There is a long standing Catholic sacred tradition that St. John was very young.

there are many catlick traditions that are pure 99 44/100 bovine feces. the immaculate deception etc etc etc.

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
there are many catlick traditions that are pure 99 44/100 bovine feces. the immaculate deception etc etc etc.

Thank you.

Originally posted by whaaa
decide, I appreciate your efforts and actually what you did for my confusion on the sex of the figure is convince me that it is actually a female. Sorry.

Really looking forward to your further analysis.

Not to be a jerk, but DaVinci painted this a really long time after Christ died. He did what many of those rapscallian artiste types did when working for a patron. He infused a number of in-jokes into his work. His 'rock-star' status insulated him from being punished for these inclusions. Even today, we take religion and modernize it. Jesus Christ Superstar, anyone? The Gospels as rock opera have a religious root, but there are reflections of contemporary cultural practices and prejudices in that work as well. Should I use this rock opera as a basis of theological debate? Can I claim that Andrew Lloyd Webber is the master of some secret wisdom concealed from the rest of us and slyly leaked out for the seeker after truth? Of course not.

The Last Supper followed the time-honored tradition of contemporization. Ian McClellan's Richard III set in a facsist England is an example of periodization that works. Leonardo DeCrapio's Romeo and Juliet is a less successful example. La Morte De Arthur is not a useful history of 5th century England, but a great resource for the Europe of the Age of Chivalry - the time Mallory wrote. His work was a reflection of contemporary values, attitudes, and mores.The Last Supper allowed the scatologically inclined DaVinci to express contemporary values, indulge in his own sense of humor, invest his work with trademarks and flourishes, and get paid for it to boot.

If we are going to do history, we must always be cognizant of the source. Make some analysis on the role of gender in the 15th century, than using the Last Supper is appropriate. Using it as evidence of events that occured FIFTEEN HUNDRED years previous to its creation is as dangerous as using Kevin Costner's movie "The Untouchables" as a legitimate primary source for organized crime in the 1930's. A good movie, but too far removed from the events and a work of creative fictionalization of a historic event.

Originally posted by stalkingwolf

There is a long standing Catholic sacred tradition that St. John was very young.

there are many catlick traditions that are pure 99 44/100 bovine feces. the immaculate deception etc etc etc.

Stalkingwolf - thanks so very much for that amazingly cogent, relevant, insightful post. I am not sure if 'catlick' was a spelling error or simply a flippant bon mot intended as wit. If the latter, low wit indeed.

Throughout this post - and others related to it - we see a shocking disregard of the fact that DAVINCI WAS NOT THERE!. The elements that are labored over in great detail are indictive of DaVinci's time, not Christ's. Indeed, as a historian and an educator, I would - and have - use artwork like the Last Supper as tools for analysis. When I am teaching the Rennaissance.

All the doctrine of Immaculate Conception states is that Mary - through the power of God the Holy Spirit (this does NOT mean a third god, it is simply an aspect of God - that's another arguement).

Luke 1:28 "chaire kecharitomene" - "Full of Grace". According to Luke, this is how Gabriel greeted Mary. Justin, Cyril of Jerusalem, Tertullian, and scores of other Church Fathers wrote on the purity of Mary. Indeed, many spoke of her as the 'second Eve'. In the latter part of the Early Middle Ages, the concept of the Immaculate Conception was challenged and criticized. No less an authority than St. Bernard. St. Thomas in the Summa Theologica and other works wrestles with this concept as well. Among theologians, it remains a topic of reflection and, quite often, debate.

Pius IX in his Ineffabilis Deus - written in December of 1854 - pronounced as doctrine "...in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin." As a practicing Catholic in Communion with the Holy See, I adhere to this as doctrine. As an amateur theologian and professional historian, I have read, debated, and reflected on this topic quite a bit.

There are a number of friends, associates, and collegues that disagree. That's fine. I would welcome and enjoy a discussion on this topic - it's worth digging into. I really can't understand the linkage between DaVinci's work and anything to do with the Early Church. I also have to state that the offensive remarks are truly beneath the forum. There are people here at ATS who I frequently disagree with. I enjoy reading their posts because they have something to say and they can do it without being petty, offensive, or mean-spirited. If you think I am 'talking down' to you, too bad. I judge people by the quality and style of their writing. If you write like an ass, than I will consider you to be one. If you write in a manner of an intelligent person who can elaborate their point of view with supporting evidence, than you will find yourself being accorded respect and more likely to influence readers.

As always, thank you for your kind attention, gentle readers, and God Bless...

Cyril of Jerusalem, Tertullian, and scores of other Church Fathers wrote on the purity of Mary. Indeed, many spoke of her as the 'second Eve'.

But then they were not there either. Nor was ANY member, official, or priest
of the pauline church. So why should their ramblings have any more basis
than the beliefs and or thoughts of daVinci, Bernini, Raphael, or Stan Lee?

How many years had past since he decided to do the painting?,how could a painting someone does have anything to do with any truth,doesn't each artist have their own opinion,it's just a painting

much the same as writings by people
2 - 300 years after the fact who also had their own
agenda. The aquisition and maintenance of wealth and power.

Originally posted by stalkingwolf

Cyril of Jerusalem, Tertullian, and scores of other Church Fathers wrote on the purity of Mary. Indeed, many spoke of her as the 'second Eve'.

But then they were not there either. Nor was ANY member, official, or priest
of the pauline church. So why should their ramblings have any more basis
than the beliefs and or thoughts of daVinci, Bernini, Raphael, or Stan Lee?

I wasn't at the Battle of Hastings. I can speak on it and the reprecussions of the Battle of Hastings with some authority because I have studied, analyzed, and reflected on primary and secondary sources available. The early Church Fathers - a few of the most prominent were listed above - used similiar techniques in their works. As any good essayist, they liberally used quotations from Scripture and applied keen intellects to the issues they addressed in their works.

Ah HA! you cry. Well, DaVinci could have done the same thing. Could have, but didn't. There is little evidence to indicate that any of the symbolism that drips off this painting is meant to provide 'clues' about Christ's last meal on earth. There is a LOT of evidence to support that most - if not all - of the 'clues' discussed in this thread were digs at people, institutions, and events that were contemperaneous with the time DaVinci was painting the Last Supper.

The Rennaissance Masters you list - and the more immediate Master of modern thought - the Great Stan Lee - are all admirable men. None of them were theologians or historians. DaVinci and his compatriots were artists, thinkers, and advocates of a human-centered world. They were breaking free of the 'constraints' of the Age of Faith. Their primary emphasis was to create great works of art - and to be paid for it. And - once again - ramblings? Show some respect.

History is a set of lies agreed upon.

this is I believe attributed to Napoleon

I wasn't at the Battle of Hastings. I can speak on it and the reprecussions of the Battle of Hastings with some authority because I have studied, analyzed, and reflected on primary and secondary sources available.

Nor was I at the Battle of the Greasy Grass or Wounded Knee. But I have studied the
events and had the opertunity to speak with direct realitives of people who did take part.
and I bet my version is a damn site different than yours.

The early Church Fathers - a few of the most prominent were listed above - used similiar techniques in their works. As any good essayist, they liberally used quotations from Scripture and applied keen intellects to the issues they addressed in their works.

Right they were pure as the driven snow ( snow, it could happen) with no agendas,
no desire to solidify their power and position, and of course most willing to accept
others beliefs.

Ah HA! you cry. Well, DaVinci could have done the same thing. Could have, but didn't.

substantiate this statement.

in daVincis favor i would submit the wouds of one of his near contemporaries.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
Galileo Galilei

The Rennaissance Masters you list - and the more immediate Master of modern thought - the Great Stan Lee - are all admirable men. None of them were theologians or historians

Why must one be a Historian or Theologian to have thoughts and beliefs ?
Red Jacket the NA leader of the 1700's proved he was far superion in his understanding of the whitemans religion when he told the black robes

You tell me that my beliefs and the beliefs of my Fathers are wrong. Yet
you cannot even decide amoung yourselves who is right. Go. When you have decided amoung yourselves who is right then come again to me and we will talk."

as to respect I say.

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Author: Stephen Roberts

Originally posted by shantyman
Could have, but didn't.

Are you sure? What's wrong with 'we don't know?' Or 'there is no way to tell?'

There is little evidence to indicate that any of the symbolism that drips off this painting is meant to provide 'clues' about Christ's last meal on earth.

It seems to be more about whether or not we have gotten the truth, the whole truth, and nothing BUT the truth, so help us all, Father God.

There is a LOT of evidence to support that most - if not all - of the 'clues' discussed in this thread were digs at people, institutions, and events that were contemperaneous with the time DaVinci was painting the Last Supper.

But NONE of that could be considered as 'evidence' either way--the only evidence would be the proof, if you know what I mean.

The Rennaissance Masters you list - and the more immediate Master of modern thought - the Great Stan Lee - are all admirable men. None of them were theologians or historians.

Personally (my opinion disclaimer) I've never met a theologian I truly admired. I know no historians. What's admirable about attempting to 'study God' and then promoting the findings as 'authoritative?'

That actually, and totally, contradicts the words attributed to the Apostle John--the beloved disciple, whomever they might have been (and I'm willing to say I don't know) was obviously held in very high regard by the so-called church fathers--yet claims that they are privy to special knowledge totally goes against the words of same:

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
(1 John 2:27)

God draws us, we do not approach on our own volition and receive the magic key of either prophecy or revelation. The true meaning of apostolic succession would be 'the continuance of those who God sends.' I can't see them all grouping up in one place and ignoring the Bishop of their souls in favor of a mortal bishop no more perfected than they, themselves, are.

DaVinci and his compatriots were artists, thinkers, and advocates of a human-centered world. They were breaking free of the 'constraints' of the Age of Faith.

Artists, thinkers--yes. As far as Leonardo and Michaelangeo: investigation into their lives would show that they were not advocates of a 'human-centered' world as much as they were objecters of suppression and papal dominance. No doubt they spouted invectives in their day, too.

The 'Age of Faith' also known as the 'Dark Ages?' It's dark when you're blind, no doubt. Placing one's trust in a human 'prince of apostles' is trusting a blind guide and an express route into every pit along the way.

It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes.
(Psalms 118:8-9)

That's two big hypocrisies already self-evident!! Is this an invective? Probably. Unwarranted? You decide.

Their primary emphasis was to create great works of art - and to be paid for it. And - once again - ramblings? Show some respect.

Please, show some respect for artistic genius--I am by no means an artistic genius, but I am an artist [on a good day, that is ].

Everyone has to eat--'starving artist' is not an oxymoron. The only patrons in the 'Age of Faith' were those with access to funds--the Church, mainly--hence the wonderful works--masterpieces--such as the Frescoes of the Sistine Chapel.

But as far as having a primary goal of creating great works of art? It never becomes that, if at all, until the artist passes on through to the other side--to create in such a way is not something one 'wants to be when they grow up.'

It just IS. As with all genius (which I am convicted is a direct gift from God) it just IS. There is no other choice for someone like Leonardo or Einstein or Galileo or Beethoven. It is that very same lack of decision in their life's work, added to the certainty that there will be no fame, recognition, and very little payment in their lifetime for doing such, that demonstrate what it truly means to be 'pure in heart.'

Such angels we never truly appreciate
...gifts from God for our edification like gossamer bits of God's limitless Mind...their contributions far outweigh those of the theologians who seek the approval of men for their so-called knowledge of God...and geniuses KNOW God, even without knowing, they KNOW God.