Last Supper, Not Mary, My proof

Originally posted by theyrewatchingme
It being John could also explain the hand at the throat it a knife like stance, as his head was removed...

Wrong John.

realised as soon as I had pressed post, and cant seem to edit...I blame it on being on the wrong side of the old/new divide (LOL)

But I feel (and hope) my point about the paintings still stands, that he paints St John as a young effeminate man, and that most of his young male paintings are very , ummm, womanly. I dont think we can ever know the truth, simply because the last supper has been repainted so many times, when it was last done, all that remained was an outline of the characters and so they had to work from earlier sketches and photos. Who knows, john could have been made more effeminate by one of the people whose job it was to repare the painting...

well i think u did a good job decidedlyundecided i was a reader of this site for awhile but join just yesterday but this is what make me love this site it people like u

Originally posted by theyrewatchingme
realised as soon as I had pressed post, and cant seem to edit...I blame it on being on the wrong side of the old/new divide (LOL)

I figured you knew. It was kind of funny because you stopped me in my tracks while I was reading. I had like a brain lapse and for a second I was almost disoriented. It was wierd.

I dont think we can ever know the truth, simply because the last supper has been repainted so many times, when it was last done, all that remained was an outline of the characters and so they had to work from earlier sketches and photos. Who knows, john could have been made more effeminate by one of the people whose job it was to repare the painting...

It really is a shame, I think--too many do-overs made it lose a lot of its original artistry. They re-did the sistine chapel sometime back, maybe within the last 10 years. And it was the first time they'd touched it since Michaelangelo had done it. Their approach was very respecting of the original method, and I think that waiting so many years was a better thing to do than what they did with DaVinci's frescoe.

And the results were amazing! I should try to find some pictures. I had a book but I broke my rule and loaned it (gave it away). It was comparable in difference to going from sepia toned black and white to technicolor and the mastery Michaelangelo had over the 3-d effects was retained rather than lost like in the Last Supper. IMO, they really did do it the justice it deserved.

Of course, being on the very high ceiling of a chapel is a different environment than being on the wall of a place where people eat, and very likely many have smoked tobacco there, too. It's probably a miracle of no small means that we still have that work at all, when you think about it.

It really is a shame, I think--too many do-overs made it lose a lot of its original artistry. They re-did the sistine chapel sometime back, maybe within the last 10 years. And it was the first time they'd touched it since Michaelangelo had done it. Their approach was very respecting of the original method, and I think that waiting so many years was a better thing to do than what they did with DaVinci's frescoe.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't frescoe's have a short shelf life as far as the quality of the painting lasting? So it would have been inevitable to have to do so many retouches on DaVinci's work. It is a shame...

Exactly. And I think there was a further difficulty with the plaster DaVinci had to use, making it even less durable.

But, I had forgotten the difference between restoration efforts of the Last Supper and The Sistine Chapel:

they used solvents carefully in the chapel--removing the grime that covered the original colors and so they restored it in a more truer sense--the did not repaint a thing. So the colors we can now see, and all the details, et al. are just exactly as the artists rendered them in their own hands. And it took them about 20 years!

Michaelangelo's work, IMO, is the most beautiful--the colors are so harmonious it almost makes you want to cry (or me, at least).

Solvent removal of grime

Ceiling Tour

More info!

The wall painting, which Leonardo worked on between 1495 and 1498, is not a true fresco. The painter chose not to paint the piece on wet plaster, since that would severely limit the amount of time he could spend on the work. Instead he sealed the stone wall with a layer of resin (pitch and mastic) and chalk (gesso), and then painted over the sealing layer with tempera. Unfortunately, though this technique allowed him to depict the scene in exquisite detail, it did not prove very durable. The piece began deteriorating within only a few years after it was finished.

From: ABC Gallery

Originally posted by theyrewatchingme
Dam nyou Mr Peel!, was just about to comment that if you look at most other paintings by DaVinci of John he is shown as very feminine.

www.join2day.net...
www.artchive.com...

It seemed to be the style that Davinci enjoyed. There are several ideas that they are pictures of his lovers, but these, like his motives, cannot be deceiphered from the pictures. It being John could also explain the hand at the throat it a knife like stance, as his head was removed...

Well, I understand lots of people theorize that Leonardo was gay (this thould create big excitement on ATS) and maybe he liked feminized men.

But the face is more of a "Mary" to me than a "John" partly because of its roundness, emphasized eyes and 'frizzier' hair.

Coupled with the Gnostic book report that Mary was Jesus' favorite, and other 'lost' Bible books indicating she was 'first among the disciples,' "her" seat at the right hand of Jesus would seem appropriate.

I'm not 100% on this. i don't think anyone can be.

But let me ask you this: if Leonardo wanted to paint a woman, would the image look any different?

Originally posted by Mr_Peel
But let me ask you this: if Leonardo wanted to paint a woman, would the image look any different?

I don't think it would.
I don't know why, though.

I think there might be more evidence justifying a revised role for Mary (not as wife or mother of Jesus' children, but as the 'beloved' disciple) in the fact that it seems more and more evident that Leonardo was following artistic convention in the case of 'John/Mary' because there are several effeminate looking Johns in art history before this painting.

This puzzles me more than anything--where does that assumption come from? There is nothing in the bible to support him as being very young.

I appreciate all the work put into the original post on this thread.
It is much easier to say that Mary M. isn't in the Last Supper painting
this way -

1 - DaVinci Code is FICTION. Made up. Not real.
2 - Women were not sitting at table with men like that
during Christ's time and in that part of the world. It just didn't happen.

Now .. you could get into some hidden homo-erotic thing that the
artist wanted to put in the painting between Christ and St. John
... but it isn't Mary M. THAT is more plausable. (but I don't buy
that either)

[edit on 6/8/2006 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by queenannie38
There is nothing in the bible to support him as being very young.

There is a long standing Catholic sacred tradition that St. John was very young.
Some of it comes from the scripture quote where Christ tells his apostles -
to paraphrase - 'what is it to you if this one (John) doesn't die'. They were
talking about who would die before Christ returned. They all were killed
except John, who survived assassination attempts. Much of it comes from
sacred tradition in the Church that has been handed down for 2,000 years.

Really, most of them would have been young. Even Peter, who was married.
Wasn't the average life span back them much shorter? They all would have
been married younger and died younger ....

Hey there.
HMMmmmm, interesting post.
I must say though that if DaVinci was planning to hide peter as mary, computer editing wouldnt have been available at that time so therefor computer generated images are out of the question when examining this topic.
For one to figure out the real truth you must examine the painting itself for what it is.

Just a thought
Omega

Would it not be possible that DaVinci actually intended John/Mary to appear both male and female? As far as i know DaVinci was a trickster.. Do you think it can be possible he did it on purpose?

That the painting is purely down to personal opinion depending on what you believe in? So he doesn't get persecuted by Christians couldn't he have painted the picture to both please them and those who believe Jesus was married to Mary?

Secondly, I may be jumping the gun here abit but what do you make of the 'V' central to the picture? Do you think this holds significance? It is clearly noticeable and from what I know and have been told is unlikely to be a coincidence.

If u wish to ask questions about the last supper in detail there is a link here in which a group is studying it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Have a look if u want its quite an interesting thread.

Originally posted by Omega85
If u wish to ask questions about the last supper in detail there is a link here in which a group is studying it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Have a look if u want its quite an interesting thread.

Ha.. Bit of a plug there!

Well I was looking more at from an artists point of view.. Many of the people (I dont mean to generalise because I haven't read the whole thread) appear to be going more on opinion. A person (such as Shadowflux) who has studied the works and memoirs of DaVinci may have more of an idea into the reasoning behind such ideas in DaVinci painiting and their meanings.

Originally posted by Knights
Many of the people (I dont mean to generalise because I haven't read the whole thread) appear to be going more on opinion.

But really, bottom line, isn't that all we really have to go on?

About what you said about Leonardo being a trickster; I have heard this often enough. There's a possibility that he was intentionally ambiguous, just as much a chance as anything else, IMO.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
There is a long standing Catholic sacred tradition that St. John was very young.

A 'long standing Catholic sacred tradition' does not a truth make, dear.

In fact, from what I've discovered, and, truly, it was usually by accident, researching something else--I've never really been interested in Catholicism, but considering so many around here are, including my ex-husband's entire family whom are good people and still dear to me--which has made for many surprising discoveries of my own, that tag on any certain accepted belief renders it about 80% chance it was some one's diversionary tactic, in the long-gone days of early traditional christianity. With the attitude of supposed authority that the RCC has always carried, and bequeathed to their clergy, it not fantasy to strongly suspect that there were often Cardinals or Bishops, Popes (this one is proven) who felt the need to tweak a belief just a bit away from what the bible says, for whatever reason. This started, initially, with the PR campaign about Peter being head of the church, etc...

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

Flyer's Fan, please don't take this as a person attack--it's your chosen religion and that is perfectly within your God-given right to select for yourself. I believe that anyone who follows their chosen religion with their heart certainly loves God just as much as I may, or whomever--and God knows that, too. Whatever He intends things to end up configured as, well, I know He will in due time.

BUT I have done years of research, and not just this more recent type of internet/forum board posting 'research,' I started years ago and used printed books and now it's like having an enyclopedia at my fingertips, but I've gotten the ideas I rant on these days from a large body of work that shows an undeniable unfolding 'plot' as it were, for the world.

Dan Brown really isn't that far off of how perhaps things might be, IMO. I don't believe Jesus got married or had kids, and I've posted my reasons on another thread somewhere. The connection with Leonardo is an educating and entertaining part of it, I am sure, because he was a rare genius. The secret society stuff is crap, IMO--God doesn't need that kind of melodrama--He just keeps us asleep until He calls us. That's human intrigue, and I really don't think God is so unwise He would trust us with more than a generation's continued participation in His overall Master plan--one generation, every x amount of generations, and God calls His servants and they do some work.

But it is a book of fiction, and that is what he maintains. It is not the first book to maybe cast aspersions on humanity's idea of God--but the reaction and defensive mechanisms going up so hard and fast, by those who subscribe to what the RCC has made into 'traditional' facts, a big red flag if you're in tune.

Some of it comes from the scripture quote where Christ tells his apostles -
to paraphrase - 'what is it to you if this one (John) doesn't die'. They were
talking about who would die before Christ returned.

No, they were speaking of the 'disciple that Jesus loved' in the 4th Gospel, attributed to John but that has never been absolutely 'proven' except inside the RCC. For centuries we have accepted their authority with our eyes closed, protestants just the same as Catholic and orthodox...this was what God was keeping hidden, until it was time. It's not a bad thing--it was what was required by Him, but those times are coming to a close and people are beginning to see what's really what.

And so the endless hype.

If we take every single instance of 'the disciple Jesus loved' out of the whole bible, we really don't have too many more mentions of John, son of Zebedee. Now, I am sure he was as real as James, and the rest, but I don't think he can be assumed to be so beloved to Christ based on anything outside of the RCC's own approved scriptural canon.

They all were killed except John, who survived assassination attempts.

The only record of John's long life and then death is what the RCC again has in their traditional authority.

If we remove all books said to be authored by John son of Zebedee and don't assume a thing past what is written in the canon after that--it just doesn't add up and I don't believe it for a minute. There is nothing to support anything currently accepted as 'fact' about John. I think, that all we can really say for sure from the 4 gospel canons that John of Z was a disciple and was present at the transfiguration with James and Peter. This is supported. The rest is unfounded on anything but 'tradition.' This strict analysis doesn't allow us to consider who might have been this person--but that's okay. I don't seek to prove it was Mary, but I am certain it was not John of Zebedee. I have a lot of evidence with contradicts it and non that confirms it (other than what comes out of the RCC).

And, if this alteration of 'tradition' came at the very first days, it would certainly make sense to change one important disciple from a young woman to a very very young man. Who lived to be, what, something like 100+ years? After being boiled in oi--right!--what kind of thing is that? The Apostles were crucified, beheaded, killed with swords and sharp things--things of the iron age days. Boiling in oil is like a King Arthur times thing to do,--that's probably a big clue to when these diversions were being paved into 'traditions.' It is a medieval tradition, and I don't think John lived that long.

Also, to say he was not martyred is to say one of Christ's prophecies was inaccurate! The RCC shouldn't be willing to do that!

And the artists, by the time of the Renessaince had accepted, like all the world that Mary Magdalene was a sinner, whore, or nothing at all but a groupie, and that John was the 'beloved disciple.' But the Renessaince is so named because it means 'new start' or something like that--awakenening, new life. And so I think it is very possible that Leonardo painted these figures as he did, out of tradition, but something inside him that he didn't realize wasn't him was telling him to put the alternating clothing scheme colors on them and whatever else intrigues us in the present. And no one's seen that, no one has questioned the RCC too much after that--another one generation long group of God's servants: Leo, Michaelangelo, Raphael, Galilieo, Newton, Tynedale, Weymouth, Luther, Shakespeare, Gutenberg, etc. But it broke the dark ages. And then people eventually begin getting their hands on the bible and finding out they'd been had! That was the end of the Church's literal hold on the world's mentality...it's still been a shadowy hand since then, but...

Much of it comes from sacred tradition in the Church that has been handed down for 2,000 years.

No doubt. But they didn't get it from Jesus Christ or his first generation Apostles. What we need to know, they have told us. That's what we should go by but to stick with the established RCC catechism law or whatever you call that, sorry and still promote more what is not in the bible than what is--this is a blatant hypocrisy by the general human spirit that has run that insititution since the first days!

Really, most of them would have been young. Even Peter, who was married.

We don't know that. We can't assume.
Wasn't the average life span back them much shorter?
Not necessarily. Joseph of the patriarchs lived to be 110 as Vizier of Egypt! Of course, he had a bit better life--but his family was all with him. It was, on the average shorter, I think, but there were still those that grew older than the rest. We can't assume a thing--and saying John was that young is assuming a lot. It doesn't even say John is younger than James! I have heard (more tradition) that Peter lived to be almost 70. I think this is from scholars who study the texts and authorship, etc. But I'm not saying that's 'fact' either, because I don't know. But it gives us an idea, perhaps.

They all would have been married younger and died younger ....

I don't think many were married. Peter was, but the rest, we don't know. Hopefully God didn't prepare Christ's disciples for their trying lives and bloody ends by providing them with a wife and kids. God is not cruel in any way at all, and that would be cruel. No one can say it wouldn't be. That's why I say, also that there was no physical wedding between these two.

But if Adam had Eve, and the Lamb has a Bride, then why can't a Jesus have a Mary?
Would God let His son be utterly alone, or would He provide a 'help-meet?' Eve had a a part of the loss, why can't some counterpart have the opportunity to make amends, as well?

queenannie

If we take every single instance of 'the disciple Jesus loved' out of the whole bible, we really don't have too many more mentions of John, son of Zebedee. Now, I am sure he was as real as James, and the rest, but I don't think he can be assumed to be so beloved to Christ based on anything outside of the RCC's own approved scriptural canon.


quote:
They all were killed except John, who survived assassination attempts.

The only record of John's long life and then death is what the RCC again has in their traditional authority.

If we remove all books said to be authored by John son of Zebedee and don't assume a thing past what is written in the canon after that--it just doesn't add up and I don't believe it for a minute. There is nothing to support anything currently accepted as 'fact' about John. I think, that all we can really say for sure from the 4 gospel canons that John of Z was a disciple and was present at the transfiguration with James and Peter. This is supported. The rest is unfounded on anything but 'tradition.' This strict analysis doesn't allow us to consider who might have been this person--but that's okay. I don't seek to prove it was Mary, but I am certain it was not John of Zebedee. I have a lot of evidence with contradicts it and non that confirms it (other than what comes out of the RCC).

And, if this alteration of 'tradition' came at the very first days, it would certainly make sense to change one important disciple from a young woman to a very very young man. Who lived to be, what, something like 100+ years? After being boiled in oi--right!--what kind of thing is that? The Apostles were crucified, beheaded, killed with swords and sharp things--things of the iron age days. Boiling in oil is like a King Arthur times thing to do,--that's probably a big clue to when these diversions were being paved into 'traditions.' It is a medieval tradition, and I don't think John lived that long.

HAHA revenge !?!?

John of Z didnt get burned/boiled in oil

He died of natural causes at C AD100

www.ccel.org... FATE.htm#john

I know he didn't--I should have clarified that was one of the 'assasination attempts' that
Flyer's Fan mentioned in her post.

Your link resulted in:

Page Not Found

check your URL

Perhaps if you gave me the name of the work listed on the CCEL site, I could locate the information you're sharing on my own?

theyrewatchingme~

In answer to your post about St John the Divine living to be 100 years old:

James ‘the Just,’ first martyr, who was a son of Zebedee along with John—was martyred during the reign of Herod Agrippa I who reigned from approx. 41-44 A.D.

This is in the bible, written by Luke, and dates of Herod Agrippa I’s reign are easy enough to verify.

Yet there is a letter from a ‘church father,’ namely Ignatius, here at CCEL, to ‘John the Presbyter’ that says:

And in like manner [I desire to see] the venerable James, who is surnamed Just, whom they relate to be very like Christ Jesus in appearance, in life, and in method of conduct, as if he were a twin-brother of the same womb.

Yet, we are told, by the authority of ‘church tradition,’ available through the www.newadvent.org...”" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia that Ignatius was

born in Syria, around the year 50; died at Rome between 98 and 117.

Surely he would know that James the Just whom he longed to see had died before he had even been born?

There is far too much error and discrepancy in the writings of the church 'fathers.' This is just an example--never have I done any research from these writings and not found 'facts' in these traditions that are not incongruent and impossible to reconcile. I found this just trying to locate the link you had posted!

We also have this from the www.newadvent.org...”" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

After Domitian's death the Apostle returned to Ephesus during the reign of Trajan, and at Ephesus he died about A.D. 100 at a great age.

So, even if he was 17 or so when Jesus called him, we are to believe he lived to be 117?

Curious, now, to the actual estimation of life expectancy for the period in question, I found a PDF file titled: ‘Population and demography, Version 1.0’ © 2006 Walter Scheidel of Stanford University, (email is [email protected]) and it is abstracted as: This paper provides a general overview of Greco-Roman population history.
You can find it at Princeton.edu in www.princeton.edu...”" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics:

Several hundred census returns from Roman Egypt from the first three centuries AD that have survived on papyrus and list the members of individual households with their ages and family ties provide the best demographic evidence for classical antiquity. The aggregate age distribution of the recorded population is consistent with a mean life expectancy at birth of between 20 and 30 years (Bagnall and Frier 1994: 75-110 with Scheidel 2001a: 118-80).

From your link (which I did finally locate) at CCEL, I found only this:

According to John's Gospel (19:26-27), it was probably John who took Mary, the mother of Jesus as his adopted mother. He preached in Jerusalem, and later, as bishop of Ephesus, south of Izmir in western Turkey, worked among the churches of Asia Minor. During the reigns of either Emperor Nero (AD54-68) or Domitian (AD81-96), he was banished to the nearby island of Patmos, now one of the Greek islands in the Aegean Sea. He was subsequently freed and died a natural death at Ephesus c AD100.

Copyright information found is as follows:

All New Testament quotations are from J.B.Phillips, "The New Testament in Modern English", 1962 edition, published by HarperCollins, and with the kind permission of Mrs Vera Phillips and the J.B.Phillips estate

And the page advises that this link is cited: www.ccel.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.ccel.org...

However, there is absolutely nothing said on this page about where or how the author got his information. There is a bibliography on the same site, but it is stated as incomplete and gives no specific links from source to material.