LAST SUPPER Painting isn't that a.....

Yep, you can just about see his face at the far left of the painting...

 

Every painting of John from that era has him looking feminine. That is the way they painted people who they assumed were young (based on John outliving the other apostles).

 

MNW

What do you mean "in some copies" there is the original painting and prints. The copies should be the same as the original.

To me it does not look like a woman. It looks like a young boy with long hair. In fact it looks just like Jesus is pictured in the painting with out the beard. If John looks like a woman in this pic then Jesus looks like a bearded woman in this picture.

Also notice everybody looks fair skined and blond. I think davinchi is leaving clues that Jesus and all the apostles were northern european and somebody covered it up.

 

Don't know. Maybe he just placed his hand on his shoulder and as it appears is whispering something to him?

 

OR, if it is a female, and Jesus' wife that guy is touching her inappropriatly.

Looking at this painting, I think the room was noisy. I can see myself puting my hand on my buddies shoulder this way to talk into his ear. I can not see putting my hand on my buddies wifes shoulder to talk into her ear.

I think the touch is evidence this is John not Mary.

[ April 07, 2006, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

One of the reasons Dan Brown says this is a woman is because of the way he/she is leaning away from Jesus making a V.

For some reason that I missed he says the V reprisents woman? Anybody know why?

I think davinchi made the V so we could see out the window. My opinion.

 

Old Dan explains the V thing and it is not appropriate for a public forum.

As for the touching going on. It is said that it is an aggressive gesture, as if "Peter" wants to cut off Mary's head.

A large emphasis is placed on goddess worship. The gnostic teachings point toward Mary as being the one on whom Christ would give special revelation and later build his church. This attacking gesture, (so called), is meant to depict Peter's jealosy and anger at being pushed aside in favour of a woman.

Much of what is in Dan Brown's book and the gnostic teachings is very sexually orientated. But as I said, as a public forum this is not the place for it.

Suffice to say, with this book, and soon the film, teaching that a sexual experiance is essential to knowing and experiancing God it will do nothing to help the promiscuous culture in which we live.

 

Oh.........

I understand now.

 

I am wondering why they all sat on the same side of the table!

 

Get their picture took

 

We need, to a degree, to remove Dan Brown out of the equation. he did not create any of these grand conspiracy theories, he just opened them up to a wider audience. They have been around for many years. Some of the roots that tie into these things were in existance since before Christ.

That's right, painters have always used various techniques and styles in their art. As someone has already said, Jesus is often painted as blue eyed with blonde hair.

Speaking of art appreciation. When you look at some of Da Vinci's other pieces and other painters that preceeded and followed him, there are some peculiar features that link them together.

Now, whether Da Vinci really was really a part of this mess is almost a side issue. I am not saying I believe he is, but there does appear to be something going on. All I have posted is what others have said.

The approach of, "That's just what Dan Brown says." will not be enough to stem the attack that is going to come.

The attacks will be specific and the measured response from believers ought to be specific also.

 

Frenchy,
Why is it clear to you?
Have you ever taken art lessons to seriously study Renaissance paintings?

Few of us have, and it comes across as you having a "hunch" based on a feeling, with no evidence.
There were schools (types) of painting. Each artist reflected his own times, culture, and "school". He also reflected his own creativity.

There were artistic conventions for depicting youth, etc.

If your point is to show that Da Vinci was a Catholic worshipper of Mary, that is historically suspect, to say the least, anyway.

Karen

 

honestly,

why does it matter?

 

I'm wondering why they are even SITTING at a table, and not reclined as was the custom of the day. If people believe the false theology behind Davinci Code based off a non accurate painting 1500 years after the fact, they need their heads examined.