers(priest) etc.

On the Holy Grail, what is the theory that it is the womb of Mary (or something)

The theory is Mary being the Chalice that holds the blood of christ. Meaning a child.

An Unbroken Code
There exists a chapel in Great Britain that contains a ceiling from which hundreds of stone blocks protrude, jutting down to form a bizarre multi-faceted surface. Each block is carved with a symbol, seemingly at random, creating a cipher of unfathomable proportion. Modern cryptographers have never been able to break this code, and a generous reward is offered to anyone who can decipher the baffling message. In recent years, geological ultrasounds have revealed the startling presence of an enormous subterranean vault hidden beneath the chapel. This vault appears to have no entrance and no exit. To this day, the curators of the chapel have permitted no excavation.

Anyone now what chapel this is?

I can't remember off hand, but I believe it is refering to Roslyn chapel. Which is where the theory believes the body of Mary (holy Grail) is buried. But it might be another chapel that it is refering to.

[AZeitung]

I agree, that is one story of the grail. But in reference to the book, and other scriptures it is the theory of Jesus's bloodline.
In reference to the book, yes. In reference to other scripture, no. there's no mention of the holy grail until King Arthur.

[mike-IHF]

AZeitung,

In reference to the book, yes. In reference to other scripture, no. there's no mention of the holy grail until King Arthur.

I agree with you on that. What I meant by " other scripture" I was talking about other religous scripture, such as the Gnostic gospels etc. But I see what you mean.

[Kwajman]

All of you are proving a fascinating point that depending on your point of view, you can view this mysteries however you want. You can look at all this symbolism and create whatever story you believe in. I love these types of books.

[cavallin]

The pentagram doesn't represent the sacred feminine any more than it represents anything else.

what do you mean by that?

well all i will say is that i am inclined into believing that the christian church (at that time) when constantine was around destroyed as much evidence of paganism to convert everybody to christianity (because he was making money out of it) thats why some churches are round, because they used to be old pagan churches.

the pentacle represents many things in wicca and witchcraft including the 5 elements etc! and the church at that time turned it into an evil symbol so people stopped worshipping it, hence why lots of "gothic" (13 yr old kids) have an upside down pentagram as a sign of the devil, when in fact it represents stage two of the initiation of becoming a witch in wiccan beliefs.

isn't it funny how pagans celebrate the winter solstice on 21st december, then the 4 days of Yule (ever had a yule log!), which ends the 25th of december...hmm funny also how my sister is a jehova's witness and they believe jesus was in fact born in october or something.

is it a coincidence that when the church was trying to erradicate all other religions that the pagan festival suddenly became the birth of jesus...

(i know this is a little off topic but i find it fascinating, how today's xmas is such a mix of religions!)

[hutchback]

You I promised myself I wouldn't post on this, because internet forums are the absolute owrst place for religious debate. But against my better judgment I make the following comments:

First, it is inaccurate to consider the Gnostic Gospels part of the Bible.

Second, the Gnostic Gospels refute Brown's claims (claims made through fiction) that Jesus was merely a man. The essence of Gnosticism is taht Jesus was never human, but the spiritual manifestation of God on Earth.

Here are two articles addressing the Da Vinci Code and the Gnostic Gospels.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/006/28.57.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/006/7.26.html

Third, the claims that the Roman Catholic Church(RCC) have tried to supress the Sacred Feminine are absurd. Have you ever been in a Roman Catholic Church? The sacred feminine is everywhere in there. It just that it is the Mother Mary rather than Mary Magdalene. The RCC has deified the Virgin Mary, if you ever visit Rome I hinkl you'll find that most Catholics there have elevated The Virgin Mother above Jesus. To claim that the RCC has purposefully tried to diminish the role of women, would contradict the emphasis they have placed on Mary.

BTW I know that last part may be construed as inflammatory, but it was not intended that way.

[hutchback]

what do you mean by that?

isn't it funny how pagans celebrate the winter solstice on 21st december, then the 4 days of Yule (ever had a yule log!), which ends the 25th of december...hmm funny also how my sister is a jehova's witness and they believe jesus was in fact born in october or something.

is it a coincidence that when the church was trying to erradicate all other religions that the pagan festival suddenly became the birth of jesus...

(i know this is a little off topic but i find it fascinating, how today's xmas is such a mix of religions!)

No not coincidence at all. This was exactly the strategy of the Early Roman Catholic Church, its called assimilation (like the Borg). Most Bible believing Christians Today are aware of this and find it distastful. The entire Roman culture (even prior to becoming a Christian Empire) was based on assimilation. It is easier to rule over people if you concede to and even adopt a great deal of their existing culture (they are less grumpy that way). That is how Judaism existed under Roman rule. Ceasar basically said I don't care who they worship as long as they pay their taxes. Jesus even said, when questioned about this taxation "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's".

[Joe_GA]

what do you mean by that?

well all i will say is that i am inclined into believing that the christian church (at that time) when constantine was around destroyed as much evidence of paganism to convert everybody to christianity (because he was making money out of it) thats why some churches are round, because they used to be old pagan churches.

the pentacle represents many things in wicca and witchcraft including the 5 elements etc! and the church at that time turned it into an evil symbol so people stopped worshipping it, hence why lots of "gothic" (13 yr old kids) have an upside down pentagram as a sign of the devil, when in fact it represents stage two of the initiation of becoming a witch in wiccan beliefs.

isn't it funny how pagans celebrate the winter solstice on 21st december, then the 4 days of Yule (ever had a yule log!), which ends the 25th of december...hmm funny also how my sister is a jehova's witness and they believe jesus was in fact born in october or something.

is it a coincidence that when the church was trying to erradicate all other religions that the pagan festival suddenly became the birth of jesus...

(i know this is a little off topic but i find it fascinating, how today's xmas is such a mix of religions!)

Just a point of clarification. Constantine legalized Christianity but he did not make it the official religion of the empire. This is was done later. Up through the 5th century or so, paganism and Christianity existed side by side. It was not until later that the byzantine emperors closed the pagan philosophical academies. It is true that at some point, many pagan texts were destroyed, but not all and most philosophical texts survived. The Church fathers had great admiration for the classical pagan philosophers, but no admiration for popular pagan religion.

It is true that some Christian feasts, such as Christmas, were, at least in part, scheduled to correspond to the pagan feast. But its more more complicated than simple assimilation. The reason that Christmas is December 25 is that the feast of the Annunciation to Mary is March 25 (hence 9 months apart). Christians never claimed that Jesus was really born on December 25. The dating has to do with spreading out the feasts over the Church calender, not with trying to calculate the precise date of anyone's birth. Christmas was not even a major feast in the Church until the middle ages. The two principle feasts of the Church were Pascha (Easter) and Theophany on January 6. Eventually Christmas became the third most important feast. In the Orthodox Church, Theophany still trumps Christmas in terms of importance and many Eastern Churches celebrate Christmas with Theophany on January 6.

[Joe_GA]

No not coincidence at all. This was exactly the strategy of the Early Roman Catholic Church, its called assimilation (like the Borg). Most Bible believing Christians Today are aware of this and find it distastful. The entire Roman culture (even prior to becoming a Christian Empire) was based on assimilation. It is easier to rule over people if you concede to and even adopt a great deal of their existing culture (they are less grumpy that way). That is how Judaism existed under Roman rule. Ceasar basically said I don't care who they worship as long as they pay their taxes. Jesus even said, when questioned about this taxation "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's".

Was it assimilation or transformation? What I find interesting that that the same Catholic traditions and rituals can be traced back to Judaism as well as paganism. Some scholars would suggest that this is because ancient Judaism and paganism had much in common. The only thing that fundamentally separated them was the Deity they worshiped. All ancient religion had a liturgical calendar and a ritualistic liturgy which culminated in sacrifice. I know I am probably taking this thread even further off topic. Let me try to turn it back to the topic by saying that many of the wildly speculative, nonsensical theories (like Dan Brown's) are based on very superficial accounts of history. It is very difficult to make historical arguments because history is much more complicated than any of us can possibly imagine.

[mike-IHF]

hutchback,

You I promised myself I wouldn't post on this, because internet forums are the absolute owrst place for religious debate. But against my better judgment I make the following comments:

First, it is inaccurate to consider the Gnostic Gospels part of the Bible.

Second, the Gnostic Gospels refute Brown's claims (claims made through fiction) that Jesus was merely a man. The essence of Gnosticism is taht Jesus was never human, but the spiritual manifestation of God on Earth.

Here are two articles addressing the Da Vinci Code and the Gnostic Gospels.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/006/28.57.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/006/7.26.html

Third, the claims that the Roman Catholic Church(RCC) have tried to supress the Sacred Feminine are absurd. Have you ever been in a Roman Catholic Church? The sacred feminine is everywhere in there. It just that it is the Mother Mary rather than Mary Magdalene. The RCC has deified the Virgin Mary, if you ever visit Rome I hinkl you'll find that most Catholics there have elevated The Virgin Mother above Jesus. To claim that the RCC has purposefully tried to diminish the role of women, would contradict the emphasis they have placed on Mary.

BTW I know that last part may be construed as inflammatory, but it was not intended that way.

I know the Gnostic gospels are not part of the bible. But there is evidence that does infact support the idea that some of the Gnostic gospels were not added for certain reasons. And these things took place before Constatine. Actually the person that was the main figure in the creation of the canon was Aranius, not Constatine.

Second, the Gnostic Gospels refute Brown's claims (claims made through fiction) that Jesus was merely a man. The essence of Gnosticism is taht Jesus was never human, but the spiritual manifestation of God on Earth.

Well, I can partly agree with this, but it is not completely accurate. Even though I consider myself Catholic, I still keep an open mind regarding other scripture. I am a believer in the Gnostic gospels for the diifferent view that they hold. The above quote is not true at all. I have read some not all of the Gnostic gospels, mostly the book of Thomas, and nowhere in the book of Thomas does it suggest Jesus was never human. Infact, the Gospel of Thomas suggest that Jesus was even more human than the bible portraits him. The Gospel of Thomas was written in a way that suggest Jesus was more of an enlightend person, almost similar to Bhuddist teachings. However, it still says that Jesus was the son of god etc. But the teachings are written more like Bhuddist teachings, in that instead of looking into outside sources to find god, god lies within us all. So you must look into yourself. Ihave the Gospel of Thomas in front of me as I write this. So, if you want to post false information regarding what it reads, I'll be more than happy to write exactly what it says. Now, the views that you wrote might exist in some of the other Gnostic gospels, like I said I have not read them all. But I can say, those views are not found in the Gospel of Thomas.

Third, the claims that the Roman Catholic Church(RCC) have tried to supress the Sacred Feminine are absurd. Have you ever been in a Roman Catholic Church? The sacred feminine is everywhere in there. It just that it is the Mother Mary rather than Mary Magdalene. The RCC has deified the Virgin Mary, if you ever visit Rome I hinkl you'll find that most Catholics there have elevated The Virgin Mother above Jesus. To claim that the RCC has purposefully tried to diminish the role of women, would contradict the emphasis they have placed on Mary.

Well, ofcourse they hold Mary in high regard. But you can't compare the mother of Jesus, to any other woman in the world. It is no secret, that woman do not have much if any role in church practices. Now a days it is becomming more common in certain Christian congregations to have woman ministers etc. But it is not found in the RCC. Show me one woman priest in the RCC in Rome, and I'll admit my mistake.

[hutchback]

hutchback,



I know the Gnostic gospels are not part of the bible. But there is evidence that does infact support the idea that some of the Gnostic gospels were not added for certain reasons. And these things took place before Constatine. Actually the person that was the main figure in the creation of the canon was Aranius, not Constatine.



Well, I can partly agree with this, but it is not completely accurate. Even though I consider myself Catholic, I still keep an open mind regarding other scripture. I am a believer in the Gnostic gospels for the diifferent view that they hold. The above quote is not true at all. I have read some not all of the Gnostic gospels, mostly the book of Thomas, and nowhere in the book of Thomas does it suggest Jesus was never human. Infact, the Gospel of Thomas suggest that Jesus was even more human than the bible portraits him. The Gospel of Thomas was written in a way that suggest Jesus was more of an enlightend person, almost similar to Bhuddist teachings. However, it still says that Jesus was the son of god etc. But the teachings are written more like Bhuddist teachings, in that instead of looking into outside sources to find god, god lies within us all. So you must look into yourself. Ihave the Gospel of Thomas in front of me as I write this. So, if you want to post false information regarding what it reads, I'll be more than happy to write exactly what it says. Now, the views that you wrote might exist in some of the other Gnostic gospels, like I said I have not read them all. But I can say, those views are not found in the Gospel of Thomas.



Well, ofcourse they hold Mary in high regard. But you can't compare the mother of Jesus, to any other woman in the world. It is no secret, that woman do not have much if any role in church practices. Now a days it is becomming more common in certain Christian congregations to have woman ministers etc. But it is not found in the RCC. Show me one woman priest in the RCC in Rome, and I'll admit my mistake.

Perhaps no Priests but what about Nun's do they hold no part in Catholic Church?

Also, while I do indeed defer to you as to what the Gospel of Thomas says. The statements as to the nature of Christ I made described the basis of the Gnostic Movement, not the specifics of the texts.

The think the debate of assimilation vs transformation is one of symantics, but I did paint with a rather large brush there. And I also agree with what I believe you are inferring that many pagan texts, symbols, and rituals exist still today due to the RCC preserving them to some degree.

[mike-IHF]

hutchback,

Perhaps no Priests but what about Nun's do they hold no part in Catholic Church?

Yes, nun's have a part in the church. But, mainly they are there as caretakers of the church. Almost like back in the day when there was chamber maidens. They just mainly look after the upkeep of the church. I am refering to womens roll as far as preaching the gospel, or holding positions that of a priest, or bishop etc.

Also, while I do indeed defer to you as to what the Gospel of Thomas says. The statements as to the nature of Christ I made described the basis of the Gnostic Movement, not the specifics of the texts.

The basis of what you said, may be true. I was not around then to know exactly what the movement was about. However, as far as scripture mainly I just see Thomas having a different view of Jesus's teachings. Almost like the way the other Disciples refer to Jesus in the canon. Matthew usually refered to Jesus has Rabi, where as I believ luke called him master. So it seems each disciple saw Jesus in their own way. This is one factor of why I like the gospel of Thomas. Because it is written as basically a list of teachings from Jesus. There is no stories, miracles, etc. It is just straight forward teachings. It is a little bit easier to read than the bible, altough I enjoy the bible very much. It's just different.

The think the debate of assimilation vs transformation is one of symantics, but I did paint with a rather large brush there. And I also agree with what I believe you are inferring that many pagan texts, symbols, and rituals exist still today due to the RCC preserving them to some degree.

I think I missed out on this conversation. I believe you were discussing this topic with Joe GA.

[hutchback]

Mike - IHF

First off, I'd like to say that I like the way you represent yourself. It is rare to find anyone who posts so clearly on any forum.

Second, although I agree that superficially most Nun's made perform the roles of "chamber maids" (your words), it is unfair to say that this is what the RCC has intended for them. Mother Theresa did great things for the world, and many Catholic Schools use Nuns to teach (although this trend is dissapearing) and teaching is a position of vast responsibility and power. What is definitely true is that the RCC does not allow women any position of status. But since you are a student of Christ's teaching, you know that status is the antithesis of leadership. "... Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must become your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all..."

In fact I guess when viewing this teaching, nun have the highest positions in the church.

[mike-IHF]

hutchback,

First off, I'd like to say that I like the way you represent yourself. It is rare to find anyone who posts so clearly on any forum.

Thank you. I believe you present yourself in a good light as well.

Second, although I agree that superficially most Nun's made perform the roles of "chamber maids" (your words), it is unfair to say that this is what the RCC has intended for them. Mother Theresa did great things for the world, and many Catholic Schools use Nuns to teach (although this trend is dissapearing) and teaching is a position of vast responsibility and power. What is definitely true is that the RCC does not allow women any position of status. But since you are a student of Christ's teaching, you know that status is the antithesis of leadership. "... Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must become your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all..."

I agree. Please understand I did not intend for my posts to suggest the RCC is to blame. I believe it is just something that has been around in all religions. Mainly because religion stems from society, so if the women in that particular society play small roles, or are treated like property it will and has expanded into the religious format. The Koran, is no different etc. But, I definetely agree with the teaching at the end of your post.

[mike-IHF]

Homer,

I was just wondering if you bought the book yet? and if so have you started to read it?

Also just in case any one's inteested the movie based on the book is comming out May 2006. It will be directed by Ron Howard, so it should be really good. I know I can't wait :) .

[Lithanwif]

1: many people say that either it is John but it just looks feminine, or they say De Vinci made a mistake. I find this very stupid. Regarding art, De Vinci is not known for making mistakes, especially regarding paintings of people. He had a very deep understanding of the human body, anatomy etc. De Vinci was known to dig up corpses to study muscular structure, bone structure, etc. He definetely would not have made a mistake. If he wanted to paint a woman, or a man you can definetely see the difference. It is definetely a woman sitting next to Jesus.


Speculation again Im afraid.

I too can speculate...here's one.

Leonardo is a known homosexual, whos to say he did not paint an androgynous John. Hinting at a slightly deeper relationship between Jesus and John?
Again, before the christians explode. Im enagaging in some specualation. buit this is no less valid than it's Mary and not John,and if it is La Magdalene...where exactly is John in the picture?

[tekkengod]

i tell you what, it never ceases to amaze me what brilliant and astonishing things the marketing team at Religion. INC can accomplish.
God, i offically applaude your marketing ability, as it is clearly beyond that of any humans.

[Topher]

Speculation again Im afraid.

I too can speculate...here's one.

Leonardo is a known homosexual, whos to say he did not paint an androgynous John. Hinting at a slightly deeper relationship between Jesus and John?
Again, before the christians explode. Im enagaging in some specualation. buit this is no less valid than it's Mary and not John,and if it is La Magdalene...where exactly is John in the picture?
John & Jesus? A homosexual relationship in biblical times... Never!! :D

The thing is just look at all of Leonardo's feminine men in his work. Then look at the person sitting next to Jesus. It's a women. All of the feminine men still look like men.

[Lithanwif]

John & Jesus? A homosexual relationship in biblical times... Never!! :D

The thing is just look at all of Leonardo's feminine men in his work. Then look at the person sitting next to Jesus. It's a women. All of the feminine men still look like men.

Hm...

I thought there was something about Mona possibly being a sketch of himself in drag?

Again...where is John exactly?

[Strafio]

You I promised myself I wouldn't post on this, because internet forums are the absolute owrst place for religious debate. But against my better judgment I make the following comments:
I disagree! I've had some of the best theological discussions ever on this site!

Here are two articles addressing the Da Vinci Code and the Gnostic Gospels.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/006/28.57.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/006/7.26.html
Good reading, although they have their biased slant.
I think this one (http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html) has the slant the other way. It's inconclusive but the Thomas Gospel might be older than any of the manuscripts we already had, and many historians believe that some gospel writers, like Luke, used it as a source for their own.

I've my own reasons for disbelieving in sin and judgement so gnostism already seems to make some sense to me, but I don't really know anything about it so I'll reserve judgement until I know a bit more. The whole thing might've been over-romanticised and when "gnostic fundamentalism" ultimately shows up there could be some very strange beliefs around, although I think gnostism is very anti-fundamentalist but so's Buddhism and some people have managed it with that! :)

[mike-IHF]

To All,

Speculation again Im afraid.

I too can speculate...here's one.

Leonardo is a known homosexual, whos to say he did not paint an androgynous John. Hinting at a slightly deeper relationship between Jesus and John?
Again, before the christians explode. Im enagaging in some specualation. buit this is no less valid than it's Mary and not John,and if it is La Magdalene...where exactly is John in the picture?

Leonardo very well could have been a homosexual. However, alot of his religous art work was commistioned by the church itself. And none of his other religous paintings have any hint of feminine looking males, or anything to suggest homosexuality.

where exactly is John in the picture?

He's not in the painting, that's the point. But I will get to that later.

Lithanwif,

Hm...

I thought there was something about Mona possibly being a sketch of himself in drag?

That is a theory, but no one knows for sure. There are other theories behind it as well.

Strafio,

Good reading, although they have their biased slant.
I think this one has the slant the other way. It's inconclusive but the Thomas Gospel might be older than any of the manuscripts we already had, and many historians believe that some gospel writers, like Luke, used it as a source for their own.

I've my own reasons for disbelieving in sin and judgement so gnostism already seems to make some sense to me, but I don't really know anything about it so I'll reserve judgement until I know a bit more. The whole thing might've been over-romanticised and when "gnostic fundamentalism" ultimately shows up there could be some very strange beliefs around, although I think gnostism is very anti-fundamentalist but so's Buddhism and some people have managed it with that!

While I am no expert on the Gnostics. It is my belief, and as been for many years. So if you have any questions, I will answer them to the best of my ability.

I will first start with John, and why he is not in the painting. John believe it or not was actually thought of by many in that day as an outcast. Someone who was very tempermental, and purposely went against others for his own gain. There is evidence that supports the idea that John, purposely refuted Thomas, and basically wrote, and said things to get people to go against Thomas's view. This is supported by Aranius's position to bring together the for fold gospel that we see in the NT. For a long time many thought John's gospel was the first in the NT, however evidence supports the possibility that his was the last for numerous reasons. 1: out of the four gospels in the NT, Matthew, Mark and Luke are pretty similar in many ways, while John's is a whole nother ball game. Basically Aranius had to make a choice to what gospel to add as the fourth. Thomas, or John. And I'll explain how John won the battle. Thomas's gospel reflects more on that God is within us all. And to seek God is to look into yourself. John's however is the complete opposite. Out of the for gospels John is the only one that reinerates that Jesus is God, and no one comes before the father but by him. This made a very powerfull statement, more so than Thomas. This was during a time when the church was about to be structured, so they needed the more powerfull gospel so more people would follow that belief. This would completely help the church become great. Thomas's gospel portrays Jesus as more human "which he was". this would not be fundemental for the church's development.

Ther is alot of information into the Gnostics, including Jesus's time with the Essene tribe in egypt. Who called themselves "the sons of light" and their practices are very closely related to teaches in Bhuddism. Which is something else thats intersting. In Bhuddist tradition it is written that a man during the time of Jesus came to the mountains, and studied Bhuddist teachings and meditation. They named the man " ISA". funny thing is, that in the Koran which is far from Bhuddist teachings also refers to Jesus in the name of " ISA". interesting HUH?. Anyway, I don't want to make this too long. But any questions are welcome.

[Lithanwif]

Ther is alot of information into the Gnostics, including Jesus's time with the Essene tribe in egypt. Who called themselves "the sons of light" and their practices are very closely related to teaches in Bhuddism. Which is something else thats intersting. In Bhuddist tradition it is written that a man during the time of Jesus came to the mountains, and studied Bhuddist teachings and meditation. They named the man " ISA". funny thing is, that in the Koran which is far from Bhuddist teachings also refers to Jesus in the name of " ISA". interesting HUH?. Anyway, I don't want to make this too long. But any questions are welcome.

interesting post, a few things I hadn't considered before. it's a bitch when politics and religion get together. Didnt realise it was back then though.

I had heard the Bhuddism/jesus thing before, even to the point where they think they have identified a grave which is buried in the jewish fashion in a buddhist stronghold. With supporting evidence to prove that Jesus had survived the Crucifixion and gone there to grow old and die.

Fact is, we will never know, but isn't it fun to guess?

[Strafio]

First Revelations and now this...
John indeed has a lot to answer for!

(sorry Aikimac! :o)

[Lithanwif]

Mike, I got one for ya.

Back to why John was left out of the Painting.

John, born around April 2 BC.

Leonardo born 1452 AD, Now Im taking it as read that this 'discension' in the ranks of the apostles isnt actually well publicised. No point in rocking the peace and love boat huh? And as you said, most of Leo's paintings Chartered by teh church.
Why would they allow John to be left out? Why would they let Magdelene in?
Look at it this way, we are closer to Da Vinci's time than he was to Johns, and there's loads of myths about Old Leo. And those times were a hell of a lot more pious than now, So why would the church charter a painting showing a woman at the last supper if they were trying to suppress magdalene's role?

[Strafio]

The idea was that the "defects" weren't clear enough to be instantly recognisable, so they'd "stealthilty" sneak into the picture. It might well just all be conspiracy theory.

[Lithanwif]

Well, going by the fact that a fair percentage of peeps now say it is definately a woman. No question. Surely the church would have said "hey Leo, got a second? Great..um, not too sure how to broach this with you, but well the lads and I had a meeting looking at your new Drawing....Sorry painting yeah painting. Well as I said, me and the lads had a few Wines and some bread, and we got to looking and well. John looks a bit dodgy dont he? A bit, you know, light on the old loafers! In fact he looks like a lady. And we thought that the author of revelations should look a little more fire and brimstone. Big bushy beard and stuff....

...uh huh, in the style of Alexander? oh right he was a shirt-lifter was he? Conquerer of the known world and all. Well who'd have guessed. But on the hole....no pun intended there leo...We think we'd prefer him a little more butch....

...Oh right, in a little squabble with someone? Chopping motions? No, we'd still prefer the ginger beard and monobrow thanks. Could you perhaps fit a leg of lamb into his hand? how about a fag? Oops sorry fruedian slip..or it will be when he's born'

[mike-IHF]

Lithanwif,

interesting post, a few things I hadn't considered before. it's a bitch when politics and religion get together. Didnt realise it was back then though.

I had heard the Bhuddism/jesus thing before, even to the point where they think they have identified a grave which is buried in the jewish fashion in a buddhist stronghold. With supporting evidence to prove that Jesus had survived the Crucifixion and gone there to grow old and die.

Fact is, we will never know, but isn't it fun to guess?

That is true, we will probably never know. It is however very interesting.

Leonardo born 1452 AD, Now Im taking it as read that this 'discension' in the ranks of the apostles isnt actually well publicised. No point in rocking the peace and love boat huh? And as you said, most of Leo's paintings Chartered by teh church.
Why would they allow John to be left out? Why would they let Magdelene in?
Look at it this way, we are closer to Da Vinci's time than he was to Johns, and there's loads of myths about Old Leo. And those times were a hell of a lot more pious than now, So why would the church charter a painting showing a woman at the last supper if they were trying to suppress magdalene's role?

It's not that the church allowed John to be left out. They still believe it is John in the painting, and to the un trained eye you could infact see the person as a man, and not a woman. However, I think most people that really truely look at it know it is not a man, it is a woman. The painting is very subtle, and if you don't know what to look for it is hard to see. The painting was infact redone many times, and the latter copies the picture does look a bit more masculine. But, these copies were not done by Leonardo.

This was not the first time Leonardo painted purposely to refute church, and biblical text. He did this with his first painting of "madonna of the rocks". In the first randition the painting showed Mary "mother of Jesus" using the same cutting the throat action that you see Peter doing to Mary MAgdaline in the last supper. This time Mary is making the cutting action to the throat of John the baptist. Later he was forced by the church to remake the painting. Which he did. And the one that is seen mostly today is the remade version, that does not depict Mary doing this action.

Well, going by the fact that a fair percentage of peeps now say it is definately a woman. No question. Surely the church would have said "hey Leo, got a second? Great..um, not too sure how to broach this with you, but well the lads and I had a meeting looking at your new Drawing....Sorry painting yeah painting. Well as I said, me and the lads had a few Wines and some bread, and we got to looking and well. John looks a bit dodgy dont he? A bit, you know, light on the old loafers! In fact he looks like a lady. And we thought that the author of revelations should look a little more fire and brimstone. Big bushy beard and stuff....

That's funny. I think there is two reasons why the church never said anything. 1: because like I said, and Strafio touched on, they probably never noticed the hidden meaning in the painting in the first place. And 2: because if the church said or did anything to change the painting, it would draw even more speculation on the church of people saying "ok, what are you trying to hide now?". the church does not want any part in any action that would draw attention to them. It is better to just stay silent.

I personally, don't know, and I don't really think Leonardo was homosexual. I'm not saying it is not a possibility, however I think in his case it was more of him just being strange to everyone else. He was known to be a loner, again someone who spent time in graveyards, and also studying corpses. He wrote in a mirror image. Meaning all of his writings were done backwards, with some letters being upside down. Then you take is art work into the equation. This very well could have been misinterpreted as him being a homo. Who knows? I think he was just very weird, and essentric in his work.

[Topher]

It's not that the church allowed John to be left out. They still believe it is John in the painting, and to the un trained eye you could infact see the person as a man, and not a woman. However, I think most people that really truely look at it know it is not a man, it is a woman. The painting is very subtle, and if you don't know what to look for it is hard to see. The painting was infact redone many times, and the latter copies the picture does look a bit more masculine. But, these copies were not done by Leonardo.

Or possibly the church not willing to accept that it is Mary in the painting. I bet some people in the church just refuse to believe it.

[Eddie Dean]

"hey Leo, got a second? Great..um, not too sure how to broach this with you, but well the lads and I had a meeting looking at your new Drawing....Sorry painting yeah painting. Well as I said, me and the lads had a few Wines and some bread, and we got to looking and well. John looks a bit dodgy dont he? A bit, you know, light on the old loafers! In fact he looks like a lady. And we thought that the author of revelations should look a little more fire and brimstone. Big bushy beard and stuff....

...uh huh, in the style of Alexander? oh right he was a shirt-lifter was he? Conquerer of the known world and all. Well who'd have guessed. But on the hole....no pun intended there leo...We think we'd prefer him a little more butch....

...Oh right, in a little squabble with someone? Chopping motions? No, we'd still prefer the ginger beard and monobrow thanks. Could you perhaps fit a leg of lamb into his hand? how about a fag? Oops sorry fruedian slip..or it will be when he's born'

LOL Very very funny :D

[Lithanwif]

LOL Very very funny :D

Thankyou, Im here all week, try the fish.

ooh another pun.

But still I cant believe the church would alow it to happen. They had asked for other paintings to be 'improved' so why wouldnt they do it in this case. I think perhaps people are trying to read too much into it. It's a painting...Leo wasnt there, and probably wasnt privy to any more information than anyone else.

[mike-IHF]

Lithanwif,

But still I cant believe the church would alow it to happen. They had asked for other paintings to be 'improved' so why wouldnt they do it in this case. I think perhaps people are trying to read too much into it. It's a painting...Leo wasnt there, and probably wasnt privy to any more information than anyone else.

Well, I would not say he was not privy to any information than anyone else. If you follow the belief that Leonardo was in with certain beliefs of some groups like the Priory, Masonic traditions etc. Than he very well would have known about the church's involvment in tearing down the feminine role of women in scripture. Not just one, but all of the gnostic gospels refer to mary magdalene being Jesus's highest desciple. So, it's not like this information, or beliefs did not exist around the time of Leonardo.

[Lithanwif]

Lithanwif,



Well, I would not say he was not privy to any information than anyone else. If you follow the belief that Leonardo was in with certain beliefs of some groups like the Priory, Masonic traditions etc. Than he very well would have known about the church's involvment in tearing down the feminine role of women in scripture. Not just one, but all of the gnostic gospels refer to mary magdalene being Jesus's highest desciple. So, it's not like this information, or beliefs did not exist around the time of Leonardo.

Okay, so here we go.
I gathered that the priory was resurrected and documents created to show Leo was a member?
Fair enough the masonic thing, but who can gauruntee thats what that was about now?
And Isn't this after the vilanisation of Mary by the church? Ie. hadnt they already made her out as a common whore, And destroyed as many records as they could by that point? They certainly wouldnt want to have images of her everywhere for all to see?