Arcadia Discussion Zone

You see, when truth saw its reflection was more then he was, he desired something he already was and it wasn't enough for him. Then he acted, this was the 1st sin.

(thinking out loud)

Same purpose as the rest of it.


The truth was never told.

Unbelievable...simply unbelievable what this forum has become.

He painted a scene from the Gospels that had been painted many times before by other artists. He included the elements from the Gospel narratives. He included everyone that the narratives said were at the scene - no more, no less. And like other artists of his day, he painted John to look less than fully masculine, which is how they denoted youth in art.

And the Acadiens were Catholics, Lov. Is there any particular reason why you find their identification with bog-standard Catholic imagery used all over the world so goddamned fascinating? Other than pushing your own strange agenda? The world does not revolve around New Orleans.

TCP

He was raped twice. From the front of Him and the back of Him. This is the truth of the bloodline of Jesus, not what some soon will have you believe.

Bloodline of Rape

Does anyone else feel like bailing on this lost cause? Seriously, PM me if you're ready to cut bait.

TCP

These are the things people were paid off or killed over.

And the priest knew this. Then he found out the church knew it. Thats why he wrote- "terrible".

Water,
For the sake of clarity; are you resurrected SecretofNine?
TD

my my TCP aren't you testy this day
you need to have a mug of green beer
I'm having mine ....hiccup

TCP


First TCP ...I had to instruct you on who the Acadiens were and that they were a legal race
and dear they are not all Catholic ... and if you think Da Vinci was a Catholic
tsk tsk tsk!!!

The forum is just fine dear

go pluck a shamrock dear it will make you feel lucky


this is a shamrock but to some its the shape of a card name the clubs
but if you want to be really lucky look for a four leaf clover

Et Ego Arcadia .....

For the sake of truth; who are you?



When you find the cave. You'll say, uph, he was right, but wrong about everything else?


Tell you what, for the sake of your clarity, lets wait to see if I'm wrong or right.


You guys wanted the truth didn't you?


Well your getting it in equal portions to both sides.

Well water
that is quite a different sort of torture but I do know that similar torture was used on the prisoners of Abu Ghahib

Never heard of this before

I don't know the menacing one in the painting is Peter
I would have to disagree

Hypothetically -



Jesus kicked the devil out of Heaven.

Jesus comes to earth in the form of a man.

devil finds Jesus.

Do you really think the devil held back that day?

Drive to Questenberg Germany and take a cell phone.

Call me and I'll tell you how to get it in the cave.

You should go buy property in Questenberg.

The property value is about to go up.

That explains today - what's you're excuse the other 364 days a year?



Lov, when the day comes that you even have the ability to "instruct" me on anything, I'll be in hell driving the zamboni.

You don't even know what a "race" is, dear. Cajuns are not a "race" any more than the French are a "race" - Cajuns aren't even their own ethnicity. They can barely be classified as a culture. You really are dim, but this isn't the first time you've heard that.

And yes, every one (and I do mean EVERY ONE) of the Acadiens who emigrated south to Louisiana were Catholic, and you probably don't even know why (of course you don't, rhetorical aside). You probably can't even distinguish between an Acadien and a Huguenot.



You obviously aren't doing a lot of reading here lately, Lov.

TCP

Yeah, and...? Leonardo was himself gay and many of his young protégés/students who served as his models were his lovers. Does that create any issues for you, Bill?


No Tim, the gay issue does not create any issues for me. What I meant by that was that the two (Jesus and the other person) were obviously in love according to the way I see the fresco. If they were in love and it was John it would have been a gay love affair, would it not? What I see in da Vinci's work though, is a woman. I know it has been restored several times and the colors muted, but what I see now is what is important (IMHO). There is another point that I had thought interesting. One obvious way to almost prove this is a woman or not would be to look at the feet as a woman would probably have shorter legs and certainly smaller feet, but someone has cut a door into the fresco where the feet would have shown, why? I know that you will say because they wanted a door there, but remember this was one of the most important artworks in history. btw, I do hope you don't bail, I read, and am interested in every post you make.---Bill

Truth? thats a slippery concept around here!
No, it was for the sake of clarity that I asked.
Thanks for confirming it !
Don't let us detain you.

TD

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Thinking

Well man's inhumanity to man sinks to quite the lowest and evil levels
with Torture



Titian

Da Vinci was quite brilliant
Vasari describes Leonardo's final months, no doubt from details given to him when he visited Melzi many years later, probably in 1566: "Finally, being old, he lay sick for many months. When he found himself near death he made every effort to acquaint himself with the doctrine of Catholic ritual." Notwithstanding his belief in God and in the existence of the soul, it was a ritual -- and indeed an entire formalized religion -- from which he had in general kept himself separated, "holding lightly by other men's beliefs, seeing philosophy above Christianity," as Pater put it. No wonder he needed to "acquaint himself with the doctrine," as the end of his life approached.

On Easter eve 1519, Leonardo made his will, leaving all his notebooks to Melzi and arranging for masses to be said at three different churches, as though in a final scattering of his heritage, an act symbolic of the dispersion of his talents. He died on May 2, having received the sacraments of the Church with so many of whose teachings on the history and character of the natural world he had disagreed.

And as for his soul -- we can only guess where it went, but we do have Leonardo's reflections to consider. He believed that the soul depends on the body for its activities. In embryonic development, he wrote, the body "in due time awakens the soul that is to inhabit it." And elsewhere, "every part is designed to unite with its whole, that it may escape from its imperfections. The soul desires to dwell in the body because without the body it can neither act nor feel." In this mechanistic model, the soul cannot function when the body dies. Perhaps it, too, dies. Whether or not this is true, none of will ever know while we still breathe.

Nuland, pages 99-100:

Water does this mean that the woman had a child ...and what bloodline would that be ....?
it sounds like quite a tale... it seems like a tale to diminish Jesus's children

Yes Bill your right
its becoming apparent someone is destroying evidence and I see a woman too...now after I have been awakened from my indoctrination

Oh TCP don't go and I will miss Sheila too
you always have such wonderful goodies for us
I have been reading the Forum with great interest

It's not a tale. The Bloodline comes from this city, a bloodline of rape.

He had a boy.

water is this child a good boy or a bad boy?

this child of rape...
Lets get to it Where are you coming from?
or is this poor unfortunate child a victim of torture

and how can anyone know if this is Jesus son
they didn't have DNA specialists

TCP,

You were saying the other day that the Last Supper has been refurbished several times. Are you saying that the reworking has changed the personality of (some of, viz. John?/Mary?) the people and that this is different from what DV had originally intended?

To me, in the images as received today, the figure to his right is definitively a woman. His students etc may have painted a more masculine looking person in their canvases, it doesn't necessarily mean DV was not up for "sending" a different message.

You may believe you know exactly what was on Leonardo's mind when he painted The Last Supper, but that's highly unlikely. You have never even seen what Leonardo painted on the wall of Santa Maria della Grazie. 80% of what is there today was painted by someone else, centuries later, and painted incorrectly according to the copies made before it started to fall apart. Why on earth would Leonardo's students copying Leonardo's master work have changed anything? Where do you or anyone have the slightest bit of evidence that Leonardo "sent a different message"? You look at a painting that isn't even his original work and you believe you can see into Leonardo's mind; and yet you look at two copies, almost identical, painted by his students and you find fault with them because they don't square with your "theories". Your theories are based on nothing but base assumptions that you can't possibly substantiate.

TCP

Firstly you cannot know what my theories are because really I don't know myself - you are being a tad presumptuous here.

All I said was that the image presented in what we see today is clearly one of a female - purely what my eyes see and brain interprets - I'm not saying I'm right your wrong - I'm just saying what I see.

I agree I have no idea what DV intended in his fresco and it appears no-one else can either given the fresco has been reworked - unless the refurbishers left documents explaining what they did and why.

Certainly, clues can be garnered from his student's work - but they need not necessarily be definitive.

Looking at the paintings you posted the other day, the right hand person looks in one very female, in the other more masculine.

I'm sorry, I'm not convinced (either way) by these two student paintings, that is if they are anything to go by.

And what leads you to that conclusion? What about this is "obvious" to you?



I suppose so, but conversely, if it's John and they're not in love then it's not a gay love affair, true? So I'll be interested to know how you discern "love" in that grouping. By the way, it is more common to see in other paintings of the same theme from that period the effeminate figure of John with his head laying on the shoulder, chest, or in the lap of Jesus. That would seem a more blatant depiction of "gay love", would it not? And yet no one to my knowledge has ever taken issue with that posture, either citing it as a sign of a romantic relationship or that John was, in fact, a woman. I suppose because then no one could convincingly claim that Leonardo's rendition was that unique, or that a great secret lay at the center of it.




I'd wager you see this because at some point in the last 15 to 20 years you read a book that suggested the figure was female and it made sense to you on some level. Perhaps not on a very informed level, however.



It would be rather difficult to judge the length on the legs of anyone in that painting as they're all seated. However, if you scroll up and look at the Tongerlo copy you can see what the original looked like before it started disintegrating, and before the doorway was widened (due to the fact that in Leonardo's time one had to stoop to go through it). John has feet. They all have feet. And though partially obscured by a table leg, John's big toe and second and third toes are as big as anyone else's. Nothing dainty about this boy's pedal digits.

By the way, when that doorway was enlarged in 1652, this was formerly one of the most important artworks in history. By 1652 it was in pretty sad shape.

TCP