LAST SUPPER Painting isn't that a.....

Its John

 

That's John the apostle.

 

Sounds like you are advocating the Di Vinci Code nonsense. This is exactly what it claims. However, the Di Vinci Code claims it is Mary Magdalene that is the one closest to Christ (because she was really his wife and carrying his child). Thus, the Holy Grail was not the cup that Christ used at the Last Supper; rather, the Holy Grail was the heir of Christ (his child with Mary Magdalene).

The problem with this (besides the total lack of biblical support and historical evidence) is that if you look at the picture another one of the figures appears very feminine (one standing on the far left behind the old grey bearded bald man).

[ April 06, 2006, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

Im not saying that its Mary, but the face sure looks feminine.

 

John was young.

 

John does look like a woman in this painting, but the painter wasn't there - it is his interpretation (it is not a Kodak!)

 

hmmmmm....

 

WHAT?!

 

You have to think of the time period it was painted also, many paintings looked like that, with men looking fairly feminine, and not extremely masculine. I agree, John was pretty young, we don't know his age, but he lived to write revelation in the 90's (date, not age), that would make him pretty young when he was with Jesus.

 

You mean THAT is what this whole DaVinci thing is about? psshhh.

 

It does appear that in some copies of the Last Supper I have seen the figure is a woman.

However, it makes no difference whether it is a man or a woman. All it shows is whether Da Vinci had some looney ideas or not.

It makes no difference to the Christian belief. The one danger is that is a lie that many unsaved and weak believers may swallow hook, line and sinker.

 

Well, we are in a mess when we start questioning biblical accounts based on DaVinci paintings

 

Psalm 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

 

I don't believe DaVinci was a looney -- but I do see where people could think that person (the young John) was feminine. And I could see where anyone looking for something other than the truth (such as support for Dan Brown's fantasies) would use that as proof.

I think people are awfully quick to look to things other than God for truth. (could be that old nasty sinful nature thingy)

 

OK, now it's personal... my mother's maiden name was "Looney" their family came from Ireland..

Please don't insult the clan of "looney" by including Dan Brown!!

 

Having researched this several years ago, before the Dan Brown saga, there is a common thread in much art that seems to suggest certain ideas.

I do not buy into all the conspiracy theories, but there does seem to be something.

A book called the Arcadian Cipher gives a bit more of an academic look at common themes in famous works of art. It ties in the patrons, artists, religious leaders and political leaders.

The apostle Paul wrote that we are not ignorant of Satan's devices. All down through history we have seen great preachers deal with the attacks of the day on Christ.

I am not saying everyone should do a detailed study on the Da Vinci code, but knowing the underlying attack on Christ and being prepared with the appropriate Scriptural defense is necessary.

If someone comes to you and puts to you one of the lies in the book how will you react? Just replying with, "Oh, its rubbish just ignore it" is not going to deal with the situation. Perhaps by saying, "Okay, Dan Brown does say that, but this is what the Bible actually says. This is what is actually historically accurate. Here are some blatant lies and mistakes Dan Brown makes." Perhaps with that approach you will be able to give an answet to the "gainsayers" rather than appearing detached and unprepared.

I realise that Da Vinci was a very intelligent individual, but he did have some very unusual ideas and practices.

I'll refrain from the references to any loonies... It does make me wonder where the accusation originally came from...

 

Ok, who's Dan Brown? Is he in the painting?