What was Leonardo hinting at with John the Baptist?

page: 6
21
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


He is telling us that John the Baptist like Jesus came from above. Not Heaven as in Biblical terms but the Heavens, i.e he was genetically engineered (just like Jesus) by the visitors from the stars.




posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


sacred geometry.....

www.seshat.ch...




God created the world,
whereas I, Leonardo,
born into God’s world,
now soon departing,
have seen his work.
Much of what I saw,
did I study, draw, describe,
and paint. Yet my work is
incomplete, and only a shadow
of nature, God’s brilliant creation.
And if you lose a great artist in me,
don’t be sad; just look at nature,
consider the work of the greatest
artist, the splendid creation by God.



edit on 29-1-2013 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Myrtales Instinct
 


ETA: Also, in the passage you referred to it says that while in prison, John sent his disciples to Jesus. If he was in prison then how did he communicate with any of his disciples? Much less expect an answer in return? That doesn't make any sense.
edit on 29-1-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-1-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)


What makes you think that he wasn't allowed to have visitors? People have been visiting family and/or friends in jail for eons.

Secret societies have largely been based on the mysteries. Get a few creepy guys together, that know the alchemical solution, add in a little finger magic and VOILA let's make a club. Really, who has the time for it? All the important esoteric knowledge comes through the Messiah, that's what makes him the "one." Most every single important mystery is found in the Gospel of John. All the different branches in Christianity have their own way of implementing the sacraments. For example, the Catholic Church believes the eucharist is the most important of their seven, whereas long ago, the Gnostics and others felt that receiving the chrism was the most important - because if a person received of the chrism, then they would receive all the mysteries.

Experiencing John (and Elijah for that matter) are mere stepping stones to the higher mysteries of Christ.
edit on 29-1-2013 by Myrtales Instinct because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Look Up! Cosmos. Ufology related basically.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Logarock
 


Of course I have, but I also believe the bible has been changed, edited, re-edited, cut down, re-cut down, etc. so I believe some things were put in to cover up the truth.

That verse is located within a chapter where Jesus apparently performs all kinds of miracles. Miracles defy the laws of nature and Jesus even says those that perform miracles in his name were evil-doers. If they could add in the miracles then they could add in stuff, or change the context of a passage by changing a few names. It's completely within reason to believe the story has been changed, they had plenty of ink and paper back then.


Well what would be an advantaged by recording that Jesus said of John..."I dont need the testimony of man". He made that statement in regards to the respect they placed on John and that he did in fact say openly that Jesus was who he said he was. But then he went on to say that his works were so great that they needed no human varification even from John. To those who could see, he worked throught he power of the Father. That was one of several times he took John down a peg or two.

Also this idea about the truth being covered in scripture or scriptures being written over to cover some hidden truth about John. That would make the thing a lie by contamination. As well this hidden "truth" case must be made by making the record a lie. Even at that this hidden "truth" looks more like trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


Could you point me towards the verse you're referring to about not needing the testimony of man? If Jesus meant to knock him down a peg then why did he say that John was the greatest among those born of a woman? Seems like Jesus is raising John above himself, doesn't it? Jesus was born from a woman too.

I'm not turning any scripture into lies, it's already been done for me.
They made it a lie by contaminating it with fake miracles and resurrections.

You're confusing what I'm doing with what the church did a long time ago. All I'm doing is trying to get a theory of mine out in the open. If you consider it squeezing blood out of a turnip then go right ahead, I respect your opinion, but I myself do not see it that way.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


Luke was a huge figure of the gospels, writing at least two books in the bible, Luke and Acts. He and another guy named Plutarch from around the same time have a LOT of similarities.

Luke and Plutarch

Luke is called Lucius at one point in Acts, Plutarch's Roman name was Lucius, coincidence? I don't think so.

Guess what one of Plutarch's most famous works is called? Parallel Lives

In this work Plutarch took the lives of separate men then joined their stories together to make one cohesive story, adding in elements from each persons life to complement the structure of the story.

Now if Luke was Plutarch and Plutarch used parallelism in his works, then wouldn't he be the perfect hire in order to split one person into many?

If he could meld different people's lives into one then I'm pretty sure he could do the opposite, taking one person and splitting them into many people. That was his expertise, parallelism, which is why he was hired by the Romans.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
So - I'm not trying to be an a$$, but...
This theory is based on some hand directions painted by an artist (granted, an exceedingly gifted and intelligent one) who painted Middle Eastern people (who were probably brown skinned) as white Europeans - many of them androgynous, and who may have been granted access to the Vatican records (the Vatican being the home of the pope - who is the leader of the organization that took over the Christian faith and reinterpreted it to make a religion of fear and control in order to make serious money and to have power)...and he did these paintings nearly 1500 years after the events happened.

Sounds like someone who maybe had an axe to grind with the church - not someone with actual knowledge of the events that happened 1500 years earlier. Or maybe he was just messing with people.


Just sayin'.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by tallcool1
 


I understand your doubt, but it has much more to do with other information other than the hand gestures. Luke's similarities with a man who was famous for using parallelism to morph people's stories together is one thing.

Plutarch wrote another book called "Pyrrhus: The Fool of Hope" which documented how a Greek named Pyrrhus sent messengers out pretending to be Macedonians in order to spread a false message of liberation (salvation) through himself.

This lines up with Acts 20:4-6 where Paul met up with Sopater, the son of a man named Pyrrhus. Guess what that passage is titled? Through Macedonia and Greece, a connection to Pyrrhus masquerading as a Macedonian.

Guess what Pyrrhus was famous for? Being one of the soldiers that was in the Trojan horse. This leads me to believe that Paul was one of the spies put into the "trojan horse" in order to overthrow Jesus' true message.

I encourage you to go here. It might be a long read but it's well worth it.
edit on 30-1-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Here's another quote from that site that mentions Luke's stories relating to that of "The Bacchae" whose central figure is the god Dionysus, a.k.a. Bacchus. Dionysus is even thrown in jail like John was.


MacDonald's essay referenced similarities between stories in Acts and The Bacchae by Euripides, and this, of course, piqued my curiosity. (Euripides was reported as being one of Plutarch's favorite poets and dramatists.) I looked it up on the Internet: www.4literature.net/Euripides/Bacchae/.

There were a couple of other things in Bacchae that seem to apply here: The main character is Dionysus, son of Zeus. Zeus is actually named in Acts, as well as Dionysius:

Acts 13:11: "And when the crowds saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices saying in Lycaonian, 'The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!' Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, because he was the chief speaker, they called Hermes."

Acts 17:34: "But some of them joined him and became believers, including Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris, and others with them."

First Barnabas, Paul's companion, is called Zeus. Then Dionysius becomes another of Paul's companions. Twice Acts refers the educated reader to myths about Zeus, and specifically to the story of Dionysus in Bacchae by Euripides. What can Bacchae tell us about Paul?

Bacchae's Cadmus speaks words which are of great importance:

"Even though he is no god, as you assert, still say he is; be guilty of a splendid fraud, declaring him the son of Semele, that she may be thought the mother of a god and we and all our race gain honor."

In the very early years of Christianity, there was a great debate and a great division between two opposing factions fighting for dominance. One side, represented by those later labeled Gnostics: Nazarenes, Essenes, Pythagoreans, and others, said Jesus was a spiritually evolved teacher. The other side, Paul's supporters, claimed that Jesus was a god -- the God, in fact. It's clear which faction won out and which faction the church would eventually label heretics.

Later in the story Dionysus is bound and thrown into a stall; he describes the events:

Dionysus: "Meantime came the Bacchic god and made the house quake . . ."

Luke 16:26: ". . . and suddenly there was a great earthquake . . . "

Dionysus: " . . . and thinking maybe that I had escaped, rushed into the palace with his murderous sword unsheathed."

Luke 16:27: " . . . he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped . . ."


Source
edit on 30-1-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Have you told them yet how you think that John was also Jesus and that "he" was a woman?

I'd like to see how that goes over.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


I think my theory is a bit more coherent than yours honestly. But I'm starting to wonder whether John was just a morphing of Mary and Joseph, since he is androgynous. At the baptism, maybe it was Mary Magdalene (virgin Mary) giving birth in the Jordan river with the assistance of Joseph (John).

Luke (Plutarch) liked using parallelism with stories of characters, as in morphing them together. It just so happens that the only mention of John's birth is in Luke which is preceded by Zachariah lighting incense which was an Egyptian ritual they performed while preparing someone for the afterlife (resurrection).

Egyptians also burned frankincense and myrrh along with the incense, those were the gifts that the three magi brought to Jesus when he was supposedly born. That passage proceeds right after the birth of John in Luke as well. Mary and John's birth are also similar.

Plutarch's favorite writer was the guy that wrote The Bacchae, which he mirrored in Acts. Dionysus is the main character in the book, which also happens to be Bacchus who John the Baptist was turned into. There are too ma y connections to ignore it.
Just ideas floating around.
edit on 30-1-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-1-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Have you told them yet how you think that John was also Jesus and that "he" was a woman?

I'd like to see how that goes over.


A drunk ass woman that floated to some forsaken island on a whale carcas? Might as well go for it..



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
Greek & Roman societies at the time were openly gay.


Yes, but homosexuals understood that their position was not secure because they knew the terms of Ascension were, and still are, heterosexual, and so they started plotting.
edit on 31-1-2013 by Trafalgar1805 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 01:34 AM
link   
I noticed a lot of finger pointing in those pics...

You may know of the Leonardo mirror painting theory... Where you place the mirror where the point of the finger or fingers is, and it reveals a hidden image. It may be rubbish...or not. If you wanted to try it with some of these images, remember to try facing the mirror both left and right.

That cross does look totally fake, and while I knew about this painting. I never noticed the cross until you mentioned it. Thanks for sharing all this bud!






top topics



 
21
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join