Worldwide scoop: The Da Vinci Code, when deciphered correctly, points towards a transsexual as playing a key role in the history of the Middle East.

The Da Vinci Code is Finally Cracked
Part 5
By Somer Knight

---

 
I know, I know — a lot of you think that Dan Brown is a genius for cracking The Da Vinci Code; and you’re flocking to “Angels and Demons,” the newest documentary based on his work. I also am aware that there is more than one code deciphered by Dan on his way to providing indisputable proof that Jesus died a married man. Or married god, if you prefer. I’m not here to make religious waves; I am here to correct Dan’s one big mistake in The Da Vinci Code. I do so in the interests of science and Truth, and not because I have a desperate need to see my name in print.

I have no horse in the race to learn whether or not God exists or whether or not Jesus is (was) divine. I have my own donkey to flog: my commitment to life, liberty and the pursuit of the almighty dollar. It is out of my love of life and liberty that I have chosen this obscure site on which to post this groundbreaking story. I do hope, however, that the story will spread virally and that some day I, Somer Knight, will be infamous.

As for Dan Brown, he blew it when it came to breaking the single most important code — the one that identified the bride of Christ. (And we’re not talking centuries of nuns.) I believe that Dan allowed his feminism to distort his understanding of the single-most important clue discovered during his research: namely, the hidden meaning of Leonardo DaVinci’s fresco of “The Last Supper.”

Since my own prejudice — transgenderism -- is superior to Brown’s, you, my readers, can be certain that I have a superior interpretation of the hidden meaning of Da Vinci’s flaky, fresco of Jesus and his Disciples celebrating simultaneously the Passover of the Jews, their last meal together, and the first communion mass.

As it’s important for you to read my entire, convoluted Argument, you must tarry with me for a few pages more before I reveal my most important finding. Yet, since I know the value to a news story of an early teaser, I can tell you this now: There is no way, as Brown asserted, that Mary Magdalene and Jesus Christ had a lovechild who founded a Holy Bloodline known for two millennia as the Holy Grail (the latter’s name derives from really old French for “Holy Blood”). Am I able to prove a negative? Why not? As a night editor once said, “You, Somer, are capable of anything.”

Before I tell you the biggest news about Jesus since the Dead Sea Scrolls, let me discard the biggest myth about Dan Brown’s book — that it’s a novel, a work of fiction. Fiction? Hah! Those who have actually read his treatise know that they have read the “gospel” truth.

So why did Brown claim that he had written a novel? Well, the answer is blindly obvious to anyone who has read about Opus Dei, the Priory of Sion, the Illuminati and the Templars. Those are ruthless dudes. It’s worth your life to mess with them. So I figure that Brown decided to take out life insurance: if he were to have an early, untimely death, then everyone would know that he hadn’t written a novel. No one gets murdered for writing a novel, do they?

(Okay, it did briefly concern me when I found out the leaders of the Soviet Union took an exception to some of the novels written by Russians like that Vermont guy, Solznitzn. But they didn’t intend to kill anyone they sent to the concentration camps known as the Gulag. The Gulag was meant to re-educate, not to kill. Or so Jean-Paul Sartre told us. And he was a heavy thinker, as one would expect of a dude from the Leftist Bank of Paris. )

Unlike Dan Brown, I am not pretending that this is a work of non-fiction. Am I, therefore, putting my life in danger? I don’t think so. I sincerely hope not. But I do hope that my plan works: that this story will spread with such virulence that no one will be able to identify the original source of infection until I, my police protection finally assigned, can stand behind a bulletproof barrier (with at least three teleprompters) to take my rightful place in the international dissemblance of knowledge.

Okay, now that you no longer fear for my future, let us get as quickly as possible to the crux of the matter. See the red arrow in the image below (it’s a blow-up of part of Da Vinci’s famous painting, which is remarkably tiny, of the last formal dinner that Jesus ever attended).
 

 
According to Dan Brown, the arrow points to Mary Magdalene, one of his disciples. As she was definitely a female, it’s contended that she had — like women at a Georgia golf club — had only an associate membership in the ranks of the Apostles. In identifying the prettiest person in the painting as female, Dan may have believed that he was being fairly conventional, but in fact almost every scholar before him believed that the lissom figure was in fact that of John the Apostle, the dude who later wrote one of the gospels and the Book of Revelation.

Brown further argues that the body language of Mary and Jesus (he’s the guy in the orange outfit with a purple bedspread wrapped around one shoulder) proves that Da Vinci, the ultimate insider who belonged to the Priory of Sion (a global conspiracy like SPECTRE or KAOS), was using the painting to reveal his biggest secret -- that Jesus and Mary were an item. Not only were they married, but they had a kid together. Since this conclusion upset the Catholic Church, it must be right, say Dan’s disciples.

So what’s true, and what’s not? This part is true: Dan Brown does prove that Leonardo Da Vinci, a brilliant man who flew the first airplane (in one of the Carolinas, I think), had the inside scoop on Christ’s sex life; and that he used this fresco (a painting on plaster) to depict Jesus as a married man, his spouse being the comely blonde sitting, hostess-like, at his right shoulder. They must have been married for many years by the time of the meal because the spouse of Jesus is leaning away from him to flirt with — let’s be frank — a dude so elderly that they must have been talking about an exchange of money.

Brown, despite his brilliant insight that “The Last Supper” proves that Jesus was married, is surprisingly obtuse — once again I blame his feminism — when it comes to identifying Jesus’s spouse. Brown says that pretty apostle is Mary Magdalene.

Oh come now, Dan! Where is there any evidence that Jesus liked women — you know, liked them that way? He surrounded himself with men, didn’t he? Yes, there was one woman in his entourage, but who else was going to do the cooking, sewing, mending, and foot-washing? I’ve done a lot of research on gender roles in traditional societies, and I can assure you from personal experience that it’s impossible to get by without at least one woman in a culture such as backward as Judaya was in ancient days of yore. Dan disputes Mary Magdalene’s reputation as an ex-prostitute. Again, he’s got it wrong: Who but a whore too old to make a living at her chosen profession would agree to keep house — without there even being a house! — for twelve grown men? These guys had neither donkey cart nor Indian travois. Let’s be realistic -- there would have been less work for her tending to the chuckwagon on a Texas cattle drive!

And why would Jesus have made out with a woman worn out by her endless chores? Think, folks, you’ve got to think -- You’ve all seen portraits of Jesus wearing little more white tissue paper. You know that he had great looks and an even greater bod. If he had been into females, then he, like Mohammed, could have found one who hadn’t even ripened. Why would he have selected a prune in a land with so many cherries to be plucked?

Dan’s biggest mistake, however, was his failure to count the number of people at the dinner party. Of, if he did count them, he got it wrong — which may not be surprising from a feminist. Aren’t they all left-brained and so bad at math? I, on the other hand, have a brain in which nothing is favored. So trust me: there are twelve people in the painting. Rather, thirteen — Jesus and his twelve apostles. They were all born as men, even if the spouse of Jesus does look like a woman, a fact which Dan Brown correctly regarded as the clue to the meaning of the painting and to Jesus’s marital status.

Who then was the spouse of Jesus? (If I had add sound effects, there would be a drum roll here.) Who was the lucky one? It was John the Apostle and Evangelist. John was the only one of the twelve disciples whom Jesus called his “beloved.” How much more evidence do you need?

Yes, Jesus was married to a man! But Jesus was not gay!

We have here a stunning paradox. It’s so incredible that I realize that even the most credulous of my readers (that is, most of you still with me) will want some proof that Jesus could not have been gay, even though he was always hanging out with the guys, one of whom, Simon, a former fisherman, had such rock-like abs that Jesus gave him the nickname “Peter” — from the Russian “petros”, meaning rock. Simon Peter may have been rock-like lower down, but one mustn’t speculate.

Now I appreciate that times have changed. These days when we see thirteen good-looking, buff guys and one homely gal trooping around town, we leap to the conclusion that -- no matter what the guys might be growing limply on their lower lip -- that she’s the real “beard”, i.e., a woman fed the occasional compliment so that she will give some “closet queens” some cover. However, even in these modern, up-to-date times, we often err when we jump to this conclusion, for we forget that it’s hard for penniless guys to get a date.

It was even harder to buy some female companionship in days of yore. And we all know that Jesus and his disciples were as poor as beggars. It’s no wonder, then, that the only woman in their lives (other than their moms) was the one they paid for housework. So Mary Magdalene was no beard; she was, instead, the perspiring brow and tired arms of this little band of guys who were more into talk than work.

And yet the fundamental paradox of Jesus’s life needs to be explained — that he, a man as straight and manly as a Canadian Mountie, sailor or lumberjack, could marry someone who was at birth declared to be a man conceived of woman.

Well, would it be “gay” for a man to marry a MTF transsexual, as I can prove John the Apostle to have been? While I have not yet been able to verify that John underwent castration or consumed enough feminizing herbs to give himself the semblance of a female body, the visual evidence of his sex change is fairly conclusive. Every surviving portrait of John is clearly that of a woman!

First, let us remind ourselves of what Mediterranean women looked like in the classical era, the era in which John and Jesus lived in wedded bliss (made possible by neglected, overworked Mary Magdalene). So much time has passed that we can’t expect a priori (Greek always impresses readers) the olden-time women then to have been as beautiful as Jacqui Kennedy or Michelle Obama. This painting (by someone named Botticelli) depicts the typical female of those times:
 

 
Alas, as before, I haven’t been able to find a large painting for my demonstration of what passed in the first century for female pulchritude (as the most important Ren-Ref artists seem to have been miniaturists.) For those of you unsure of who’s what, that’s the female in the clamshell. Study her FACE and then compare it with two surviving portraits of John the Apostle -- the first being an even bigger blow-up from the surprisingly petite “Last Supper” by Leonardo Da Vinci; the second, a portrait of the young beauty by an obscure Fleming (isn’t that a kind of bird?) named Hans Memmling. (His number gets me wondering whether I spelled Fleming correctly. Is it normally one M or two M’s in French?)
 

 
Given the portrait evidence, can there now be any doubt that John had become a female by the time that he married Jesus? Consider John’s beardlessness. As John was at least thirty years old on the evening that his image was captured by “Last Supper” and as he lived in a society that, like those in rural Afghanistan and Liberal Democratic constituency meetings, demanded that adult males wear a beard, is it not obvious that John must have been a female — a female in his mind from birth and increasingly in his physique? Consider also the shape of John’s head: it, like that of the typical Mediterranean female of his era, was rectangular. Try as he might, John couldn’t hide the shape of his head and is there anything more feminine, more likely to expose a FTM cross-dresser, than a long, thin face?

The portrait evidence is, in my opinion, so compelling that for the rest of this essay I will call John by her proper name, by the pet name that legend says that she received from her husband Jesus: namely, Doreen.

For those of you who still cannot free themselves from Dan’s intellectual thrall (for it admittedly takes quite a unique brain to perceive the world as I do), I have one last piece of evidence. And it’s a zinger! As everyone knows, the world of the classical people was — as in Saudi Arabia, Greece and Italy today — highly gendered. Men and women lived separatist lives, coming together only as needed to create children.

Thus, crucifixion day was a typical day for the two sexes in ancient Judaya; each was doing its “own thing” in its own separate sphere. The women in Jesus’s life were hanging around his cross, gossiping and sewing, darning and gossiping. All the girls were there: Mary Magdalene, Veronica, Jesus’s mom, and some female relatives who, lacking good literary agents, didn’t get a plug by name in the Bible.

Where meanwhile were the men? They were all in hiding from the Romans! Or so they claimed. Were they cowards? I don’t think so, because they, as typical males, had probably lied to the womenfolk so that they could go fishing. Or else they they were seeking some release from their tension — wouldn’t you be tense if a buddy was being crucified? — at a “gentlemen’s club” on the Jerusalem strip. However, for our purposes it isn’t necessary to establish where the male disciples actually were; it suffices to know that the men in Jesus’s life had better things on that doleful Friday to do than to watch him suffer and die.

So where was Doreen that day? Hiding out with the men? No, she was with the womenfolk. Look it up in the Bible if you can borrow one. It says that Doreen AKA John was hanging out with the women; or to be more faithful to our conclusions, that Doreen was hanging out with the other women. Point, set, match!

Now you have it all: First, Jesus was not gay. He liked women even though he spent most of his time horsing around with other guys. Second, he did marry. Third, his bride was his “beloved” Doreen, who’s gone down in history as John the Apostle and Evangelist. Fourth, physically, Doreen was neither male nor female, inasmuch as she was a transsexual, born in a male body but still woman enough for Jesus. Fifth, there can’t have been any kids from the marriage of Doreen and Jesus because, despite the highly dubious claims by some scholars of transgenderism, a MTF transsexual cannot get pregnant. Not even if he’s got breasts like Arnold Schwarznegger’s! Heck, it would take a miracle for a male to get pregnant, and miracles are not something that we associate with Jesus. Hence, there has been no Holy Bloodline for the Priory of Sion to protect. If it or any other group has turned murderous, don’t blame Jesus and Doreen!

What are we left with after correcting the one big error in Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code? A lot if you ask me. As a middle-aged, transgendered person myself, it gives me enormous pride that Jesus, who reportedly was so charming that he could have seduced almost anyone living in the eastern Mediterranean time zone, that Jesus chose a transgendered mate of his own age. Maybe Doreen was a couple of years younger than Jesus, but that’s sufficiently close to prove that Jesus was neither a lookist nor an ageist.

Even so, the discovery of a transsexual in Jesus’s life is not really all that surprising. After all, we T-girls have been around since Adam had to divorce his first wife, Lilith, because she lacked the internal plumbing needed to bear his children. Eve, his second wife, may have been matriarch of nations, but Adam never loved her as much as he did his one true love, the transsexual Lilith. (I suspect but cannot yet prove that Cain internalized Eve’s rage at being second best, with tragic results for Abel.)

While my discovery of Doreen may not be earth-shaking, it is, nonetheless, an important finding worthy of government financial support. It does, for example, suggest a new take on Judas Iscariot. Indeed, I have already initiated an investigation into his sexuality, for which I shall be appealing to the usual suspect Foundations. My working hypothesis is this: that if Jesus was comfortable with having one transsexual in his entourage, then the ranks of the apostles could easily have included another. Two out of twelve is a far from an impossible ratio, right? And if there were a second transgendered disciple, why couldn’t it have been Judas, who betrayed Jesus with … get this … a kiss?

A kiss? Why are we told that detail? Is it not possible, nay likely, that Judas, a transsexual tragically less attractive than Doreen, did in Jesus out of jealousy? Did empires fall and oceans rise simply because one T-girl, acting like a real bitch, was intent on messing up the marriage of another? Fascinating questions, right? I promise you that I will find the answers as soon as I have found someone to finance my research trips to Honolulu, Nice and the Virgin Islands.

I appreciate that some readers, those unduly influenced by the media and academy, will doubt the veracity of my conclusions. They will accuse me — correctly but unjustly — of timing the release of this essay to coincide with the hype over Angels and Demons, the second documentary based on Dan Brown’s extensive research into religious malfeasance. Sure, I’d like to get a piece of the pie; but greed doesn’t invalidate my work, which stands on its own merits, just as I stand on the shoulders of such great scholars as Dan Brown and Indiana Jones even as I look down upon them.

 © Somer Knight, 2009, who demands her rights.