Jesus Christ's Superderterministic, Cosmological, Magnum Opus.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Very interesting.

If you look at "The Last Supper", you'll notice that Peter is holding a knife behind his back while leaning behind Judas and toward John. There's a disembodied hand that comes from behind Peter which is at the neck of John, this represents Paul, who John traveled with.

I believe that the knife behind Peter's back represents his betrayal of Jesus, and him being cut In half by Judas represents Judas being Peter (the one who betrayed Jesus) and the disembodied hand coming from behind Peter represents Paul and Peter being the same person as well.

If you look at the right shoulder and neck of Judas, you'll notice that they are in the shape of a baby, and since it is morphed into Judas and Judas was Peter and Peter was Paul, that represents Paul/Peter taking the baby John captive.

What's so crazy about this part of my theory is that I suspected Judas, Peter, and Paul were the same person before I ever even noticed this. I believe that fact reinforces my theory even more.

ETA: Look at the expression on Peter's face , he looks very angry and evil. His eyebrows are even lowered as if angry. No one else in the picture has this kind of expression so it stands out to me.

Also notice how Judas' face is not visible. He's the only person looking behind himself. That's another thing that stands out to me.

Looks like a shell game designed to get rid of the historical Jesus and the meaning and significance of the cross as a manifest expression of the love of God ie: as God's grace.

Even today everyone's trying to kill Jesus!

Some of us however decided to join him, particularly in his victory.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


How am I trying to kill him off?

So me taking his message to heart means I'm against him? Okay, if you say so...

I'm not trying to "kill him off", just trying to bring HER true identity into the light. Just because Jesus wasn't a man doesn't make her any less real.


ETA: It's interesting you called my theory a "shell game" because I'm not trying to con you at all, I could care less if you believe he was a man, I have nothing to gain from tricking you. A shell game is referred to as a "confidence trick", which means I have somehow gained your confidence. How have I gained it? Through my theory or through our conversation? If my theory makes sense then why reject it?

Again, the true Jesus was killed off long ago, all I'm doing is bringing her identity to the light.

I have joined her in her victory as well, in OUR victory.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So now you're saying that it was a woman who was crucified?

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Possibly. Jesus was loving, compassionate, caring, forgiving, etc. Those are all motherly qualities (not saying a father can't be).

If Jesus was a woman would that make her message any less true?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Have you considered the idea that Jesus had a girlfriend who was also his most beloved and greatest disciple, and that it is she who is depicted at his right hand in The Last Supper, which is also a depiction of a wedding to be?

I'm not saying Jesus' teachings would be any less valuable if he was a she, but he wasn't. It's just not historically accurate.

I was looking for deeper truth and clarity, not confusion.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

I'm not saying Jesus' teachings would be any less valuable if he was a she, but he wasn't. It's just not historically accurate.

I was looking for deeper truth and clarity, not confusion.

You asked, in an earlier post, why I was a jerk in regards to this thread. This is why. Your claims have been shown to be uncertain or incorrect over and over and yet you try to tell others what is historically accurate and what isn't.

Your not looking for deeper truth or clarity. If you were you would have accepted the truth offered and changed your stance.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


It's definitely possible, but Leonardo's paintings paint a different picture for me personally.

John pointing to his chest and sky means "I am god" which is what Jesus was supposedly. The similarities between John's and the Mona Lisa's face and smile plus the gender swap and John's feminine features tell me that John's gender was changed.

The V in the last supper represents femininity, and since Jesus is the central figure in the painting that points to him being feminine.

Bacchus tells me that any other person than John is Satan, according to his hand gestures. Bacchus was the Greco-Roman god of theater (make-believe). The fact that Bacchus was originally John the Baptist tells me that his identity was somehow changed. Bacchus was also a dying god, meaning he died then resurrected just like Jesus was.

Baptism being a symbol for child birth and John being a woman points me toward Jesus' baptism actually being the birth of John the apostle, whom Jesus (John/Mary) loved.

Funny how the baptism is mentioned in all four gospels while the virgin birth is only mentioned in two. They're also listed one after the other in the two gospels that do mention the birth. This leads me to believe that those who put the bible together switched the birth of Jesus into his baptism while replacing his birth (baptism) with the virgin birth.

Again, look at Leonardo's "Salvator Mundi", you can't tell me that the face doesn't look like it fits with body and that the fingers, shoulders, and hair don't look womanly. Did you know that "Salvator Mundi" was repainted at one pint and even lost? Perfect opportunity to repaint the face on the painting.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

It is John's hidden, malformed left arm and hand which points to himself, with his right pointing to his salvation, which he helped to generate in his prophetic relationship with Jesus.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Sure, if you believe the bible is 100% factual, which you claim is not the case with you.

Those who don't believe the bible as 100% true and have never read the bible would most likely think he is saying "I am god". That's the simplest answer to the hand gestures, and if anything it means that he is salvation, not Jesus.

Did you read my post or did you just read the first line? Because that's all you addressed.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I was just asking you to consider the meaning of the malformed left hand/arm of join pointing to himself, which represents the darker fallen nature, but John is smiling, in spite of losing his head because of the right arm which points to the transcendent and redemptive power of the cross of Jesus, nevertheless cradled in his left arm as a secret. It's an image of salvation, not at the exclusion of Jesus either..

reply to post by NewAgeMan


What makes you think I am excluding Jesus? I'm obviously trying to include him, why can't you see that? I've stated multiple times that I'm not trying to "kill off" or "exclude" Jesus. If I'm trying to bring the truth about "him" to light, then how am I taking "him" out of the light?

Anything to say about Bacchus formerly being John the Baptist and the fact that Bacchus was both a dying god and a god of theater?

reply to post by NewAgeMan


You also realize that the cross wasn't added until later and was not part of the original painting right? So your theory about John pointing at the cross was not da Vinci's intent otherwise he would have painted the cross in himself.

If there was no cross that means da Vinci's intent was to have him pointing at himself then heaven to say "I am god", which is why I believe "he" was Jesus.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

He understood the Christ principal at the heart of messianic Judaism, as an Essenian, and helped create and pave the way for and initiate his cousin Jesus, so in a way, that's not untrue, but he's what might be called the left arm of God that's willing to self sacrifice for the right arm, where the triumphant right hand points to the transcendent principal, so he's realizing it within himself, sure, but it doesn't make him the lamb of God. All had a role to play and like Jesus, John played his to the hilt, or there wouldn't be the framework by which Jesus was able to operate. It was a prophetic conspiracy between the two of them, but there's no competition there, or exclusion.

John was Jesus' forerunner who initiated and validated Jesus, who himself appears to have made a return from being many years away, since John speaks of him as one who is arriving onto the scene "behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world".

One baptized in water, the other, the holy spirit.

The two worked together hand in hand, and they both knew in advance that John would be beheaded and Jesus would suffer, and then escape, triumphantly, so John clearly self-sacrificed for the cause and was the first real martyr, and in that sense, the first to give his life for a plan greater than himself, assuring his salvation, but never to the exclusion of Jesus, but because of him - allowing "God" to self-sacrifice his left arm which is the one pointing to self as if to say "I am God".. so it's only fitting therefore that the cross was painted in if that's the case, because he's John the Baptist, who baptized in water. .

It's another instance of daVinci's grave but playful sense of humor, also seen in The Last Supper.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


So you have nothing to say about the Bacchus coincidences? John the Baptist was changed into Bacchus, why? Because Leonardo was trying to tell us that John the Baptist was turned into a god of intoxication (whore of Babylon) and make-believe who rose from the dead. It's pretty obvious that that is the meaning behind it, there can be no other. Bacchus was also the only god within the pantheon to have an Earthly mother. A heavenly god was is father while an Earthly woman was his mother, sounds a whole lot like Jesus doesn't it?

ETA: Just to make this clear, da Vinci did NOT paint the cross himself, that was done later without his permission.

The background is very dark in John the Baptist as well, symbolizing he was the light in the darkness that was and is Earth.

No comment NAM?

Existence of the historical Jesus.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


The earliest historian to record about Jesus was Josephus, who wasn't born until 37 AD. That's at least 4 years after Jesus died, how could he have known who Jesus was or what gender he was? He was also a Roman and paid by Romans, the same guys who killed Jesus. Coincidence? I don't think so.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The one thing that stood out to me was that the first 4 historians never mention "Jesus". They use only the title of "Christ" which seems like a very good way of preparing for a name swap in the future.

In the early years no one would question that the "Christ" was martyred but maybe no one would agree that it was Jesus. A couple of hundred years later the title is linked to Jesus and now everything attributed to him is the word of god, especially the "Render unto Caesar" bit.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I believe that Jesus survived the crucifixion (by a thread) although was obedient to the point of death, then appeared to some of his followers (while employing the art of disguise), and perhaps a large crowd (of witnesses), and then skipped town (with his wife at his side), travelling widely, maybe even as far as England, before settling in the area of Kashmir, and living to about 67. Then, after "dropping his body", he wasted no time confronting Saul on the Road to Damascus, what was it, about 34 years or so after the crucifixion (something like that).