The Last Supper - DaVinci Code

Hello, could u guys please stop compairing Jesus with the sun or the apostles with the zodiac? I believe that to be a occult viewpoint on Christianity.. an insult even. Sun-worship is something totally different... Jesus is the Son, not the Sun..

[edit on 27-3-2006 by phiniks]

your ignorance is showing..

from what I can see the aposteles were undoubtedly GAY. why else would 11 men
complain about another man having a relationship with a woman.

Maybe Judas turned jesus in to save him from the booty bandits.

[edit on 27-3-2006 by sanctum]

just gonna leave this post empty... feel a ban breathing down my neck

[edit on 27-3-2006 by phiniks]

Stop with the personal 'off topic' snipes and continue this discussion in a civil manner.

also deleted my opinion from this post... seems opinions get one in trouble these days..

Back on-topic:

Maybe a bigger picture will help to distinguish what is actually on the painting... just a thought.

[edit on 27-3-2006 by phiniks]

Originally posted by phiniks
Hello, could u guys please stop compairing Jesus with the sun or the apostles with the zodiac? I believe that to be a occult viewpoint on Christianity.. an insult even. Sun-worship is something totally different... Jesus is the Son, not the Sun..

Sorry phiniks, I think it is a totally valid line of discussion - especially considering the staggering amount of evidence to suggest Jesus is simply another in a long string of Sun deities. I've given some information, examples and further reading - It's not something I've come up with off the top of my head.

Christians don't have much faith in their faith it seems, since every time someone starts asking questions, they tell them to shut up! Have trust in your faith -- if you believe in it so, it should be able to stand even the harshest criticism.

Now, I’m seeking opinions here, can someone comment if the above is a woman, a man or, in my opinion it’s impossible to tell.

Looks like the person in question has distinct feature's to me. The 'skin' seem's to have a glow to it, whereas the rest are dull shade's. Almost as if the artist was trying to paint the 'softness' of a womans skin. The hair also appears to be long and 'silky', like woman's hair would be. The body language also seem's abit more feminine compared to the body language of the rest of the people depicted in the painting. I don't know if any young men look distinctly feminine, but there could be some, IDK. I haven't seen or met people like that, so I can only relate to what I have seen, which is generally, feminine feature's equals woman.

At the last supper, Christ ate with the 12 disciples. This is the scene DaVinci depicted in his painting. My math may be a bit rusty, but when I add 12 and 1, I come up with the number 13. When I count heads in DaVinci's painting, I come up with 13, as well. So, if DaVinci knew some secret and tried to depict it in his painting, where did he put John? Why was John left out? Wouldn't it have made more sense if DaVinci was trying to hint at something that he would put 14 people in the painting, instead of drawing Paul in the typical feminine manner religious figures were drawn in the Renaissance?

Originally posted by junglejake
At the last supper, Christ ate with the 12 disciples. This is the scene DaVinci depicted in his painting. My math may be a bit rusty, but when I add 12 and 1, I come up with the number 13. When I count heads in DaVinci's painting, I come up with 13, as well. So, if DaVinci knew some secret and tried to depict it in his painting, where did he put John? Why was John left out? Wouldn't it have made more sense if DaVinci was trying to hint at something that he would put 14 people in the painting, instead of drawing Paul in the typical feminine manner religious figures were drawn in the Renaissance?

Why would DaVinci only depict that one person in a feminine form and not the rest? Perhaps this is where artistic symbolism come's into play?

It could also be done to point out John's special place through the Gospels. John was called the most beloved. DaVinci may have been depicting an angelic quality to him or trying to show the light of God reflected in John's features.

As a woman though? If I'm not mistaken, comparing men to women was considered insulting wasn't it? I mean, everything about that one person just scream's woman, facial feature's, hair, skin complection, body language. Why would DaVinci depict only that one person in that particular way? It make's no snese to me. There are plenty of painting's and drawing's from that time period of men depicted in angelic ways, or as angel's, but still masculine to show they are male. This one person, everything about it is female.

Thanks for the compilation piersploughman, It had been mentioned (including myself) but nobody backed it up. –

I made a graphic for easy comparison (I’m sure it will be handy in May). Why is John always slouching on Jesus like that? And it certainly appears that other artists also painted John with VERY feminine features. Why? (Is that the angelic features JungleJake mentions?)



There’s an excellent list of Last Supper theme paintings here:
www.textweek.com...

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Why is John always slouching on Jesus like that?

Why? This is why, John 13:23

There was reclining on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved.

At the Last Supper, the disciple who is referred to as the one "whom Jesus loved" is generally regarded to be John. As such, depictions of the Last Supper often have John laying his head on Christ's breast. It's Biblical, yo

Originally posted by junglejake
John 13:23

ha ha! Thanks JJ! That explains why it's always the same. Is there any other description of the scene in any other books of the bible? (outside of John13?)

EDIT:
Found Mark 14:17, anywhere else?

[edit on 27/3/06 by ConspiracyNut23]

There are several other places where John is referred to as the one "whom Jesus loved", but none of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) depict the details of the scene as the book of John does, so far as I know. Matthew 26, Mark 14 and Luke 22 all describe the Last Supper, but they don't mention John placing his head on Jesus' breast.

Thanks JJ, Just read through them now. It’s cool to read each of the 4 one after the other. Luke has a really dark, dramatic style compared to the others. I might give the whole thing a read soon.

Off the top of your head, are there any description of John in the Bible? (For example when Jesus first met John.) Is there any physical description of John anywhere that would explain why the Renaissance painters depicted him with female characteristics?


[edit on 27/3/06 by ConspiracyNut23]

I'm back for a sec, just wanna say I found that book I mentioned(not as big as I remember though, guess my memory is wearing thin, but its still a big book). it will take me a while to get it ready(I am very busy), but there are a lot of nice pictures and sketches of the painting and, spanning across 5 pages is the main painting. It will take me a while to scan it all though, I could type lots of the stuff in it too but I'm to lazy right now. But as far as the paragraphs go, I'm gonna havta study the book a little bit to make sure I find the stuff for the last supper, the paragraphs don't seem to go with the pictures on the page all the time. well any way, maybe on the weekend I'll work on it, sorry that I cant do it now but I just don't have the time. But if anybody would like to look the book up, its "Leonardo Da Vinci: An Artabras Book" , good luck finding much info on it though, doesn't seem to be to many sorces for it. But one thing I'm guessing, Leonardo wanted to paint something truly great that is worthy of an artists skill, or something. and from what I can gather, I do believe that Davinci was very well aware that the Apostle John was male. and on a side note(a little off topic), but from what I can find out, Jesus and St. John are only about 6 months apart in age, and out of all the Apostles, St. John loved Jesus the most. sorry if alot of this is jumbled a little and doesn't make some sense at some points but I'm typing it in a rush. well bye.

John was called the most beloved.

Wrong. Lazarus Is the one Identified as the beloved disiple or "he whom thou lovest".
the messenger from Bethany says to Jesus "he whom thou love is ill", It is repeatedly Lazarus
the Brother of Mary and Martha refered to. There are even some that believe the Book of John
my have eminated from Lazarus because the author only identifies themselves as "the beloved disiple".

The Gnostic writings add the possibility /probability that Mary Magdalene was the Beloved one.

A third possibility is that John is not John but Johanna.

it's not the disciple whom Jesus loved... it's the disciple who loves Jesus more than the others.

Alright, took a bit of research, but I can address the feminine qualities of John in The Last Supper by DaVinci.

During the middle ages, art began the progression into what we now know as art of the renaissance. There are several elements that led to DaVinci painting John in the Last Supper in such a feminine manner, or what we perceive as feminine.

As many of you probably know, the Renaissance began in Italy and spread throughout Europe. In Florence in the late middle ages, a tradition had developed of painting people with a pale delicacy. This can be seen in many pieces of art out of this time, including a young Leonardo DaVinci painting the Annunciation with a very feminine yet male angel displaying “his highly individual sweetness and softness of style.” (Demvir, Bernard. Art Treasures Of Italy, 1980. A&W Publishers: New York p. 81)

This tradition can also be seen in Andrea Mantegna’s painting of St. George, Perugino’s Deposition, Carpaccio’s The Dream of St. Ursula and Sauoldo’s Tobias and the Angel as well. All were painted with a pale delicacy given to some of the men or angels, but not all. This, at first, seems odd. However, the reason only some gained this honor is because they were seen as greater than men. Their features were smoothed, their skin pale, and their appearance soft because the artists were trying to convey an ethereal element to the individual. They were not entirely of this world, but had a foot in the spiritual world as well.

So why John? Why not Peter, or James? Those two were part of the core three members of Jesus’ disciples who were with Him when the others were told to wait. Throughout the book of John, the Apostle John is always referred to as the one whom Jesus loved. The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) do not give John this title, but they do show that John was probably the closest to Jesus of all the disciples. John had a special place; he was the one who laid his head on Christ’s breast, he was the one of those who went with Jesus to pray when Elijah and Moses came to speak with Christ, he was the one whom Christ predicted would not taste death. He was special in many ways. Because of this, DaVinci painted him in that special, ethereal quality that he painted his angels with.

This tendency was common throughout the time. When you look just at The Last Supper without looking at the art of the time as a whole, yes, it does appear that John was actually female in the painting and people got the identification wrong. However, when you look at all Italian art from the period, you will find that that exists in many paintings. Several you will look at and assume the individual painted is a female until you read the title of the painting (Mantegna’s St. George is a great example). Holiness was depicted by using lighter colors, softer lines, and what we see today as feminine qualities, though the intent was that of asexual qualities. These individuals were above the rest of mankind, held back by their flesh.


[edit on 3/29/06/29 by junglejake]