Not sure if this fits here, but thought it was intriguing.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070727/wr_nm/italy_lastsupper_theory_dcNew "Last Supper" theory crashes Leonardo Web sites Fri Jul 27, 12:51 PM ET
MILAN (Reuters) - A new theory that Leonardo's "Last Supper" might hide within it a depiction of Christ blessing the bread and wine has triggered so much interest that Web sites connected to the picture have crashed.
The famous fresco is already the focus of mythical speculation after author Dan Brown based his "The Da Vinci Code" book around the painting, arguing in the novel that Jesus married his follower, Mary Magdelene, and fathered a child.
Now Slavisa Pesci, an information technologist and amateur scholar, says superimposing the "Last Supper" with its mirror-image throws up another picture containing a figure who looks like a Templar knight and another holding a small baby.
"I came across it by accident, from some of the details you can infer that we are not talking about chance but about a precise calculation," Pesci told journalists when he unveiled the theory earlier this week.
snip
In the superimposed version, a figure on Christ's left appears to be cradling a baby in its arms, Pesci said, but he made no suggestion this could be Christ's child.
~~~~~~~~
Did Jesus Christ marry Mary Magdalene and father a child with her? And did Leonardo DaVinci seek to pass that information on in his famous painting to get around the Catholic Church and its efforts to hide the truth? Why would anyone think it impossible? Christ was human, he had human needs, and I do believe he had the capacity to love, as he is known as the son of God. Why would he not then have the capacity to fall in love with a woman and have a child with her? Is that not what he preached about?
I know many people see that portion of Brown's book as fictional just like the fictional story of Robert Langdon and Sophie that is intertwined around the "myth," but I do believe that there may be something to it apart from the book. The Gnostic Gospels uncovered in Egypt in the 1940s contain the gospels claimed to have been rejected at the Council of Nicea by the hierarchy, and contain a gospel by Philip, one of the apostles of Christ wherein he makes reference to Jesus's "companion" and that he kissed her on the ----. Could it be that she was indeed to inherit his church upon his death? Could it be that the hierarchy saw this as blasphemous and that is why women in the Catholic Church hierarchy are non existant? Is that why priests cannot marry? Forget any myths about the Priory of Sion which may or may not have been real, but it certainly is possible that the Knights Templar were on a quest for more than Jerusalem.
Of course, people are free to believe what they want to believe, but for me I see nothing blasphemous about believing that Jesus Christ was a man who fell in love, married, had a child, and was also a divine figure who was seen as a savior. Cannot humanity be divine? I will say this however, that this is indeed interesting and if ever proven true would call into question the very foundation upon which the church stands. It certainly then is something those profiting from the lies would do all in their power to keep hidden. I think in the end that we must all search for our own truth, and this helps us along that path which is why it is so intriguing. Any thoughts on this?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
