It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


My theory on the secret behind Rennes-le-Chateau

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 07:14 PM
I wonder then if the man depicted in the series of paintings above were actually of St Anthony then.

posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 07:17 PM
If you mean is the man in the paintings that St. Anthony - Yes.

Edit: Oh and that thing about the T on the shoulder in all the paintings I thought I saw something about, I was slightly off. What I was thinking about was a myth that all of the Merovingian's were born with a birthmark of a T. I thought it was on the shoulder, but it turns out it was between the shoulder blades.

Edit Again: And there is one other thing that is in most of the paintings. St. Anthony is reading one book (assumed to be the Bible) but there is that other large book opened, and being held open by a fairly large object in all the paintings that have it, lying about. What is that book?

[edit on 11/1/2005 by Relentless]

[edit on 11/1/2005 by Relentless]

posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 07:41 PM
I think personally its the book of "the word"

sorry if i missed the st anthony connection before in this thread, I have been re reading up on stuff in this thread that has had me in for years and I never covered the area of the art so much, I presume cos in 1993 there wasn't access to Internet for me except to visit the display of the all new internet available at the library.

Next point of mine on this whole thing.

The revelation of this secret at Rennes could co-incide with the findings of Samarsts expedition to Atlantis. The secret in Arcadia. The two may have evidence at each site that ties into the other. All the secrets may just "co-incidently" be in the process of being revealed all at once, which will be further proof of the others.

I wish sometimes that the world still was like Atlantis, but even they were destroyed or destroyed themselves in the end.

posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 12:48 AM
Wow, what a great thread. I love all the art history and art analysis involved in this. You have to love the Baroque. In terms of symbol interpretation it's a genre that just keeps on giving. I did some overlays on the Poussin Les Bergers painting on Valhall's thread on that topic:

Following the Underground Stream

The Tenier work is a great revelation to me. You can't help but note some similarities in the Tenier treatment of St.Anthony's Temptation to that of the earlier Bosch:

The Temptation of St. Anthony

Especially notable is the bull-skulled figure in the green cloak. Also note the very prevalent underground stream. I will be doing a separate and detailed treatment of Bosch's work in the near future, look for it. That Bosch influences Tenier is clear. Bosch also famously depicted fruit, including grapes, of giant size in "The Garden of Earthly Delights". In the original Temptation presented in this thread there were questions raised about the various figures. All of these figures seem to be demons in the act of tempting the Anthony and this is demonstrated by his multiple depictions featuring more detailed views of the same figures and elements. Analyzing what they mean is of course valuable, interesting and a lot of fun. Nerdling saw the form of a man hidden in the rocks. I saw something slightly different and much more. This is indeed a traditional puzzle picture:

What Nerdling saw as a male or a skeleton(?) I see clearly as a woman, and to me she looks like she's in the act of archery, but that could be my imagination. The bodies are quite apparent and appropriate for the subject. The leering face circled in purple pops right out. One has to wonder who the large face in profile depicts, self-portrait maybe? Note the shape of the tree far left in silhouette to the tree woman in the linked Bosch Temptation. She's on the far right and hard to see in the provided link. A Google for "Bosch tree woman" should get you a good image.

This thread is great. Keep it coming.

[edit on 2-11-2005 by Cicada]

posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 06:01 AM
So it appears that the Arian "heresy" and the 300 years after that may really have a lot to do with the "secret". There is much curiosity surrounding the events of the suppression of the Arian teaching (a teaching that wouldn't die a quick death), and the death of Arius.

Arius's influence on the modern christian world, whether we be catholic or protestant, cannot be diminished. The First Council of Nicea, which resulted in the foundational doctrine of the Roman church, was called because of Arius. As stated in an earlier post, the teaching by Arius, which led to the following of Arianism , was that Christ was not equivalent to God the Father, but a creation of the Father and therefore subordinate to Him. It did NOT dispute the divine nature of Christ, but stated that the divinity of Christ was provided by the Father, and was not equivalent to the Father. He contended:

He described the Son as a second, or inferior God, standing midway between the First Cause and creatures; as Himself made out of nothing, yet as making all things else; as existing before the worlds of the ages; and as arrayed in all divine perfections except the one which was their stay and foundation. God alone was without beginning, unoriginate; the Son was originated, and once had not existed. For all that has origin must begin to be.

i.e. that Christ was a portion of God - but not ALL of God. That he eminated from God and was created by God, but was NOT God.

Arius's teachings started a great war of letters between himself and Alexander, who was the Bishop of Alexandria at the time (this taking place around 320's). As soon as Constantine had whipped Lisinius, he turned himself to resolving the conflict between Arius and Alexander, but didn't get anywhere. So he called the First Council of Nicea to address this issue.

And this is where we have the first instance of some pretty weird evidence, which comes in the most trivial of issues - the number of bishops who attended this council. Eusebius records that 250 bishops were in attendance. Later Arabic manuscripts report 2000. The Catholic church views the Arabic number as a gross exaggeration, and I tend to side with them since it's almost hard to believe there were that many bishops in existence yet. But the most telling report on the number that attended comes from a man, who at the time was a young deacon, Athanasius of Alexandria. This man plays a MAJOR role in the important events surrounding Arius. The thing we need to center on here is two-fold:

1. Athanasius states that the number in attendance at the Council of Nicea was 318.
2. Athanasius is described by the Catholic church as:

the greatest champion of Catholic belief on the subject of the Incarnation that the Church has ever known and in his lifetime earned the characteristic title of "Father of Orthodoxy", by which he has been distinguished every since.

So there is a discrepancy in the number in attendance at the first council...big deal you say. No, the big deal is not the discrepancy. In fact, the discrepancy lends credance that there were at least 250 in attendance. No one expects an accurate number here. The thing to hold in strict suspicion is...the number Athanasius reports. (And the fact the Catholic church goes with this number even though documents from the council point toward Eusebius's account of 250.) And there is very good reason for doing so.

Later, the councils in Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) established the first canons of the Old and New Testament Bible. But before that time there were various gospels, epistles and such that the early church fathers - including Athanasius, most suredly were aware of.

One of those books that would have been read by the early church fathers, but was ultimately not canonized is the Epistle of Barnabas. I found this apocryphal book about 15 years ago. Of all the apocryphal books I have read, this one is the one I cannot understand why it was not included in the canonical New Testament. It is one of the most beautiful epistles I have ever read. Let me quote what is said abut the "The General Epistle of Barnabas" from The Lost Books of the Bible described as "Being all the gospels, epistles, and other pieces now extant attributed in the first four centuries to Jesus Christ, his apostles and their companions, not included, by its compilers, in the authorized New Testament, and, Syriac MSS. of Pilate's letters to Tiberius, etc.

Barnabus was a companion and fellow-preacher with Paul. This Epistle lays a greater claim to canonical authority than most others. It has been cited by Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, and many ancient Fathers. Cotelerius affirms that Origen and Jerome esteemed it genuine and canonical; but Cotelerius himself did not believe it to be either one or the other; on the contrary, he supposes it was written for the benefit of the Ebionites (the christianized Jews,) who were tenacious of rites and ceremonies. Bishop Fell feared to own expressly what he seemed to be persuaded of, that it ought to be treated with the same respect as several of the books of the present canon. Dr. Bernard, Savilian professor at Oxford, not only believed it to be genuine, but that it was read throughout, in the churches at Alexandria, as the canonical scriptures were. Dodwell supposed it to have been published before the Epistle of Jude, and the writings of both the Johns. Vossius, Dupuis, Dr. Cane, Dr. Mill, Dr. S. Clark, Whiston, and Archbishop Wake also esteemed it genuine: Menardus, Archbishop Laud, Spanheim, and others, deemed it apocryphal. the point why I bring up the Epistle of Barnabas. The minute I read Athanasius's account of how many bishops attended the Council of Nicea (which ultimately ruled Arianism anathema to the church, branded Arius anathema - along with several of his more ardent followers - and ordered him exiled to Illyria) I recognized the number 318. And the minute I read that he had recorded that specific number as in attendance of the council, I knew he was lying. And he was lying for a specific reason - to invoke a sacred number. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not into numerology, nor will I ever be, but the minute I read this number I remembered the Epistle of Barnabas.

So first I had to find the darned book (which I have several books containing apocryphal writing). And I found myself opening a book I haven't opened in about 7 years, to a page with a bookmark, and reading five verses I had underlined about 15 years ago. Quite a trip down memory lane. But I underlined these words because the moment I read them I knew they were important to me:

From the General Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter 8, verses 10-14:

Understand therefore, children, these things more fully, that Abraham, who was the first that brought in circumcision, looking forward in the Spirit to Jesus, circumcised, having received the mystery of three letters.

For the Scripture says that Abraham circumcised three hundred and eighteen men of his house. But what therefore was the mystery that was made known unto him?

Mark, first the eighteen, and next the three hundred. For the numeral letters of ten and eight are I H. And these denote Jesus.

And because the cross was that by which we were to find grace; therefore he adds, three hundred; the note of which is T (the figure of his cross). Wherefore by two letters he signified Jesus, and by the third his cross.

He who has put the engrafted gift of his doctrine within us, knows that I never taught to any one a more certain truth; but I trust that ye are worthy of it.

Athanasius LIED. He envoked the sacred number of 318 to lend credence to his report of the resulting decision of the Council of Nicea. He did it on purpose to legitimize the decisions of the council. The records from the council decision show:

The lists of the signers have reached us in a mutilated condition, disfigured by faults of the copyists. Nevertheless, these lists may be regarded as authentic. Their study is a problem which has been repeatedly dealt with in modern times, in Germany and England, in the critical editions of H. Gelzer, H. Hilgenfeld, and O. Contz on the one hand, and C. H. Turner on the other. The lists thus constructed give respectively 220 and 218 names. With information derived from one source or another, a list of 232 or 237 fathers known to have been present may be constructed.

The importance of this first very perceptible lie by Athanasius, and his clear reason for doing so, is important as we journey through the significance of the fate of Arius, and his effect on the next 300 years which culminates with the edict that the follow-up movements of Eutychianism, Monophysites, and Monothelites were anathema as well.

So the Council of Nicea deemed Arianism heretical and excommunicated Arius - deeming him anathema. He was exiled.

Meanwhile Arianism continued to exist and the Arians are reported to have committed themselves to trying to get many of the edicts issued by the Council of Nicea dissolved. Arianism found an avid supporter in Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia. According to the Catholic church (and it should be pointed out that is where all this information is coming from and it always casts the side deemed righteous by the church in good light, and the side opposed to the Church in really, really bad light) Eusebius hooked up with the Meletians. The Meletian schism was one of the three "important matters" addressed at the First council of Nicea. The founder of this schism was Meletius of Lycopolis who ended up being accused of many "violations", including an apparently unproven charge of idol worship.

So Athanasius at this point has gone from avid participant of the Nicene Council to Bishop of Alexandria...he's done well for himself. When he starts getting accusations railed against him. Now, according to which version you read from the church, the charges were either levied against Athansius by Eusebius, or by the Meletians. But the Church has been gracious enough to allege they were in league, so I guess that makes the differeing accounts sync together. According to the records, the first three charges were either deemed unfounded or compeltely disproven, but the fourth charge stuck - unresolved for years and eventually resulted in Constantine exiling Athanasius to Gaul "for his own protection".

Now let's stop for a second and think about this. Athanasius is Bishop of Alexandria and these charges are being launched against him by a supporter of a teaching deemed anathema, and/or a second group deemed to be a schism. One would think that the groups wouldn't even be given audience - let alone four. But it gets stranger when the fourth charge is revealed:

Athanasius was charged with sending a priest named Macaarius to another church to overturn the altar and break up a chalice belonging to another Priest named Ischyras.

Now, let's look at what the Catholic Church's records state Athanasius' defense was to this:

...though in fact Ischyras had never been a priest, and at the time alleged could not have been pretending to say Mass, for he was ill in bed.

Excuse me? So Ischyras wasn't even a priest and "could not have been pretending to say Mass" because he was home sick. This makes this whole story doubly problematic. In fact, it makes it downright laughable. First, if Ischyras really wasn't ever a priest and had been performing "fake Masses", a Bishop sending a priest to overturn his altar and take his communion chalice away would have needed no more than 5 minutes defense. So we have followers of two groups that have been condemned in one shade or another bringing a rather ludicrous charge against a Bishop, and it sticking for so many years, and causing such great contention that the Bishop ends up in exile - "for his own good".

The church records state that Eusebius continued for many years to implore Constantine to reconcile Arius back into the church. Eventually Constantine agreed to give Arius an audience and short version is agreed to reconcile Arius to the communion on the next day. But, in the words of the Catholic Church:

...but the designs of man were frustrated by the hand of God. Arius died suddenly under peculiarly humiliating conditions on the eve of the day appointed for his solemn restoration to Catholic communion in the Cathedral of New Rome.

Well, that's convenient. So what are these "peculiarly humiliating conditions" under which Arius died RIGHT BEFORE he is going to be reconciled.

The story goes like this...if you want to believe it, because the only account we have of his death is in a letter written by none other than...Athanasius:

Arius met with Constantine and is alleged to have pinned a profession of faith which did not include any of his "heretical teachings". Upon receiving this statement, Constantine dismissed Arius. Eusebius and his followers then came to the Pope and asked him to reconcile Arius and Constantine stated he would do so the next day. Eusebius and his followers were then dismissed. According to the account constantine then prayed to God basically stating he hoped God wouldn't allow the reconciliation of Arius to the church because if God allowed Arius into the church the heresy would return with him.

Conveniently - and the Church wants to claim "by the hand of God" - about that time Arius had to go the bathroom, and in the middle of his constitution his abdomen busts open and spills his guts everywhere. Which is a really convenient way for his enemy to say "he died because he was full of $h!t".

Now not only is the account of Arius' death immediately held as doubtful because it comes from a man that has already been documented to lie and invoke the number of the cross and Christ if he thinks it will make his account more "Godly", and not only is the account dubious because of the very weird charges that Athanasius was sending hitmen priests to kick over altars and destoy chalices that he, as a Bishop, couldn't seem to get out of, but when you find out HOW Athanasius claims to know of Arius' death, it gets freakishly weird.

Athanasius was not there. The account of Arius's death was reported to Athanasius by a presbyter who claims to have not only been allowed to attend the profession of faith of Arius, the audience with Eusebius and his followers, but to remain in the Pope's chambers while he prayed to God to prevent Arius's return into the church.

and that presbyter's name was Macarius...and the priest sent by Athanasius to kick over the altar and destroy the chalice was Macaarius.

I've got this sinking feeling Arius died in the latrine because his guts split open due to the knife stuck in them...and I've got this sinking feeling it wasn't the hand of God wielding that knife - it was Macaarius.

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Valhall]

posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 11:03 AM
Poor Arius--It sounds like a very painful way to go. And it doesn't sound like natural causes either! But ummm--are you still saying that you think the "secret" was something like Jesus's bones? Because even DNA is worthless without something to compare it to--how could anybody possibly prove whose bones they were?? Or do you think the secret is something else??

posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 07:31 PM
I have a question at this point.

Assuming Val's theory, are we thinking these clues are a warning or a perpetration of the "lie", or don't we know yet? Who are the good guys and who are the bad guys?

I'm getting very confused.

posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Relentless
I have a question at this point.

Assuming Val's theory, are we thinking these clues are a warning or a perpetration of the "lie", or don't we know yet? Who are the good guys and who are the bad guys?

I'm getting very confused.

I take the bad guys to be any one who has lied or will lie. My fear is that the bad guys who intend to lie, will use the lies of the past bad guys (apparently associated with the good guys) to break down the good guys and build their bad guy lie on.

Anyone who took part in a lie in the past, and associated that lie with or into the basic christian doctrine in the gospels, has laid a foundation that can be used by bad people with bad intentions to first destroy the believers' faith and then promote their own false teaching.

posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 08:55 PM

So you're trending toward suspecting the false teaching is that Jesus was God? Right?

Unless I read that wrong. But that the Council itself was a huge conspiracy is not in doubt in my mind. Never was. I think everything since 325 AD has been a lie.

posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 09:28 PM

Originally posted by Valhall

I take the bad guys to be any one who has lied or will lie. My fear is that the bad guys who intend to lie, will use the lies of the past bad guys (apparently associated with the good guys) to break down the good guys and build their bad guy lie on.

Anyone who took part in a lie in the past, and associated that lie with or into the basic christian doctrine in the gospels, has laid a foundation that can be used by bad people with bad intentions to first destroy the believers' faith and then promote their own false teaching.

I think I get the drift of what you're saying, Valhall, but I also think it's much more complicated than good or bad.

ie. Pope Leo X, 16th century said; 'It has served us well, this myth of Christ."

I'd like to quote from The Messianic Legacy by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln...

Each contribution in the field of biblical research is like a footprint in the sand. Each is covered almost immediately and, so far as the general public is concerned, left virtually without a trace. Each must be constantly made anew, only to be covered again.

What they are referring to is the fact that there have been a number of scholarly works published which detailed the facts surrounding the historical person of Jesus and/or the Christ of Faith...

Ernest Renan, 1863 (French) The Life of Jesus 'sought to strip Christianity of its supernatural trappings.

George Moore, 1916 (Anglo-Irish) The Brook Kerith 'depicted Jesus as surviving the crucifixion.'

Robert Graves, 1946 (English) King Jesus 'in which Jesus survives the cross'

The point is, the ecclesiastical establishment is fully aware of the results of research which is taught them as they trained for their ministries. It is just not brought down to the congregations.

Again, from The Messianic Legacy...

This, then is the situation at present. On the one hand, there is the ecclesiastical hierarchy, steeped in what has been written in the past, versed in all the latest aspects of biblical scholarship. On the other hand, there is the lay congregation, to whom biblical scholarship is totally unknown territory. The modern, more or less well-read cleric is acutely aware, for example, of the distinction between what is in the New Testament itself and what is an accretion of later tradition.
Such a cleric has long recognised that his personal belief is not the same as historical evidence, and he has effected some kind of personal reconciliation between the two- a reconciliation which, to a greater or lesser degree, manages to accomodate both.

Such a cleric would also never bring this schism into the flock. This is why the historical evidence, while having great import, continues to be 'pushed under the carpet (and for exactly the reason my signature below states).

[edit on 2-11-2005 by masqua]

posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 07:01 AM
I'm going to throw this one out and see what you guys make of it.

Here are pictures of the 14 Stations of the Cross at Rennes.

There are two pics of each station, the left being taken in the 60's and 70's and the right being taken earlier this year. Please note when clicking on the new pics that if you scroll down there is a zoom in for each one.

The first one I want to point you to is Station 4 where Christ meets his mother, Mary, along the way to the crucifixion.

Station 4

Mary mother of Jesus is clothed in a pink dress with a blue veil. That's important, because she remains depicted that way in the other stations in which she appears (those being 12 and 14) so that you can identify her.

The woman kneeling by Mary mother of Jesus is assumed to be Mary Magdalene. First thing to point out is she is clothed in a gold dress with a purple veil - colors which depict royalty. She remains depicted that way for the sake of tracking in Stations 12, 13, and 14.

But the discombobulation comes with Station 6 which should be depicting "Veronica" wiping the brow of Jesus with her handkerchief or towel and "capturing the image of Christ". Only in this station, "Veronica" is dressed in the same way Mary Magdalene is dressed - with a gold dress and a purple veil. The veil has fallen down to her arms because she is NOT wiping the brow of Christ with a small piece of cloth (as the story of Veronica tells - the relic is referred to as "Veronica's Veil", but not because it was her veil, but because it became the "veil of Christ") but a HUGE white veil which appears just like the burial shroud (see Stations 13 and 14) which is draped over her head at the time.

Now, it's rather a telling symbolical thing to insinuate that Mary Magdalene is "capturing the image of Christ". But it gets more of a connection when you look at the story of "Veronica".

St. Veronica

In the region of Bordeaux Veronica, shortly after the Ascension of Christ, lands at Soulac at the mouth of the Gironde, bringing relics of the Blessed Virgin; there she preaches, dies, and is buried in the tomb which was long venerated either at Soulac or in the Church of St. Seurin at Bordeaux. Sometimes she has even been confounded with a pious woman who, according to Gregory of Tours, brought to the neighboring town of Bazas some drops of the blood of John the Baptist, at whose beheading she was present.

Further to this, it is important to point out that the Station of Veronica...

does not occur in many of the earlier accounts, whilst almost all of those that do mention it place it as having happened just before reaching Mount Calvary, instead of earlier in the journey as in our present arrangement.

It is worth noting that the name "Veronica" applied to the woman who "captured the image of Christ" has been viewed with a bit of skepticism over the years since it

seems to be a lexical deformation of the Greek and Latin words "vera icona" ("real icon" or "authentic image"), used in the Middle Ages to mean Christ's miraculous images.

which makes it very hard to believe that a woman, whose name just happened to equate to "authentic image" happened to capture the "authentic image" of Christ.

So reviewing where the implications of the 6th Station of the Cross at Rennes appearing to place Mary Magdalene in the role of the woman who "captured the authentic image of Christ" and is subsequently referred to as "Veronica" gives us this set of COINCIDENCES:

the person "Veronica" not only:

1. captured the authentic image of Christ, but was
2. present at the beheading of John the Baptist, and is alleged to
3. possess the blood of John the Baptist, and is being connected with
4. Mary Magdalene, and
5. the burial shroud, and is alleged to have
6. travelled to the South of France (the Languedoc), where she
7. brought certain relics, and where she
8. spent the rest of her life preaching, and where
9. the Cult of the Black Madonna emerged, and
10. the Merovinginian Dynasty emerged, and where
11. it is alleged the skull of John the Baptist was worshipped, and
12. Sauniere's found something that freaked him out and made him rich.

Which I should point out that in answer to the question - how could a set of bones be used when you haven't anything to match it with?

Well, we now have two relics we know for sure exist, though their authenticity is all that is in question:

Veronica's veil and the Shroud of Turin...

and then we have two more relics that have been rumored to exist through-out the centuries but seem to be well hidden if they do exist:

the skull of John the Baptist and the blood of John the Baptist

which gives us four possible DNA samples from two cousins. That would narrow things down a bit.


[edit on 11-3-2005 by Valhall]

posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 02:53 AM
Just wanted to toss a few random observations out....firstly, the "SHEPHERDESS NO TEMPTATION" to me would mean in the Poussin paintings, there is a signifigance tied to her, obviously, but the "no temptation" would be a reference to the painting "saint anthony and paul in a landscape" not the temptation painting. Not sure what is signifigant, but I am guessing there are location clues in these paintings. One has the location Arcadia in it, but I don't think it means it is in Arcadia. I think the Arcadia is just a clue as to the who is buried there, or maybe what. To take a guess, I think the Poussin painting is actually set in the background area of the "anthony and Paul" painting. And if someone with access to a better picture could clarify, in the "St. A & P" painting, left of the trees, in front of the forest, it looks like there is a cross, but it is hard to tell. Can anyone clarify?
Anyways, so, the way I see it, the key would be who is buried there and where. The rest of the entry is harder to decipher, but I think it is again a location key for items secreted away there. My postulate is that, when things turned bad for the Knights Templar, they did indeed flee, go underground, and secret away their treasures - But not in one location. After all, if you want to make sure your secrets don't die, you don't put all your eggs in one basket. The Templars built at least one structure at Rennes at some point, if I remember correctly; it's location and underground system would make for a good place to flee, especially if it was a holy site of some sort already, due to whomever is buried there. Couple that with the St.Clairs, and eventually Rosslyn, those who came to North America, those who fled to, well, I don't remember the name of the place, but it's an island I believe? Also, they were said to have continued operations covertly for at least a while somewhere in france, as well.
Sorry if this is a ramble, I've not got my materials in front of me to be clearer, but anyways, my point is that Rennes is probably another of the Knights Templar sites where the remainders fled after their persecution. They possesed a secret of one sort or another that they kept from the church, or any unitiated, as well as possessing great wealth. Somehow I doubt we will ever know what was left at Rennes, however.

As for the apostasy...I think it will be true info, and I think the problems that will cause it will have to do with the nature of God. All religions give God a human face, so to speak. I think God is far from anything like us, and is a power in a way westerners in particular will have a difficult time grasping. Valhall, how would you feel if you discovered God didn't care? Perhaps doesn't posses emotion at all? I would find it bizzare if "it" should. God is a hammer and we are the nails. We are tools, but if we break, there is another, and one way or another, we are going to get pounded.

And what if the true road to God led to real power? Not in the afterlife, but in your everyday life?

Or better yet, what if there is no devil, only God?

These are just simple possibilities, but enough to shake a great number of believers if ever proven true. The real truth is likely to be much more powerful. But, then again, I'm not convinced there will be an apostasy. I'm not like RANT, I'm not disdainful of it, just unconvinced. Perhaps we will see.

posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 08:45 AM
It is indeed a cross and seems to be an old grave marker (old because of its severe tilt). Not only is it a cross, it's an equi-armed cross that many will recognize as a Templar symbol. (Note: the T often drawn on St. Anthony's sleeve is at least partially due to the fact that a St. Anthony cross is a Tau or T shaped cross).

I figured that while I was uploading I'd include some images of elements in the Teniers St. Anthony-Temptation images that were apparently derived from Bosch's earlier work. There's the hooded flute player, in Bosch apparently a water-pipe faced creature (smoking even). There's the monkey-faced demon, the profile is very close to the Teniers piece. The tree woman with child's form is very closely recreated in the tree on the right side of the Teniers.

Also in the Bosch painting is a column with several Old Testament scenes in relief on its surface. Amongst them is this image of men carrying a bunch of giant grapes, apparently a reference to the bounty of Canaan.

[edit on 5-11-2005 by Cicada]

posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 09:00 AM

Originally posted by Valhall
Following on with the decoded message allegedly contained within one of the parchments Sauniere was to have found in the alter column:


At this point we have looked at the elements of the decoded statement that cover SHEPHERDESS and POUSSIN. We now turn to TENIERS and NO TEMPTATION. I'll place that in the next post as it will be lengthy.

I think you may have missed the most important part of the Poussin clue..

"A distinguished scholar and artist, Poussin spent most of his career in Italy. He experimented relentlessly with the pictorial theme of the Holy Family over a period of approximately ten years (1646-1655), producing no fewer than six related paintings, all for French patrons. He insisted on informed critical discourse with prospective patrons about the meaning of his pictures, which in the instance of the Holy Family canvases may be understood as complex spiritual essays."

Poussin - Les Bergers d'Arcadie:

Poussin - The Holy Family

Other "Holy Family" works by Poussin.

Rubens - The Holy Family

Michelangelo - The Holy Family

Raphael - The Holy Family

posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 09:15 AM
How about this one?

What's at the dead-center of that painting?

Munkacsy (1881) Christ Before Pilate

posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 09:20 AM
The firstborn son..

posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 09:25 AM

Unfortunately the links to Olga's Gallery don't seem to work. Could you explain how the Holy Family images relate to the Arcadia painting? I think there is something potentially significant there but other than compositionally I'm not really seeing it yet. Arcadia is defiantly a reference to Hellenic Greece, and the costuming of the figures is Greek as well. There are no children in the Arcadia image; do you think the shepherd's shadow is filling that compositional role? If so then what does that imply?

We can not rely on the testimonies of the artists in these matters. If there's concealed heretical information then it would destroy the purpose of obscuring information if they told people about it. Like stage magicians they're involved in the endeavor of creating illusions, so their statements will tend to only deepen the mystification.

More likely the first born daughter, Sarah the Egyptian. Note how clearly she's being pointed to.

[edit on 5-11-2005 by Cicada]

posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 09:50 AM
I believe there are two items that link the Poussin paintings together - one is just my interpretation that the woman in the first painting represents Mary Magdalen, revealing the tomb to the shepherds. The other link is in the background of both paintings, the rocky hilltop is the same but reversed, indicating two scenes at locations on opposite sides of that landmark. I think that one scene shows "Mary" revealing the tomb, the other shows Mary, her two sons, John the Baptist and the mother of Jesus. Not only Poussin but all of the artists linked showed the Holy Family scene in the same manner. I think Poussin is giving clues to the location they settled in and exactly where the tomb is.

posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 10:24 AM
And here's a Teniers that we haven't looked at yet - not the "temptation" so "no temptation". Notice the same elements from the St Anthony paintings and also the hilltop in the distance.

Teniers - Mary Magdalen in Penitence

posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 11:12 AM
Not to be out done by St. Peter in Penitence. Only St. Peter looks more scared of what's behind him than he does penitent.

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in