That's not John...

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2005-04-11 04:13pm

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... _Vinci.jpg (Its kinda big, 450k.)

I'm sure we all instantly recognize this famous image. Its of the last supper with Jesus and his Apostles. I want you to look closely at the figure to Jesus's right. Now, supposedly, that's John, but I don't think so. Look at the face and compare it with the faces of the other Apostles. Heres a closeup of that section of the painting. Notice anything odd? Yeah, that isn't John or even a guy sitting next to Jesus. The face is too feminine. Almost every guy there is either bald or sporting a beard. Who is it then? I think its Mary Magdalene.

And yes, I have been reading The Da Vinci Code. It got me thinking about this and I found those pictures while randomly surfing around Wikipedia. Its pretty weird, really. What if that really does turn out to be a woman, instead of a man. Even freakier, what if it turned out said woman was Mary Magdalene.

Personally, I think Jesus did exist. I don't think he was the son of a god, though. I think he was just an average joe who came up with a philosophy that he liked and that appealed to others. I believe the church, after his death, piled on the BS, because they didn't like the idea of their "saviour" being a normal guy who was married and had sex. The whole idea of him not being married doesn't make sense. He was Jewish and according to the Torah (from what I understand), it was practically a no-no for a Jewish male not to be married and fathering kids. I view this guy as being similar to Buddha.

Thoughts?

Sorry if this isn't the right forum. Move it if it isn't. =P

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2005-04-11 04:39pm

I know that it is considered a minor sin for a rabbi not to be married. As for the kids thing... well, the Talmud states that married couples have to have a certain minimal amount of sex every month or the marriage can be invalidated. (Sex is something that the husband must provide for the wife, along with food and shelter.) Also, sex (between husband and wife) on the sabbath is a mitzvah, a commandment.

So, either Jesus wasn't married yet or the Gospels left out all the good parts of his story.

Hardy · Post by **Hardy** » 2005-04-11 04:47pm

Wasn't John supposed to be a teenaged boy during the last supper, thus explaining the effiminate features?

Then again, that nosebridge is far too feminine looking...

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2005-04-11 04:53pm

http://www.danbrown.com/secrets/davinci ... upper.html

Third picture down. Its a closeup of "John".

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2005-04-11 04:53pm

I can see at least three ambiguous figures in that painting, besides John. It proves nothing, unless you're predisposed for conspiracy theories. I have also read the book, it's a decent thriller, but consider it as much a fiction work as any other book. True research is published in science Journals, not as fictional action books.

Nick Lancaster · Post by **Nick Lancaster** » 2005-04-11 04:56pm

The problem that Fundies have with that view is:

IF Jesus had relations (eros) with Mary Magdalene, THEN He is not the Son of God, and becomes just another long-haired hippie loser. THEREFORE all suggestions of a relationship with Mary other than the brotherly love He demonstrated (agape) must be denounced/refuted in order to preserve the theology based on Christ's life.

It goes to the point of there being books 'debunking' The DaVinci Code[/b] - when even Dan Brown says he took historical elements and mixed them freely to tell a good story. So, for example, there may be a decidely feminine-aspect to one person at the table in The Last Supper, but it does not mean Brown's explanation is true.

Oddly enough, the fervor with which Fundies denounce works like The
DaVinci Code fuels the market for the book as well as the desire to believe in something other than the strict doctrine they uphold. It's really how faith should work - you examine the world around you, and you come to believe. The belief cannot be thrust upon you; even as children, we generally have to get a few skinned knees or do some other boneheaded things to get basic physical laws into our skulls. Consequently, protesting and waving signs about the sanctity of marriage and how gays won't go to heaven (as was done by high-school students last week in Rohnert Park, Calif.) ... doesn't recommend one's views. (It could be 100% true, and sign-waving idiots like Fred Phelps will inevitably always be seen as a sign-waving, hate-filled idiot, because that's all he's capable of bringing to the table.)

But, ultimately, what's the point of God sending Jesus Christ, His Son, to live as a man, among men ... yet somehow, He is free of their desires and aspirations? Why would Christ know fear (as He prays to let 'this cup' - i.e. his torture and death - pass from Him), pain (as he is tortured), and despair ('God, God, why hast thou forsaken me?') ... but not love? (Note that this does touch on some of the themes of the Sacred Feminine as presented in Brown's novel.)

Go back further, to Genesis. While God creates woman to be a helpmate, it is suffice to say that God understood that man was incomplete without woman, and not in the sense of a man lacking a servant. If man is sacred, then so must woman be, as well. She cannot be otherwise, yet it seems there are Fundies (someone had mentioned how they don't venerate Mary, the Mother of God) who have issues with this concept.

Even when the Apostles bitch about how Mary lavishes expensive oils/perfumes on Christ's head, Christ rebukes them.

Nick Lancaster · Post by **Nick Lancaster** » 2005-04-11 04:58pm

Colonel Olrik wrote:I can see at least three ambiguous figures in that painting, besides John. It proves nothing, unless you're predisposed for conspiracy theories. I have also read the book, it's a decent thriller, but consider it as much a fiction work as any other book. True research is published in science Journals, not as fictional action books.

Would that be Fundie/Creationist science journals, or something else?

Brown has never advertised his work as anything but a work of fiction. All I see Aya asking is our opinions on the image.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2005-04-11 05:02pm

"PhD's" in theology trying furiously to debuke a fictional work, I bet Dan Brown hasn't stopped laughing yet. He has truly found the chicken of the golden eggs.

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2005-04-11 05:04pm

Colonel Olrik wrote:I can see at least three ambiguous figures in that painting, besides John. It proves nothing, unless you're predisposed for conspiracy theories. I have also read the book, it's a decent thriller, but consider it as much a fiction work as any other book. True research is published in science Journals, not as fictional action books.

I never said I took the book as fact. I said it got me to think about that kind of stuff. Dan Brown says on his site that he thinks people should come to their own conclusions about these matters.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2005-04-11 05:06pm

Nick Lancaster wrote: Would that be Fundie/Creationist science journals, or something else?

Genau

Brown has never advertised his work as anything but a work of fiction. All I see Aya asking is our opinions on the image.

Gave mine, one or two figures are sexually ambiguous, I don't conclude anything from it. Now, if only he had drawn some boobs..

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2005-04-11 05:08pm

Aya wrote: I never said I took the book as fact. I said it got me to think about that kind of stuff. Dan Brown says on his site that he thinks people should come to their own conclusions about these matters.

Sorry, didn't want to imply otherwise, just give my opinion, since I also just finished reading the book and it also made me think a bit.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-04-11 05:30pm

It's pretty sad that Fundies are so threatened by a fictional work that they need to write their own books refuting it.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2005-04-11 05:32pm

There's a firm tradition of portraying John as effeminate in renaiscance art, and nothing outside artistic conventions of the time in Da Vinci's Last Supper imagery, it's his technique is what makes it special.

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2005-04-11 05:48pm

Given that this is a painting done about 1500 years (IIRC) after the last Supper can it really be claimed as accurate?
Are there any real descriptions of pictures of any of the participants?

Terr Fangbite · Post by **Terr Fangbite** » 2005-04-11 06:00pm

Why is it so hard for people to swallow that Christ may have been married, and may even have had kids? It doesn't invalidate him in any respects. Shoot, to go straight from the bible you're told to "Be fruitful and multiply."

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2005-04-11 06:05pm

Wait, that's supposed to be a man? I always thought the person next to Jesus was a lady.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-04-11 07:22pm

Jesus looks pretty feminine too. I guess it depends on whether you interpret that dark spot under his chin as a shadow or a beard.

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2005-04-11 07:28pm

Darth Wong wrote:Jesus looks pretty feminine too. I guess it depends on whether you interpret that dark spot under his chin as a shadow or a beard.

Jesus was a trannie?

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-04-11 07:30pm

Terr Fangbite wrote:Why is it so hard for people to swallow that Christ may have been married, and may even have had kids? It doesn't invalidate him in any respects. Shoot, to go straight from the bible you're told to "Be fruitful and multiply."

Hell, he could be interpreted as gay if he refused Mary Magdelene.

I mean, seriously, saying no to Monica Bellucci?

TimothyC · Post by **TimothyC** » 2005-04-11 07:31pm

I went to a Vatican exibit in Cincinnati last spring and John was allways shown that way (It something I took the time to look for).

This includes when he was separtre from the rest of the group.

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2005-04-11 07:36pm

unbeataBULL wrote:
Terr Fangbite wrote:Why is it so hard for people to swallow that Christ may have been married, and may even have had kids? It doesn't invalidate him in any respects. Shoot, to go straight from the bible you're told to "Be fruitful and multiply."
Hell, he could be interpreted as gay if he refused Mary Magdelene. I mean, seriously, saying no to Monica Bellucci?

Well, the bible does say he loved one of his apostles and apparently bible experts think it was John. The irony, the saviour of the largest religion on Earth could've been gay. Man, if that were ever confirmed, I would piss myself from laughing so hard.

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2005-04-11 07:49pm

Colonel Olrik wrote: True research is published in science Journals, not as fictional action books.

Uh-huh-uh. *waggles finger*

Are you seriously going to tell me that the Illuminatus! trilogy was not based on cutting-edge research? Next you'll be telling me that the US government doesn't have Yog-Sothoth trapped in the Pentagon...

Whatever!

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2005-04-11 07:56pm

I take it Aya just read The DaVinci Code?

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2005-04-11 08:00pm

To be honest, I'd heard the theory that the Holy Grail was sympolic of the blood line of Jesus and Mary Magdalene years before reading Dan Brown's novel.

Elheru Aran · Post by **Elheru Aran** » 2005-04-11 08:01pm

Darth Servo wrote:I take it Aya just read The DaVinci Code?

Might want to start reading the OP a bit closer...

Aya wrote:And yes, I have been reading The Da Vinci Code.