• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Real Da Vinci Code

I fins it quite amusing the way people read so much into a painting.
Im not saying there isnt a code, but from what I have read/seen about Leonardo da Vinci then he is as likley to have put it in there as a hoax as much as anything.
Also was he supposed to have believed that John the Baptist was the true messiah? If so where does that leave the supposed clues?
 
Homo Aves

sorry????????

Its been a long day, and im now on the wine :D
 
Dirtybob said:
I fins it quite amusing the way people read so much into a painting.
Im not saying there isnt a code, but from what I have read/seen about Leonardo da Vinci then he is as likley to have put it in there as a hoax as much as anything.
Also was he supposed to have believed that John the Baptist was the true messiah? If so where does that leave the supposed clues?

That's linked in with another theory that stars Da Vinci and the Templars - that both were part of a heretical cult that deified John The Baptist instead of Jesus. They saw John as the true messiah. Various Da Vinci paintings showing figures with their fingers pointing upwards are supposedly the 'secret' sign of this cult. This is tied in with the allegation (albeit one extracted under torture) that the Templars worshipped a god in the form of a human head.

Of course, all of this has about as much credence as the Sion, HBHG, etc. stuff.
 
JerryB said:
Dirtybob said:
I fins it quite amusing the way people read so much into a painting.
Im not saying there isnt a code, but from what I have read/seen about Leonardo da Vinci then he is as likley to have put it in there as a hoax as much as anything.
Also was he supposed to have believed that John the Baptist was the true messiah? If so where does that leave the supposed clues?

That's linked in with another theory that stars Da Vinci and the Templars - that both were part of a heretical cult that deified John The Baptist instead of Jesus. They saw John as the true messiah. Various Da Vinci paintings showing figures with their fingers pointing upwards are supposedly the 'secret' sign of this cult.

For example as found in Picknett and Prince's works

Gordon
 
I found it quite interesting and afterwards went onto the C4 webchat with the producer of the show.
If the Priory of Sion is a SECRET society wouldn't they go to any lengths to keep it secret , even having 3 people state it is a hoax ?
I am not saying I believe in them but you get my gist.

Also on the webchat it was wierd in that of the the 30 or so people present, whenever one of us asked a question it was ignored and he answered questions that no one present could see anyone else asking...

Conspiracy £$£"""!£"!"£Q
 
Pavlos,

I was on that web chat - very odd wasnt it?

I posted a couple of questions with no luck
 
Pavlos said:
I found it quite interesting and afterwards went onto the C4 webchat with the producer of the show.
If the Priory of Sion is a SECRET society wouldn't they go to any lengths to keep it secret , even having 3 people state it is a hoax ?
I am not saying I believe in them but you get my gist.

Part of the story within HBHG was that the Priory were getting ready to reveal to the world their mission and part of this was "leaking" their existence which would evnetually be followed by more information once "the world was ready"
Gordon
 
Pavlos said:
Also on the webchat it was wierd in that of the the 30 or so people present, whenever one of us asked a question it was ignored and he answered questions that no one present could see anyone else asking...

Conspiracy £$£"""!£"!"£Q

at a guess I'd say he wasn't there and they just posted some email questions he answered.
 
Major Spoiler Alert!!!

It was the Stewart Succession what done it! :rofl:
 
JerryB said:
Various Da Vinci paintings showing figures with their fingers pointing upwards are supposedly the 'secret' sign of this cult.
:rofl:
So, a Secret Society has a Secret Handsign that looks remarkably like the signal used to denote:

"One"
"Please, miss, may I be excused?"
"Hang on one minute!"
"If I may point out..."
"What's that bird?"
"I use this finger to pick my nose."
etc. etc.

Ohhhhh Per-lease! This makes a photograph or film of a busy pub or bar demonstrate that the majority of the general public are members of a medieval sect.
:rofl:

As secret signs go, they could've picked a less common but not obvious sign.

One nice idea, in a NOVEL by Paul Doherty called Satan's Fire, was that the Templars - just before their downfall - had custody of a cloth which had the imprint of Jesus face (like the Turin Shroud) which would lead to rumours of them worshipping a severed head.

As far as webchats associated with programmes go, I've never been on one where a question from a 'live' poster was answered. I suspect the questions (from sockpuppets) and answers are already written out and are inserted now and then. I don't waste my time doing it anymore.
 
Stormkhan said:
JerryB said:
As far as webchats associated with programmes go, I've never been on one where a question from a 'live' poster was answered. I suspect the questions (from sockpuppets) and answers are already written out and are inserted now and then. I don't waste my time doing it anymore.

I had one of my questions answered on a live web chat once (it was about the documentary series a few years ago about the Hood and the Bismarck)
 
Stormkhan said:
So, a Secret Society has a Secret Handsign that looks remarkably like the signal used to denote:

"One"
"Please, miss, may I be excused?"
"Hang on one minute!"
"If I may point out..."
"What's that bird?"
"I use this finger to pick my nose."
etc. etc.

Ah, but the thing is the gesture I mentioned was always shown in a certain way - the back of the hand always faced towards the viewer, with the index finger extended upwards.
 
Some thoughts

Just finished watching Tony Robinson's exploration of Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code". Intresting but it seemed to be two films edited together. Its as if Tony Robinson went to the Channel 4 commissioning editors with the idea of a film about his search for the holy grail; they said OK but to attract a wider audience he should include the Da Vinci Code aswell. Shame! I could quite happily of watched two films, the first on the holy grail and the second on Dan Browns book.

I think there is an issue with Tony Robinson being a practising Christian and standing before the camera and claiming what he might find could shatter the very foundations of the Christian Church. Really, I never for a moment believed he would challenge his own beliefs, faith or dogma. (Turkey's don't vote for Christmas ). I'd have prefered for him to state his faith and explore it from that point of view, otherwise it comes across as a little insincere.

Why mention the Cathars - not in the book - and yet not mention the Opus Dei - all over the book!?

Whilst exploring Da Vinci's the last supper Tony Robison spoke to an "expert" who seemed determined to put forward the idea of the artist as a practical man of fact and experience, not at all involved in codes and puzzles. I just don't buy it, Da Vinci drew diagrams and plans for helicopters, diving suits and tanks. Da Vinci was a dreamer, fantasist and a visionary. The same "expert" attempted to prove that the effeminate figure next to Jesus in Da Vinci's Tha Last Supper was John The Baptists by producing another Da Vinci painting of an effeminate John the Baptist. The figure give in the second painting gives the single finger gesture associated with John The Baptist. The same gesture can be found in The Last Supper in the figure to the left of Jesus, this is who I would see as a candidate for John The Baptists and not the female character to his right. The same single figure gesture can be found in many renaisance images, it is a code and a puzzle whether its meaning is truely known or not!

During the final section on Mary Magdalene Tony Robinson turned to the camera and said "lets look at the history" and the proceeded to tell the Biblical story of the reserection. Is this really History, agreed, some may see it as history but should it be used as primary source in a non judgemental, apolitical, balanced television programme!?

So I thought the book ordinary and the programme not up to much. What the book reminds us of and and Tony Robinson failed to get across is the impact the discovery and recovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls should have had upon Christianity, (and to an extent judaism, the Mormons and Islam). That the information and the stories they tell are simply ingnored - out of sight out of mind if you will. Believe in your dogma by all means but don't be bound by it - A lesson that Fort could have taught us!
 
The figure to the left of Christ in the Last Supper is John. The disciple Jesus loved. Thought by some to be his brother (or half-brother), generally accepted as cousin by the Church, or some kind of relation. John the Baptist was already dead at the time of the Last Supper.

I've seen a lot of discussion about this figure, and quite honestly, I'm not convinced. It could be masculine, or feminine. Given the fact da Vinci was painting for an audience, I'd err on the side of masculine.

"The two thin ones balance out the fat one, see?" :D
 
and Tony Robinson failed to get across is the impact the discovery and recovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls should have had upon Christianity, (and to an extent judaism, the Mormons and Islam).

What impact?

I think I slept though it.
 
JerryB said:
Ah, but the thing is the gesture I mentioned was always shown in a certain way - the back of the hand always faced towards the viewer, with the index finger extended upwards.
I think the point is that we could read the same sort of tosh into a Rockwell many years from now.
 
Sadly I missed the middle 3/4s of an hour of this show, but the rest seemed interesting. Maybe someone can help me. Towareds the end, Tony Robinson dismissed the Cathars. What did he say about them? My fiancee is doing a history course and has just finished doing a section on them so we'd be interested to know.

TIA!
 
The basic gist about the Cathars was that there wasn't any evidence linking them to the grail - any apparent links were speculative.
 
Re: Some thoughts

Byron Cac said:
Why mention the Cathars - not in the book - and yet not mention the Opus Dei - all over the book!?

Probably because apart from the link in the Da Vinci Code, the Opus Dei have nothing to do with the Holy Grail.
They're a modern movement and have nothing to do with the development of the legend. I think Dan Brown pulled them in because they tend to be a bit secretive and are certainly ultra-traditional in Catholic terms.The Cathar link is there in legendary terms at least, even if there's no historical basis.

Do I sense an emerging conspiracy theory - Tony Robinson is a practicing Christian therefore he's going to debunk the Da Vinci Code. Any evidence that a) Tony Robinson is a practising Christian, b) even if he is, is that going to influence his investigation?

I thought he looked a bit disappointed to find that it's all smoke and mirrors.

Does Dan Brown actually believe the HBHG stuff, or does he jrealise that that its just a great story and that implying it's true is good for book sales?
 
Just because he may be Christian dosnt mean he is out to debunk anything, there are lots of active Christians out there.. how many do you know with an agenda? Come on, it's hardly the basis for a conspiricy theory.... besides..... did he actually write the script for it or was he just the presenter for it? hmm?

As a program it was good although obviously it missed out a lot fo details, but otherwise we would have been there for hours and hours longer. It's a good thinking point really.
 
besides which, what would a Christian bias be? And would an understanding of what that would be, be bias also? Christian bias doesn't suddenly bring up the information that the Prior of Sion was a hoax, Christian bias doesn't suddenly produce evidence that the St Clair dynasty was actually not as old as Sinclair himself had thought. so how if he had any at all would it make those all important factors (notably the priory of scion and the grail history itself) less valid? He even wanted to believe that it really was a woman sat next to Jesus as did his entire crew. I thought he was remarkably open minded but also sensible enough to know a load of bollocks when he heard it.
 
Hook Innsmouth said:
I thought he was remarkably open minded but also sensible enough to know a load of bollocks when he heard it.

Well, if not diplomatically, put Hook. My point was that he seemed pretty open-minded whatever his personal beliefs.
 
Quote:
and Tony Robinson failed to get across is the impact the discovery and recovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls should have had upon Christianity, (and to an extent judaism, the Mormons and Islam).


What impact?

I think I slept though it.

Exactly, me too. You'd imagine that a few extra biblical books would raise a few eyebrows amongst the faithful!

Byron Cac wrote:


Why mention the Cathars - not in the book - and yet not mention the Opus Dei - all over the book!?




Probably because apart from the link in the Da Vinci Code, the Opus Dei have nothing to do with the Holy Grail.
They're a modern movement and have nothing to do with the development of the legend. I think Dan Brown pulled them in because they tend to be a bit secretive and are certainly ultra-traditional in Catholic terms.The Cathar link is there in legendary terms at least, even if there's no historical basis.

Totaly agree. It just seemed strange that the Opus Dei wasn't mentioned, at least in passing.
 
Timble wrote:

Do I sense an emerging conspiracy theory - Tony Robinson is a practicing Christian therefore he's going to debunk the Da Vinci Code. Any evidence that a) Tony Robinson is a practising Christian, b) even if he is, is that going to influence his investigation?

"Conspiracy Theory" - You mean the Christian Tony Robinson who once sat on the Labour Party NEC, the same political party for which Ruth Kelly is an MP and Education Secretary AND a member of the Opus Dei ;)

It's the sort of thing you could write an international blockbuster about :D
 
Re: Some thoughts

Timble said:
Byron Cac said:
Why mention the Cathars - not in the book - and yet not mention the Opus Dei - all over the book!?

Probably because apart from the link in the Da Vinci Code, the Opus Dei have nothing to do with the Holy Grail.
They're a modern movement and have nothing to do with the development of the legend. I think Dan Brown pulled them in because they tend to be a bit secretive and are certainly ultra-traditional in Catholic terms.The Cathar link is there in legendary terms at least, even if there's no historical basis.

Do I sense an emerging conspiracy theory - Tony Robinson is a practicing Christian therefore he's going to debunk the Da Vinci Code. Any evidence that a) Tony Robinson is a practising Christian, b) even if he is, is that going to influence his investigation?

I thought he looked a bit disappointed to find that it's all smoke and mirrors.

Does Dan Brown actually believe the HBHG stuff, or does he jrealise that that its just a great story and that implying it's true is good for book sales?
[/quote]

He wasn't convinced by that blokes explanation of Da Vinicis painting, he didn't see an effeminate John sat next to Jesus, he said it was a woman.
 
Byron Cac said:
Timble wrote:
"Conspiracy Theory" - You mean the Christian Tony Robinson who once sat on the Labour Party NEC, the same political party for which Ruth Kelly is an MP and Education Secretary AND a member of the Opus Dei ;)


So the whole New Labour thing is an ultra-Catholic conspiracy? ;)
 
Ok, i have just read the book.Not wanting to give away any details to those that haven't read it and are planning to (if anyone is left that hasn't) but did anyone else work out these codes on the crptex (sp?).Im no Sherlock but bloody hell they were quite easy, especially the code for the smaller one! That was piss poor IMO!
 
I'm about three-quarters of the way through Foucault's Pendulum. Da Vinci Code really is a Hollywood-ised, simplified version, isn't it??? :p
 
Ravenstone said:
I'm about three-quarters of the way through Foucault's Pendulum. Da Vinci Code really is a Hollywood-ised, simplified version, isn't it??? :p

Yeah!! It kinda clicked but i dimissed it as i thought, 'nah, surely not'!!

Ha ha. :D
 
Back
Top