What was Leonardo hinting at with John the Baptist?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by rickymouse

 

Jesus fasted too, remember after he was baptized he went into the wilderness and was tempted by Satan for 40 days. Temptation by Satan represents fasting. Which brings up another point, they both fasted as well which is another similarity between the two.

Jesus said that some people called him a wine bibber and a glutten but his time was limited on the earth so why should he fast. That is somewhere in the bible, it's not his exact words, just how I remember them.

Buddha quit fasting also after his initial fast. He looked kinda plump on his statues. He died from eating food.

reply to post by trekwebmaster


Interesting, didnt know the statistics on the 'mirror-writers'.
until 3rd grade my teacher had to hold all my work up to the
mirror to grade it.
It was perfectly written but backwards compared to what everyone
else did.
Took a lot of work to retrain my brain to write the way everyone else did.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by rickymouse

 

Jesus fasted too, remember after he was baptized he went into the wilderness and was tempted by Satan for 40 days. Temptation by Satan represents fasting. Which brings up another point, they both fasted as well which is another similarity between the two.

Yea jesus fasted for 40 days but he and his followers were not known for fasting. Jesus was even asked why his followers didnt fast like the followers of John did.....which shows right there that the men asking jesus this question understood that john and jesus were diffrent people.

Jesus even said himself that "John came fasting and you say he had a demon....the son of man came eating and drinking and you call him a drunk and a glutton....so again jesus marks the fact that the two were diffrent men. Jesus called john old wine and he was the new.

Let me ask you have your ever really read the books? I mean just as literature even?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by rickymouse

 

Jesus fasted too, remember after he was baptized he went into the wilderness and was tempted by Satan for 40 days. Temptation by Satan represents fasting. Which brings up another point, they both fasted as well which is another similarity between the two.

Fasting represents a time of prayer and obediance to God.. In the hand of God they are a means of cleansing the heart and promoting a receptive frame of mind. We obtain answers to our prayers because we humble our souls before God. it is a necessity to fast and pray for the Lord to give His grace to deny fleshly lusts which war against the Soul. Humility.
Matthew 4 is where Jesus is tempted by Satan. "Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights,afterward He was hungry".
There is a similarity in Moses in the book of Deuteronomy (9:9-18) Moses fasted for forty days and nights on Mount Sinai.. Deut.9:9-18..."then I stayed on the Mountain for forty days and forty nights. I neither ate bread nor drank water".
Also related to fasting is Deut.8:2-3 Where it descibes God leading the Israelites thru the wilderness for forty years, "To humble you and test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you keep His commandments are not".

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.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Matthew 7:21-23: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!”
They said, ‘Lord, Lord,’ but they never submitted to His lordship. Jesus says, ‘If your desire is to enter the kingdom of heaven, don’t just call Me ‘Lord.’ You have to do the will of My Father.’ Now these people who prophesied, who cast out demons and who performed miracles, do they not have some kind of faith? Could it be that they could prophesy in the name of Jesus without faith? Could it be that they could do miracles in the name of Jesus without faith? I think that they did have faith, or at least some sort of faith. Could it be that they could cast out demons without faith? The disciples tried once to cast out a demon but they couldn’t. They asked Jesus why they couldn’t do it. Jesus said, ‘Because your faith is too small’ (Matthew 17:20). This answer shows that faith is needed in order to cast out demons. But according to Jesus’ words, none of these people will find entrance into the kingdom of God.


This is the point that the apostle James addresses in his letter (James 2:19). He says, ‘You say you have faith. You do well. But the devil also has faith. You say you believe in God. The devil believes also that there is one God, maybe more than you do because he trembles.’ If the devil has faith, why is he not saved? Because he does not do the will of God. That is why James says, For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also (James 2:26). There is a kind of faith that does not save you. It is a faith that does not bear good works. It is a faith that does not express itself in good works of obedience to the will of the Father.

I like to quote Paul to talk about salvation by faith. For example, he writes in Ephesians 2:8, For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God. We are saved by faith. What a precious truth! But that is not all that Paul said. Immediately after that declaration, Paul goes on to say, ‘You were created to do good works. God prepared them in advance, that you should walk in them.’ Here is the element of obedience to the will of God. We walk on the path that God has already prepared for us, i.e., we do the good that God wants us to do. Here Paul and James say the same thing: good works attest the reality of salvation in our lives. If there is no good works, our faith is dead and we are not saved.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Not to come off as racist,
But in Leonardo's work he shows Jesus and his disciples as white European. Jesus didnt become white until 700ad. Clearly Leonardo does his work based off what the people of that time would tech him who Jesus was. So I would doubt that he would know any more about the life of Jesus than Hitler would,

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Bro, John the baptist baptized Jesus in front of witnesses. Try again.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Akragon

 

John the Baptist is only mentioned by Josephus, who was a Roman.

Since Jesus was killed by Romans and da Vinci's painting of John was turned into a Roman deity, that leads me to believe that Rome changed his identity at some point, and that identity was Jesus, since both him and Bacchus resurrected and had a god as their father.

Da Vinci probably did have access to the libraries of the Vatican, so he knew things no one else did or does. He is obviously trying to hint at something with John the Baptist, otherwise there wouldn't be much mystery behind their meanings.

John the Baptist was mentioned in every gospel!

John the Baptist was the son of Elizabeth and Zedekiah (who was high priest prior to the birth of John the Baptist). Elizabeth was related to Mary, making John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin.

Da Vinci was well aware of the gospels. His painting was John the Baptist pointing, not to himself, but to one who is greater, who follows and whose sandals John says he "is not fit to tie" (John 1:29-30).

Originally posted by rickymouse

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by rickymouse

 

Jesus fasted too, remember after he was baptized he went into the wilderness and was tempted by Satan for 40 days. Temptation by Satan represents fasting. Which brings up another point, they both fasted as well which is another similarity between the two.

Jesus said that some people called him a wine bibber and a glutten but his time was limited on the earth so why should he fast. That is somewhere in the bible, it's not his exact words, just how I remember them.

Buddha quit fasting also after his initial fast. He looked kinda plump on his statues. He died from eating food.

Buddha was a man of earth? Never heard that before. Was he a sumo or somethingjk

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by karen61560

 

Baptism is allegory for child birth, John baptizing Jesus was John giving birth to a baby. Sounds kinda crazy doesn't it? I'll explain soon.

John the Baptist baptized Jesus at a very particular and definite place and time in the Jordan river. What is that "allegorical" for? Perhaps it was an event that actually happened?

John the Baptist was also beheaded and his head delivered to Herod Antipas on a silver platter, at the request of Herod's step daughter, Salome. Salome did this as a favour to her mother Herodias. These are all people who existed at the time and this is very much the modus operandi of Herod. This happened while Jesus was alive and ministering.

They could not possibly be the same person.

What you theorise in the OP is unsupported by history, tradition or evidence.

Muslims use that finger in prayer to say there is only one god. Its interesting to see john use that finger too..further proving those religions are connected.

Was not davinci a devout Roman catholic? That has a huge significance in terms of "rating" the importance of his theories. At that point in time, the "chuch" was scrambling to make amends with the people who they scolded with iron

Originally posted by Guyfriday
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

So Jesus = Dionysus

I can believe that. Outside of the feastive crowds that followed both of them around,

there was that water to wine thing
both had God as a father and a human as a mother
they were both saved by a servent of God
they both died and returned as godlike
they both used a lam as an early symbol
they both returned uncorupted from the underworld
they both were depicted wearing a crown of vegitation
they both have feastivals held in early spring
both have a passing history in India
they both have stories about adventures on the sea

As for the John the Baptist connection? All I have to say to that is that dunking a person into water was an old ritual where you made a pack with Oceanus were you give your soul to him in exchange for safe passages on the seas.

John the Baptist could have very well have been a wondering preist for Oceanus. Since worshipping the Titans was a big no-no during the Roman era, this would explain his reasoning for traveling in small groups and providing his services outside the of the city. (Remember that early Jewish practices were talerated within most Roman cities)

The Dionysus with the attributes you describe did not arise until 150-200 years after the death of Christ. It was an attempt by Roman Pagans to accommodate Christianity which was blooming at the time, despite significant, state sponsored, oppression.

Originally posted by rabzdguy
Muslims use that finger in prayer to say there is only one god. Its interesting to see john use that finger too..further proving those religions are connected.

Except that there are at least two Gods and probably only two - one male and the other female. All these religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddism, Freemasonry etc) are indeed connected because they were all invented by homosexuals with a secret agenda to create a same-sex society. You only need look at the style of the paintings at the beginning of this thread to see that something sexually strange is going on.

I am sure you don't, but to others, don't confuse Jesus with any of these religions. The Catholic Church did indeed cover up Jesus' interest in women because, like I said, they are part of an agenda to create a same-sex society. Homosexuals want same-sex relationships, so does the Catholic Church and other religions and societies, such as the Islamic Brotherhood. They are all on the same side. Give no support to any of them.

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Akragon

 

John the Baptist is only mentioned by Josephus, who was a Roman.

Since Jesus was killed by Romans and da Vinci's painting of John was turned into a Roman deity, that leads me to believe that Rome changed his identity at some point, and that identity was Jesus, since both him and Bacchus resurrected and had a god as their father.

Da Vinci probably did have access to the libraries of the Vatican, so he knew things no one else did or does. He is obviously trying to hint at something with John the Baptist, otherwise there wouldn't be much mystery behind their meanings.

John the Baptist was mentioned in every gospel!

John the Baptist was the son of Elizabeth and Zedekiah (who was high priest prior to the birth of John the Baptist). Elizabeth was related to Mary, making John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin.

Da Vinci was well aware of the gospels. His painting was John the Baptist pointing, not to himself, but to one who is greater, who follows and whose sandals John says he "is not fit to tie" (John 1:29-30).

Mary and Elizabeth were cousins if I remember correctly. OK just read Luke 1:29-45 The word used is relative.
Can someone explain to me if John the Baptist was a miraculous birth also? It sure does read like that..36"Now indeed, your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren.37For with God nothing will be impossible."

Jesus and John were related, and both were miraculous births? Right?

reply to post by knightsofhonor


The two paintings in the OP were not commissioned, so your idea about it being about what a customer wanted is not correct.

He was an artist, not a robot, so even IF someone did commission the paintings (which no one did), he would have still added his own style to it.

reply to post by Turkenstein


Where are these witnesses today? Oh yeah, they're DEAD. The only thing we have to go on is the bible, a book that could have very easily been changed and edited. Do you trust the bible that much to think everything is true and accurate?

reply to post by chr0naut


I meant outside of the gospels.

John the Baptist is only mentioned once outside of the gospels, and that is by a Roman named Josephus who wasn't even alive when John supposedly got beheaded. Are you so sure they weren't the same person? Or do you believe the bible is infallible, because, you know, that's ALL we have to go on.

The winner writes history and Rome "won" when they killed Jesus and most of his followers. Is it just by chance that the only other source on John outside of the bible was from a Roman?

reply to post by chr0naut


A definite time and place based on what? The bible? You put too much trust in the work of men. I do believe a "baptism" took place, just not in the way the bible presents it.

If you think it was hard to change a few names around then I suggest you try it yourself, it's not really that hard. Now imagine you had some of the most brilliant minds of your time at your disposal and they HAD to do what you ordered because you are emperor, and you order them to mess around with the story a little, do you think that's impossible?