What is Jesus saying to his disciples at the last supper.....

Google for a pic of Da Vinci's last supper.....here's what i think, after Jesus makes his announcement:

Judas has been pushed forward and is looking around to see what is going on. Peter appears to be trying to push past the woman having to confront Jesus having shoved Judas out of the way. Some people would say that this woman is supposed to be John but i firmly believe that it is a woman sitting at the right hand of Jesus.

The three people behind 'Peter' are reacting to his movement as well. Andrew has his hands up as if in astonishment. James is reaching past Andrew as if in attempt to restrain Peter. Jesus is turned slightly towards his left with his left hand turned over as if preparing a response. Looking at Jesus I see a man who is saddened by the reactions of his disciples...Like he knew this would happen....

At his right we come back to the figure that I believe is a woman (Mary). Unlike every other person at the table, she seems happy and contented. You can sort of make a a slight smirk as if recently complimented or mentioned. Her hands rest together on top of the table and her eyes are closed or she is looking down. Her body language is one of maybe embarrassment like she has just been talked about.

It seems (to me anyway) that the statement is not about the revelation that a one man among the table is a betrayer...as it is supposed to be....but is in fact the reaction to an unpopular message or announcment.

I believe Leonardo is trying to convey that Jesus made a statement about Mary that has caused a controversy within his inner circle. As to what the statement is....your guess is as good as mine.

Could it be that Jesus is announcing the engagement of him and Mary?? or maybe that after his death, Mary and NOT Peter is to lead the group (that could be why Peter is so mad)?.....

They couldn�t remove Jesus from history so now they choose to rewrite that history. If the truth doesn�t settle well with your position to it, just make a new truth!

This scripture came to mind when I read your post.

Timothy 4:3-4 NASB

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

This is actually a very interesting post...
I have just switched off my TV after watching a 2 hour documentary on Da Vinci's last supper painting. What would the chances of that be...
Da Vinci spent a minumium of 3 hours a day sketching "common folk" within the street to perfect the human aspect of each induvidual within the painting. He wanted each person to be as induvidual as their personality and relationship to jesus.
Perhapes the lack of continuity within the idea of 'Jesus announcing the traitor sits at the table' came about with not only due to the extensive time frame it took for the painting to be finished but also the fact the people or (features of people) that Da Vinci used to base his ideas on did not have an interpersonal relationships, as obviously the discipeles would have had.

A interesting side note...
It was said it took Da Vinci over a year to find the "face" of Judus

Nerevar: Don't get taken in by the Da Vinci code... its pure speculation and fiction. However addressing Da Vinci's "Last Supper" , there is no woman at the table, they are the twelve disciples, there definitely are two effiminate looking disciples, but they were never intentionally meant to be women. Da Vinci did not have any "inside information" about the night of the last supper, it was painted in 1495-1497. There is so much speculation about Da Vinci, one of the theories out there was that he crossdressed and did a self portrait for the Mona Lisa.

Here is a huge picture on the net of "The Last Supper".

milano.arounder.com...

There seems so much fear about the life of Christ that he has to be defamed. He taught love - quite simple.



[edit on 24-10-2004 by Mynaeris]

~~~

Nerevar nice story....

upon thinking about it some...just the 'gender issue' would not be enough
for the group to form into the 4 seperate 'coalitions'
(see the pic, linked by Mynaeris, thank-you...)

Even the 'betrayer revealed' scenario seems , trite, to me....

both these critiques are expressing values which are derived from the
Euro-centrist, Western-World-Ethic, frame of mind...

there is another 'revelation' to consider: PERHAPS...

the character Jesus, told the inner-core Apostles...they must indulge in...
or become 'Cannibals'... reviving the pre-civilisation practice of consuming
the clans or tribes leader upon their 'death'...
...the 'church' has sanitized this 'sacrimental ritual' from the laity & masses
as being 'spiritual' in nature only...the bread & wine 'transsubstantiation miracle' spiel....

me thinks, DaVinci, being in the Intelligenzia & Rosicusians & Alchemy/Arts
guilds, into meta-physics etc. was 'informed' and 'privy' to hidden knowledge & gnosis....
and actually put 'it' out for the public to look-upon
yet not see (have understanding)

....[return serve....]
enjoy the game, mon ami

Say what you like about the Da vinci code...
I have just zoomed in


Every one else has a beard. Its a woman. No doubt in my mind.

Okay, let me get this straight...we're going to make up what Jesus said at the Last Supper to his disciples based on a painting by a dude who lived 1500 years later and obviously was having some issues with Christian doctrine, versus looking to the scriptural accounts?

Is this an accurate summary of the point of this thread?

Yeah I dont think DAvinci knew what was said, infact I am certain he didnt I just picked up the point about the woman in the painting
BTW @val
Love the new member advocate Idea... YOu are the people's mod.

See, I think the important points of a topic get missed sometimes by a predisposition toward a person's bias. For instance, if you want to reject the gospel accounts of the Last Supper, you go with...let's see what Da Vinci is trying to say.

Well, when you do this, you miss the weightier issues here, which are:

* What was up with Da Vinci?
* Did he have any connections to groups, teachings that could have led to the bizarre messages he placed in his art?
* Had he been exposed to some "knowledge" (whether false or true) that could have led to his behavior?
* Can we learn more of what he was trying to say by studying his arts/writings/activities from a viewpoint of learning what contemporaneously was affecting him?

The same is true with Newton and many others...if we take them in their context, we can probably learn a lot of interesting things, but if we try to backward apply them in a disingenuous effort to fulfill our own bias concerning scriptural accounts that prefaced them by millenium, well, we're just p**ing up a rope be quite honest.

ok why is it that some painting done in the renassance is found more interesting than the very gospel it supposedly depicts???

i mean do any of you even know what type of man leonardo was?? was he a righteous man??? did he even follow the gospels??? he was what any artist of any age are like. he was an artist period. just because SOME of his art was around biblical ideas and situations does NOT mean he even followed God.
the truth is that leonardo must have been a practising pagan at the very least due to his INTENSE interest of the OCCULT. IF you reasearch his work and writings you would find he was into many many things that are CONDEMED in the bible, such as witchcraft, mysticism and sexual immorality.

so why care what leonardos art even tries to put forward? its like the passion of the christ, 90% biblical 10& catholic mystic..making it 100% NON biblical.
if you tell a 100% lie eveyone would know its a LIE, if you mix 99% truth with 1% lie its becomes a more difficult lie to reject. just like what the serpent said to eve "you will become LIKE Gods" the whole deception was not a total lie, the only problem was the serpent didnt tell the first man and women that the knowledge they would gain would ultimately lead to DEATH.

here are some links on da vinci:

www.straightdope.com...
www.occultopedia.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.khouse.org...

tons more online, i think da vinci was an gnostic, basically not christian but i guess 1000 yrs later its just heresay.

[edit on 24-10-2004 by TruthStrgnrThanFiction]

i think da vinci was an gnostic, basically not christian

from the information i have been able to gather The Gnostics and most of the other " heresies" were christian just not roman catholic in orientation. at one time as i recall almost all the population of europe had been excommunicated.
The pope of the RCC had excommunicated the pope of the Orthodox church and
all his followers and the orthodox pope had done the same.

many of the points of division dealt with "revealed truths" like the position of women in the church etc.. today many would have people asking So what?

Thank you all for your replies, all valid points however, i am not trying to put words into the mouth of Jesus.

I am not saying that Da vinci was of sound mind and disposition i am just saying that its interesting that he would depict a woman on the right hand of Jesus rather than the chief disciple. He must have had some reason for this, as St Udio says, i believe that da vinci was privy to some 'inside' info and fear of persecution by the church forced him to express it in the only way he knew how....painting.

Mynaeris. how can you say that the figure to the right of Jesus is not a woman....there may be some effeminate looking disciples but there is also one woman sitting to the right of Jesus!! [THANKS TO BIGDANPRICE FOR THE PIC]

My main point is that there must be a valid reason for Leonardo to paint a woman so deliberatly....i mean its not like he just whipped up the painting one sunday afternoon....a load of thinking goes into masterpieces.....

If you look at the painting you will see that Jesus has his arms outstretched and his palms up as if pleading a point.

I believe he is actually saying.... "What do you mean I owe 9 sheckels, I only had the fish...no I didn't order potato skins Peter and Andrew split those..."

Or something along those lines.

I think my guess is as possible as Da Vinci's or anyone elses.

Spiderj

Originally posted by TruthStrgnrThanFiction
the truth is that leonardo must have been a practising pagan at the very least due to his INTENSE interest of the OCCULT.

Hardly basis to lable it as truth ... it's just your assumption
I have an intense interest in alien life ......... does that make me an alien?

its like the passion of the christ, 90% biblical 10& catholic mystic..making it 100% NON biblical

Say what? It's still 90% Biblical.
And if that 10% Catholic mystic(?) makes it a lie, that is just your predisposition that ONLY Biblical ways are truth.

Misfit

Hey Big Dan:

If you look at Pinin Brambilla's reconstruction (IL CENACOLO = THE LAST SUPPER of Leonardo da Vinci) at the Monasteria di Santa Maria delle Grazie di Milano 1977-1997) of the disciple "Phillip's" face (the one standing as the tallest figure on the wall with a similar hand gesture as the "Lady with the Ermine" painting of 1491) you'll notice that he has no BEARD either...

Are you claiming that the disciple PHILLIP was painted by Leonardo as a woman too?

The disciple Phillip had 4 daughters---all of them "prophetesses" according to the legends of the early Nazorean Christians ...but of course, Leonardo himself probably didn't know or care about "historical accuracy" of first century Palestine----his point was to bring out drama and the hidden non termporal meaning of the Eucharist as an ETERNAL EVENT OF SALVATION rather than a moment in real-time (notice the symbolic hand gestures of R. Yehoshua pointing to the BREAD (leavened !!!) and the other to the WINE.

The face of "Yohanon bar Zavdai" (John son of Zebedee) i.e. one of the Bene Regesh ("sons of Thunder" Gk malapropism: Boanerges) is nearly completely flaked off via more than 13 paint overs in oil by lesser artitsts than Leonardo every 50 years since 1498 up to about 1922.

The work in 1952 began what Brambilla finished in removing layer by layer of overpainting (Leonardo's fault for using a dry wall with mixed pigments and clay to paint a fresco===which was known NOT to be a permament methodology, despite his hopes and months of experiments...!)

So both PHILLIP and JOHN are beardless in Il Cenacolo. If you want to see a nearly-lifesize copy done under the auspices of Leonardo himself apparently, check out the oil copy near Antwerp (the Tongerlo copy) which reproduces most of the lost details of the original in the folds of the clothes===some art experts date this copy to around 1510, and there is some evidence that Leonardo himself may have touched up some of the draperies of those gorgeous (although historically inaccurate !) coats and robes he puts on the disciples---in the original their faces are 32 cm which would mean that ach of the disciples depicted and R. Yehoshua himself is approx 1.5 times normal life size.

It is said that Leonardo even caluclated EACH DISCIPLE's BODY WEIGHT as he worked on the figures...!

By the way, notice the line between the tallest Figure (Philip) and the lowest (Judas): it goes STRAIGHT THROUGH the right EYE of R. Yehoshua in the middle...

Also the curious grouping of 4 sets of three, and the "hand up hand down" symbolism of R. Yehoshua (which was used by Buddhist statues and statues of Mithras--symbolising death and resurrection as well as SUN UP and SUN DOWN among other things).

Notice Judas' neck (in the preparatory sketches) shows the tension of a man who is being hung (i.e. in the ACT of being HUNG BY THE NECK)

Leonardo placed alot of NON LITERAL-TEMPOROAL SYMBOLS into this fresco which defy an actual physical moment in time: The left hand of Yeshoshua( appearing on the right side to the viewer) looks like it could have represented a crucified wrist by its position as well.

Curious (a Leonardo oversight, or is he telling us this IS NOT A PASSOVER MEAL?) is the presence of LEAVENED BREAD on the table (during the Feast of UNLEAVENED bread) and the fact that IESOUS and the 12 ARE NOT RECLINING in GREEK FASHION the way the Gospels describe the Pesach event (it became the common Judaean customer to position all guests at a Passover-Pesach by placing them on the floor so they could recline just like the Greek "conquerors" after 300 BC)....

Some have criticised the light in the background (it is actually the very moment the orb of the sun has dipped below the Judaen horizon) since it looks like day and not night when the Passover was eaten--and it appears that the group has just finished their meal, not just starting it....

The main light source is of course from the western wall window (the left side of the fresco is thus subtily lit differently than the right side).

As for Leonardo painting Yohanon bar Zavdai as a female-woman, I would have to disagree:

Most of Leonardo's younger men/angels are painted as if they were ANDROGYNOUS (look at the clearly androgynous right-hand "pointing" Angel in the earlier "Paris Version" of the Virgin and Child with John the Baptist in a Gortto in the Louvre) like the later portrait of John the Baptist and many other males (his younger MALE models were mainly "girlie-boy" homosexuals like Jacopo Saltarelli, with whom he was accused of SODOGMIA on April 9th 1476 (and for which anonymous accusation placed into the TAMBURO DRUM of the FLORENTINE Palazzio Vecchio's Front Hall caused him to be in gaol/imprisoned for 60 days before being released for "lack of witnesses" !!)

Even Phillip's face in the Last Supper (which had been touched up by Da Vinci himself in 1499 in oil, and beautifully restored by Pinin Brambilla) is somewhat androgynous (without the beard makes it even more so).

Notice the space forming a giant V next to the socalled beloved (!) disciple "John" ALSO forms another V next to the right side of Phillip facing the viewer by Matthew's (or Levi's?) swinging arms facing away from the center....so the two beardless boys in the fresco both have giant V spaces next to them---which some have pointed out may mean "Vagina" the symbol of the Goddess....

But I would have to disagree...even though Leonardo clearly was "heretical" (not only for his sexual inclination towards Sodogmia and pretty boys etc.) but also in his notebooks which were clearly written in mirror writing to thrwart the snoopy eyes of the Inquisition...

Yet to say (as the da Vinci code seems to) that he had a belief in the Divine Feminine with the Magadelleh (Aram. "hairdreser") included in the fresco, I think would be stretching the evidence way too far...although one thing to Brown's credit is that he sold a lot of books and got common people (non artists) interested in da Vinci again in the US....!!

[also where is the non pointing finger of THOMAS (Yehudah bar Yosef haTomah, or Judas Thomas-Didymos the Twin)? answer" its on the table scrunched up on thet able surface (a few fingers can be seen) next to the flaying arms of Yakkov bar Zavdai, who is missing all the beautiful drapery details of his once-gorgeous green silk coat)...

And what is THEUDAS (Thaddeus or Yehudah ha Levi) doing (second to last figure from left to right) with his "lame" fingers laying on the table surface? He is dipping his thumb to each of his fingers, apparently, discounting each disciple in turn "no not him, not him, not him, not him..."

These are the fun things about going to Milano in person and seeing all of this detail close up (and arguing with all those stubborn Italian curators, geeesh!)















[edit on 24-10-2004 by Amadeus]

Sorry: the words he was supposed to be uttering during the socalled "artistic moment" of Il Cenacolo (the Last Supper) of Leonardo?

Originally they were something like: "Behold ONE OF YOU SHALL BETRAY ME"

And "...the HAND of him who would Betray the Son of Man is even on the table now" to which each disciple ask in turn, Rabbi is it I, and his answer was supposedly: The Son of Man goeth even as it is written of him...he who hath eaten of my bread, will lift his heel against me..."

More disgruntled disciples... and their various "personal" reactions as depicted by Leonardo---with his own brand of artistic "license.."

Notice how Leonardo avoids the picturesque scene in the 4th gospel,which was supposed to be the Haggaddah meal the day before the Passover. wherein the un-named "Beloved Disciple" (by tradition John, but no proof of that: earlier John's gospel has Lazarus as "the disciple whom you love is dead...") leans on his breast during the meal and asks who it is to which he is given a cryptic answer: it is one of the 12..."

Why Leonardo did not depict the 12 on the floor so that the "beloved disciple" could whisper in Yehoshua's ear while leaning on his breast is probably for artistic reasons-----the same reasons for not having Judah bar Shimeon Ish Keryiota on the other side of the "table" as most of his contemporary artists seemed to have preferred ...

Perhaps Leonardo wanted to bring out the dramatic force of the words "one of the 12", as in "mixed in among you" rather than have one disciple stand out---however, Judah (Judas) is the only disciple in less than profile and he is the lowest figure of the bunch, so he still was able to created that illusion of "separation" from the other disciples...

..even by having his purse-clutching arm knock over the salt on the table...!

or as the Wisdom of Solomon says (chapter 1): Sorrowful Unto Death is the Man to whom his Best Friend hath Betrayed...!







[edit on 24-10-2004 by Amadeus]

ooo one of 12...oh that is funky...saw that mentioned in the starseed transmissions.....either way, I havent read the book nor have I seen the movie...(is it out yet?) I guess I am not that ga ga over it.

When I first read the thread title, I wanted to add this:

Jesus at his last supper was of course concerned about the finer details of his demise, as we all are. He asked everyone who would be ok with being the executor of his will. He was also concerned for his Mother and the contention lies in the fact, that in them there days, whoever said they would look out for her had the financial responsiblity. Yanno, Joseph turned to the bottle and wasnt very good at providing and so, Jesus really needed someone, one of the twelve to commit to looking after his Mum. See Insurance as it was then, became null and void when cruxified. Judas was the one to say, hey I will look after Mary, Bro! Knowing full well the local mag had offered Mary 3 cows for her side of the story. Judas also had a fetish with older women and Jesus was quite worried about it.

Now if you look at the pic of the last supper, the only one who looks happy is Judas...he is looking quite smug really. In the painting there is a code for the group in case his Mum ran out of money. Sort of like an emergency fund. It was a secret bank account number. Everyone knew the code except Judas...

Originally posted by Nerevar
Google for a pic of Da Vinci's last supper.....here's what i think, after Jesus makes his announcement:

Judas has been pushed forward and is looking around to see what is going on. Peter appears to be trying to push past the woman having to confront Jesus having shoved Judas out of the way. Some people would say that this woman is supposed to be John but i firmly believe that it is a woman sitting at the right hand of Jesus.

The three people behind 'Peter' are reacting to his movement as well. Andrew has his hands up as if in astonishment. James is reaching past Andrew as if in attempt to restrain Peter. Jesus is turned slightly towards his left with his left hand turned over as if preparing a response. Looking at Jesus I see a man who is saddened by the reactions of his disciples...Like he knew this would happen....

At his right we come back to the figure that I believe is a woman (Mary). Unlike every other person at the table, she seems happy and contented. You can sort of make a a slight smirk as if recently complimented or mentioned. Her hands rest together on top of the table and her eyes are closed or she is looking down. Her body language is one of maybe embarrassment like she has just been talked about.

It seems (to me anyway) that the statement is not about the revelation that a one man among the table is a betrayer...as it is supposed to be....but is in fact the reaction to an unpopular message or announcment.

I believe Leonardo is trying to convey that Jesus made a statement about Mary that has caused a controversy within his inner circle. As to what the statement is....your guess is as good as mine.

Could it be that Jesus is announcing the engagement of him and Mary?? or maybe that after his death, Mary and NOT Peter is to lead the group (that could be why Peter is so mad)?.....

Getting tired - long day of yardwork and not getting any younger - so this is brief. We all do know that DaVince lived some 16 hundred years AFTER the Last Supper, right? No photos of the 'real deal'.

DaVinci - like a lot of artists then and now (look for all the injokes in Disney animated movies in particular) - liked to fill his art with inside jokes, subtle digs at people who annoyed him, and the 'to Hell with what might have happened, this looks cooler' syndrome. Of course, if you are one of htose people who believe that DaVinci was a sercret master of some esoteric order holding some secret knowlege, then we need to go from there.

Goof night and God Bless....

What is Jesus saying at the Last Supper?

" ALRIGHT - I'll pick up the check for the meal... BUT THIS IS THE LAST TIME I'M DOING THIS!"

(sorry - too tempting to pass this one up.)

A interesting side note...
It was said it took Da Vinci over a year to find the "face" of Judus

Legend also says that he suggested to a particularly annoying Abbe that
he sit as the model for Judas. He became much less annoying so the story goes.