Members Of ATS, I Ask For Your Opinion On This Picture.

Good Question Spittin Cobra, a very good question.

There are some that think they are pointing to "Mary"

This painting is so interesting

what r ur thoughts on it SC??

They are not pointing at her, or him in the first picture. They seem to be pointing away.

hmmm,
to me it looks like there all ushering towards her in some way, one man even has his hand pointed and at her throat it seems in a threatening way .

They are feminine, but they don't necessarily show that women are divine or that the divne is specifically female.

Originally posted by loam
One problem. That is not the original.

This is:

loam, thanks for the link to the original. The painting in question has deteriorated so badly that it is truly impossible to determine whether the person depicted on the right of Jesus is male or female.

Originally posted by darkelf

Originally posted by loam
One problem. That is not the original.

This is:

loam, thanks for the link to the original. The painting in question has deteriorated so badly that it is truly impossible to determine whether the person depicted on the right of Jesus is male or female.

actually you can tell the person has feminine qualities

as to the said person is mary magdaline i dont know. Im still sitting on the fence on this one

That is one great picture though

actually you can tell the person has feminine qualities

Like what? They have long hair and no beard. That makes them a woman?

Originally posted by Nygdan

actually you can tell the person has feminine qualities

Like what? They have long hair and no beard. That makes them a woman?

hey nygdan

i dont know lol just looks femine, like the shape of the face, the posture the delicatness of the hands. Just looks girly lol

as i stated before im still on the fence as to wether this is mary, as i understand from reading another post di vinci generally painted his pictures with what we call a feminine quality.

Da Vinci himself named who is portrayed in the Last Supper and where in his personal treatise on art. This has been published in a book called "The Notebooks of Leonardo Da Vinci" and is available as a free download. Here is the link

It's long, but to find where Da Vinci starts talking about this, do a search on the page for "Footnote 665, 666: In the original MS."

While we may not be able to establish from just looking at the painting who the one assumed to be John is, we have Leonardo's own words telling us who it is. On top of that, there are only 13 people in the picture -- where is John if that's Mary? On top of that, Da Vinci portrayed St. John the same way in other paintings. On top of that, the Florentine movement, of which Da Vinci was a part, depicted holiness as beautiful, and would convey that beauty through feminine, soft qualities. What better way to portray the most beloved disciple? On top of that, it wasn't only Da Vinci who did this, but several other artists of the time as well.

If you take one of those statements, you could make a case for conspiracy. However, considering all the evidence leading towards this individual being St. John, such a case cannot be made in an intellectually honest manner.

hey maybe st john was mary magdaline? anyone ever thought of that, john was always portrayed as feminine maybe he was mary?

hey just thought id throw that thought out there


please excuse my horrible spelling

[edit on 123030p://320612 by ronishia]

Leonardo was not alive in Jesus' time, and the gospel accounts talk about two different people, John and Mary. Plus, Matthew 4:21 notes that John is the brother of James, the son of Zebedee.

Nope, not the same person

Jesus appears to have itchy feet in the first version. Maybe he needs to 'step up to the mic'?

Originally posted by junglejake
Leonardo was not alive in Jesus' time, and the gospel accounts talk about two different people, John and Mary. Plus, Matthew 4:21 notes that John is the brother of James, the son of Zebedee.

Nope, not the same person

party pooper lol might have had a good conspiracy there though

My oppinion is that that is an artwork done depicting Da Vincis view of the last super after he read the scriptures.

IMO though it still doesn't make the scriptures true, I prefer to call them a story but many people believe they are the fact. This painting DOES NOT make the story of Jesus a fact in anyway.

Originally posted by ronishia
party pooper lol might have had a good conspiracy there though

Exactly why I pointed that out!

Originally posted by Techsnow
IMO though it still doesn't make the scriptures true, I prefer to call them a story but many people believe they are the fact. This painting DOES NOT make the story of Jesus a fact in anyway.

Of course not, what would make Da Vinci the authority of what is legitimate or not? It is the things talked about in this post that can say if scripture is legitimate or a collection of myths.

what about the UFO in the background...in the window...can you see it ?

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
what about the UFO in the background...in the window...can you see it ?

UFO where in the picture

Why are people trying to read into a painting that was done hundreds of years after the actual Last Supper really occured??? You people need to realize that DaVinci didn't ask Jesus and his disciples to "pose" for the portrait. DaVinci wasn't sitting in front of the table observing all goings on and the elements and objects surrounding the actual event. DaVinci speculated what it might look like and might have even thought "Oh, jeez, I forgot the chalice....oh well, it doesn't take away from my painting. I'll leave it out." Let me guess, DaVinci never made a goof when he painted????? Lots of artists forget things when they work. This whole Last Supper-thing is a farce. It's just a painting.........not the actual event....and it's only one artist interpretation. Just because he's DaVinci doesn't mean he's infallible.


[edit on 5-6-2006 by zerotolerance]

This was an age when men of maturity would be sporting beards...age and wisdom.
It seems logical to assume that as these are allegedly disciples of the alleged messiah that they should be sporting beards.

Yes L.D.V.s religious views are known, so perhaps the painting is his interpretation of events as he perceived. He perhaps saw it as 12 males and one female, perhaps the wife of the rabbi jesus? Who knows.

I read comments that is no bread on the table. What are those little lumpy things..possibly bread rolls?

As for no goblets/cups/grails. Some parts of the then empire did not always use containers that we would recognise as drinking vessel's. There are examples of drinking bowls. There seem to be some small shallow bowls evidenced there. However there seems to be no actual drink carafe / amphora etc.mmmm.

The subjects groupings are interesting. There is one group on picture right in discussion where the man in the blue seems to be gesturing towards J.C. without looking. The next three characters are in the presence of J.C. They seem to have varied hand gestures. One is pointing a finger up, One seems to be reaching out to J.C. and the third has interlocked fingers in a pensive posture?

On the left three guys seem in discussion the middle one reaching out to a guy with a white beard. White beard and the "female" figure seem set away from the table to me. The guy in front of them seems to be watching the debate over by J.C.

L.D.V. understood perspective and geometry for sure. Look at the background.
I have no doubt that the layout and placings of the characters has some meaning....he was too clever a bloke to have just "chucked it on". What the meaning is....who knows...like the good book...

The painting is as valid in authenticating the bible fable as the book itself....to me...

Just my two penneth.......

edit - just decided that my "observation" wasn't all that appropriate


[edit on 5-6-2006 by Xenophobe]