Leonardo Da Vinci's 'The Last Supper' reveals more secrets

I came here looking for science, not silly speculation.

Herring, herring is a type of fish, fish, fish begins with f, f, farming, farming has lawnmowers, lawn, lawn, grass, green, green is the color of vomit, vomit is gross, monsters are gross and so is herring! I get it! I finally understand! Good is a Herring Monster!

Now for some serious conspiracy conjecture: if the guy at jesus' right hand is indeed Mary magdeline as Brown and others surmise, where is john? Why would he and not someone else be left out? If Mary makes 12 then was John fictitious? That is to say moreso than the rest of the fables which is the entire bible?

It is easy to make the claim that you make otto, but have you looked at the archeological record that validates much of the Bible?
To take both sides of the science vs. religion argument, it is amazing to me how Genesis outlines evolution (albeit from a non-scientists perspective) thousands of years before Darwin. People fight both sides of the battle out of fear (that their world-view might be shattered), not for search for Truth.

It is all about the Oligarhy surrounding Jesus.

And kshultz222, if you aren't a driveby troll, can you please explain the age of the earth and how that is also explained by your mythology?

@kshultz222
Yes I've read a lot about the archeological record and it's obvious you haven't, at least not with an open mind. The exodus never happened because there weren't 2M people living in goshen at the time, the path through the Sinai was dotted with Egyptian military posts, and there is absolutely no record of any murderous genocidal rampage through the levant by Israelites or anyone else at that time. Further, solomon and davids great kingdoms never existed- Jerusalem was only a small hilltop village back then.

It's easy for me to read about all the hard work and analysis it took by others to discover these things. It's also easy for you to read the lies in the bible and decide they're true in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Why is that?

To take both sides of the science vs. religion argument, it is amazing to me how Genesis outlines evolution (albeit from a non-scientists perspective) thousands of years before Darwin.

then you'll have to credit the Sumerians because they wrote those original stories which were only copied by Hebrews or whoever wrote your holy book- it certainly wasn't the Moses described in the bible.

But in truth isn't the creation myth a little like a comic book compared to the vast body of work, experiment, publication, and review that went into the actual theories on evolution?Comic book- more like a fart in a windstorm?

Why oh why is this on physorg? And isn't it more likely that it was his art style that enables distortion of his images to still build people, because all the people have the same design?

Aside from all of that, who cares what he thought of about the bible? Does that make it true, just because he thought it?

Enlightened religious scolars do not regard the Bible as a history book.

In fact everything in the Bible reflects the morae of the time they were written. Furthermore, a lot of the prohibitions had to do with the state of medical knowledge, as well as a need to create offspring because few people made it past 18 years.
even fewer made it to 40.

Poor DaVinci.
All he most probably did was to include foods he was familiar with
Because those foods were different to those of the area and period in which the event he has painted is alleged to have occurred the pseudo intellectuals (idiots) all come crawling out of the woodwork to divine secret meanings out of that difference.
They really do need to get out more and if they can, talk with the three preceding contributors

it is amazing to me how Genesis outlines evolution (albeit from a non-scientists perspective) thousands of years before Darwin. People fight both sides of the battle out of fear (that their world-view might be shattered), not for search for Truth.

What? Genesis presents not one but two versions of the creation myth, and neither gets the order of events right. Or did you really think that plants came before the sun and moon, or that man was created before plants? Sheer idiocy.

You don't believe in a religion because it can be verified or falsified. You believe in a religion because you feel it's worth believing in.

For some, this means believing in a popular form of pseudo science. A science/religion, that like any other religion, disavows any criticism, persecutes any critic, and disregards any contrary evidence. Sort of like LHC proponents and the LSAG committee.

The essence of art is selectivity.
Every brushstroke was a voluntary decision.
Every color, item, location and arrangement was made by choosing from among infinite permutations.
Of course there is meaning in the making of those choices. It is completely legitimate to discuss the nature of an artists choices and to use the context of his environment, language and culture.
It takes a lot more time, money and effort to say something in a painting, too, than it does to comment on it. One might even expect that the former enterprise should be even better considered than the latter.

It is easy to make the claim that you make otto, but have you looked at the archeological record that validates much of the Bible?

In my understanding, the archaelogical record more contrdicts the bible than supports it...especially in the area of a global flood (where the entire earth is covered at the same time). There are bound to be areas where archealogical record does reflect the bible though, because most fiction is based off of a fact (or a natural occurence).

To take both sides of the science vs. religion argument, it is amazing to me how Genesis outlines evolution (albeit from a non-scientists perspective) thousands of years before Darwin. People fight both sides of the battle out of fear (that their world-view might be shattered), not for search for Truth.

The story of genesis speaks of man being created in gods image, and fowl, etc. were made. This in and of itself speaks against evolution.
Not sure where you can say it reflects evolutionary theory.

In my understanding, the archaelogical record more contrdicts the bible than supports it...especially in the area of a global flood (where the entire earth is covered at the same time). There are bound to be areas where archealogical record does reflect the bible though, because most fiction is based off of a fact (or a natural occurence).

Is the story of Noah the only one that matters then? Seriously, archeology has verified more factual content than you might imagine:
http://en.wikiped...rtifacts

http://en.wikiped...he_Bible

The story of genesis speaks of man being created in gods image, and fowl, etc. were made. This in and of itself speaks against evolution.
Not sure where you can say it reflects evolutionary theory.

Of course it's not written as a scientific article, but Genesis has many parallels with evolutionary science. For instance, the earth didn't always exist.

Is the story of Noah the only one that matters then? Seriously, archeology has verified more factual content than you might imagine:
http://en.wikiped...rtifacts

No not at all limited to Noah...there are many flood stories...the fact that there is no evidence of a global sedimentary layer at the same time in the soil is all the evidence you really need. However, a catastrophic flood in the area where these stories were originally written is possible (that'd be the babylonia area..I think giglemesh was the name there)

Of course it's not written as a scientific article, but Genesis has many parallels with evolutionary science. For instance, the earth didn't always exist.

That is not evolutionary science...that would be astronomical in nature :) but, that is, and no offense meant here, a no duh thing there...and easily determined by witnessing a new star in the sky for the first time...ancestors put 2 and 2 together

No not at all limited to Noah...there are many flood stories...the fact that there is no evidence of a global sedimentary layer at the same time in the soil is all the evidence you really need. However, a catastrophic flood in the area where these stories were originally written is possible (that'd be the babylonia area..I think giglemesh was the name there)

Sure. It may have been based on a disasterous local flood where a farmer put his two goats, two chickens, and his family in a boat and brought them to safety. It doesn't matter. It's only a moral story, supposedly written by (and for) ancient Hebrews.

continued...

...continued:

That is not evolutionary science...that would be astronomical in nature :) but, that is, and no offense meant here, a no duh thing there...and easily determined by witnessing a new star in the sky for the first time...ancestors put 2 and 2 together

Ah, but that's supposing they equated their perception of a flat earth and sun with stars. Clearly, the text indicates they did not.

Also, it speaks of a deeper understanding of creation. Not just of life itself, but of the entire cosmos.

Lastly, it roughly mimics evolution too. Plants came first, animals in the sea next, then animals on the ground, and finally - man. Who would argue that the earth wasn't first filled with oxygen producing plants?

Please this has degenerated into an anti and pro religious argument.
There should be no place in Physorg for such drivel.
Religion is the greatest mental affliction to ever plague mankind
It is nothing more than an irrational belief, or fear filled hope, in superstition/magic.
Until we rid ourselves of this affliction we are unfit to step off our planet, let alone aspire to meet and mix with "other" life forms. They would probably shun us as too barbaric a species anyway.

Please this has degenerated into an anti and pro religious argument. There should be no place in Physorg for such drivel.

Fine.

Religion is the greatest mental affliction to ever plague mankind

Why do you continue degenerating the thread?

Until we rid ourselves of this affliction we are unfit to step off our planet

Doesn't matter. But until we rid ourselves of the affliction to insult - irrespective of their actual individual behaviour - those who don't share our own perspective we certainly remain unfit to save this planet's biosphere. Thus it will have to get rid of us.

...have you looked at the archeological record that validates much of the Bible?

I have looked _for_ archaeological records validating any of the bible, but have come up empty handed. Yes, there are some place names that match, but that's about it.

What archaeological evidence do you have?

@ubavontuba
only one of you godders could read the following from the wiki site you referenced, and conclude that it reinforces your beliefs:

"The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.[1] Archaeology certainly doesn't prove literal readings of the Bible...It calls them into question, and that's what bothers some people. Most people really think that archaeology is out there to prove the Bible. No archaeologist thinks so."

-are you that blinded??

Is the story of Noah the only one that matters then?

No but if even one story in the bible is proven wrong it invalidates the whole book because it claims to be the infallible word of god. It can't be part lies- one must conclude that it is ALL lies. Lies of convenience, contextural lies, lies of omission, total fabrications, partial truths used to validate lies: but how can one tell which is which?

Dear "...researchers..." Olivier Bauer, Nancy Labonté, Jonas Saint-Martin and Sébastien Fillion of UdeM, eel in Italian is anguilla while herring is aringa.
Is it a herring or an eel that is depicted in the painting?? The shape of the body these fishes are remarkably different. Please take a second look at the painting before starting your speculations...

"For instance, a fallen saltshaker is traditionally a sign of bad luck. The researchers question if instead of indicating the mischief of Judas, the fallen saltshaker could suggest his rehabilitation."

Wow, there's absolutely no reaching going on there. Fallen Salt shaker. Oh he could be rehabilitated. Wow. I'm glad these four people aren't detectives, who knows what kinds of solutions they could reach when they investigate a crime.

ubavontuba@
"Of course it's not written as a scientific article, but Genesis has many parallels with evolutionary science."

You make the same mistake that creationists make when they compare evolution to creation/genesis.

Evolution isn't about the creation of life, it's about what goes on AFTER life exists. You really do need to at least get the fields right that compete with each other.

Genesis/Creationism = Abiogenesis (NOT Evolution)

Hasn't organic material already been produced by a lab experiment using all inorganic ingredients, using supposed conditions of earth before life?

It is possible to close this so called debate?
There are two problems.
One is the pro-religious group who seek to peddle their philosophy to the world, regardless of whether the world wants it or not. They have no respect for the rights of others.
Second is the group of egotists who think they can "interpret" the intent of the artist. Even if they were sincere which they may or may not be the results they produce are meaningless.
Da Vinci made a painting. Was it inspired by his beliefs? Or was it inspired by the times and his need of income? We, so distant in time from those events can never know.
What we do know is that Da Vinci can only have drawn upon his own personal knowledge and experience or from his imagination whilst constructing the painting.
We are unable to determine which part of the painting is which.
It is time to let it rest.

To answer a question: I have been reading Physorg articles for many years.
I still maintain that Genesis and evolution have very similar sequence of events. If you know the Bible, it says that a day is the same as a thousand years to God and vice versa, so don't take "day" so seriously. Just think "epoch". I also have trouble with a full world-wide flood, but I expect that this was the author's (a human's) perspective.
Since a documentary came out describing David's kingdom as very small, I recall archaeology that showed a much larger kingdom, but really what does it matter how large it was???
When there is bad science, does that invalidate all science? In the same way, I do not take all of the Bible as 100% literal, but that doesn't invalidate it all (unless you can only believe it as 100% literal).

People have taken some quick shots, and while I recognize this is simply a discussion board, it would be good if some people discuss something that they know a little about. Read the Bible first, then you will not seem so ignorant when saying things about it.
I would guess that many of those who relegate the Bible, and those who believe in it, to myth or worse, are probably only quoting what their mentors have told them. If you read it with an open mind, you might have a much different opinion.
I have believed since elementary school that science and Christianity go hand-in-hand if you have an open mind. I have yet to see anything that would change that opinion.

@ubavontuba
only one of you godders could read the following from the wiki site you referenced, and conclude that it reinforces your beliefs:

"The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.[1] Archaeology certainly doesn't prove literal readings of the Bible...It calls them into question, and that's what bothers some people. Most people really think that archaeology is out there to prove the Bible. No archaeologist thinks so."

-are you that blinded??

I'm sorry, I must indeed be blinded. I don't see your quotation in either of my references.

I do agree that archeology damages the literalistic (or maximalistic) interpretation though.

Is the story of Noah the only one that matters then?

No but if even one story in the bible is proven wrong it invalidates the whole book because it claims to be the infallible word of god. It can't be part lies- one must conclude that it is ALL lies. Lies of convenience, contextural lies, lies of omission, total fabrications, partial truths used to validate lies: but how can one tell which is which?

Oh brother. Why do you have to be so dramatic.

If the Bible is the word of God, and Jesus (God as man) was known to speak in parables (moral stories), doesn't it follow that God's Word is also filled with parables?

ubavontuba@
"Of course it's not written as a scientific article, but Genesis has many parallels with evolutionary science."

You make the same mistake that creationists make when they compare evolution to creation/genesis.

Evolution isn't about the creation of life, it's about what goes on AFTER life exists. You really do need to at least get the fields right that compete with each other.

Genesis/Creationism = Abiogenesis (NOT Evolution)

Sure. I oversimplified the argument. But, as I'd already been reprimanded for this, I corrected it later on. You need to read further down.

@kshultz222_yahoo_com

People have taken some quick shots, and while I recognize this is simply a discussion board, it would be good if some people discuss something that they know a little about. Read the Bible first, then you will not seem so ignorant when saying things about it.
I would guess that many of those who relegate the Bible, and those who believe in it, to myth or worse, are probably only quoting what their mentors have told them. If you read it with an open mind, you might have a much different opinion.
I have believed since elementary school that science and Christianity go hand-in-hand if you have an open mind. I have yet to see anything that would change that opinion.

I agree. I would add:
The Bible holds truths that are not so much in the words, but rather they are of the Word. Sort of like how 3D information can be embedded in the seemingly random dithering of an autostereogram.

The Bible holds truths that are not so much in the words, but rather they are of the Word. Sort of like how 3D information can be embedded in the seemingly random dithering of an autostereogram

So you're saying that even though it claims that things like the exodus happened when they most obviously did not, and even the little things like claiming rabbits have cuds when they do not, the book was still 'of the Word' or Logos meaning written by an infallible and all-knowing god? You're god is a fake and if you read your book you would have to conclude the same things. But you don't- you skim over it, picking out juicy phrases you think were written just for you and ignore the stuff that doesn't make sense. It ALL has to make sense or none of it is true.

I would guess that many of those who relegate the Bible, and those who believe in it, to myth or worse, are probably only quoting what their mentors have told them

Oh I would think it's quite obviously the other way around, your mentors being priests and preachers schooled in maximizing the sham and minimizing the glaring flaws. Proof is in how these deceptions and flaws are dealt with differently among all the various sects and religions. Strip away the big lies- eternal life and forgiveness of sins, and of course miracles on demand- and you're left with adventure stories and fairy tales, carelessly written.

I'm sorry, I must indeed be blinded. I don't see your quotation in either of my references

Of course not- it's at the very top, the introduction, which explains what the charts MEAN. You all read the bible the same way- you start out assuming it's all true, you pick and choose, you don't think about it at all you just bathe in the wonder.

1 THESSALONIANS 2:13 NKJ
"13 . . . when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God"
-This is the standard the bible sets for itself. Scientists are willing to revise theories and retract publications in order to improve them. Your bible cannot be revised even though it is full of errors.

"Look, it's 12 disciples, One Christ...and NO Kangaroos!" --Monty Python.

That being said, it is interesting that the whole thing adds up to the same as the pyramid structure with 13 levels and the 13th level is the eye at the top. Rays of light from the head, horns of enlightenment, Sol Invictus. etc.

Like the back of the US dollar bill.

Bueller? Beuller?

Hello?

Anyone?

So you're saying that even though it claims that things like the exodus happened when they most obviously did not, and even the little things like claiming rabbits have cuds when they do not, the book was still 'of the Word' or Logos meaning written by an infallible and all-knowing god?

Actually, "my religion" taught me that, save for the ten commandments, the Old Testament is essentially irrelevent.

You're god is a fake and if you read your book you would have to conclude the same things. But you don't- you skim over it, picking out juicy phrases you think were written just for you and ignore the stuff that doesn't make sense.

Obviously, you're judging it without having read (or understood) it yourself. There's no mandate that every word must be literally true.

It ALL has to make sense or none of it is true.

See? This proves you don't understand it. The Bible itself clearly states that much of its meanings are yet to be revealed.

Of course not- it's at the very top, the introduction, which explains what the charts MEAN. You all read the bible the same way- you start out assuming it's all true, you pick and choose, you don't think about it at all you just bathe in the wonder.

Ah, I see the problem. You're apparently under the mistaken impression that I feel archeology proves the Bible. This is not the case. I was merely pointing out that some of the Bible coincides with the archeological record. Didn't you see where I wrote that you believe in a religion because you feel it's worth believing in, and not because it can be verified or falsified?

1 THESSALONIANS 2:13 NKJ
"13 . . . when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God"
-This is the standard the bible sets for itself. Scientists are willing to revise theories and retract publications in order to improve them. Your bible cannot be revised even though it is full of errors.

But people keep trying anyway...

Besides, you have to examine the context. Is that passage about the whole Bible (which wasn't even yet compiled), or about the Word, in a more esoteric sense?

I know this is an unlikely to be followed request, but would the following people please do the following things?

1) God Deniers: Please stop discussing the veracity of the bible, existence of God, etc, in this thread. This is a thread about the interpretations of a Renaissance painting and that is what we should be discussing here.

2) God Believers: Please stop discussing the veracity of the bible, existence of God, etc, in this thread. This is a thread about the interpretations of a Renaissance painting and that is what we should be discussing here.

As for me, I will agree with Lordjavathe3rd, who asked the very reasonable question "Why oh why is this on physorg?"

I'll also quote Rodney King, who asked the very reasonable question "Can't we all just get along?"

Obviously, you're judging it without having read (or understood) it yourself. There's no mandate that every word must be literally true.

"18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." -Rev22
2 Peter 1:21 NIV:
21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
2 Timothy 3:16 NIV:
"16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"
-These passages and others have been used by xians to claim that the bible is the word of god. As a xian yourself you should know this.

@ubavontuba;
Only arrogant godders would think that just because they accept jc as their personal savior, that the holy spirit would infuse them with instant knowledge of scripture. You dont know the bible.

Besides, you have to examine the context. Is that passage about the whole Bible (which wasn't even yet compiled), or about the Word, in a more esoteric sense?

Are you saying that only some of the bible is the word of god? You dont accept the OT and all the prophesy of the messiah, the son of Abraham and David which gives him rightful claim to be king of the jews? Jesus uses the OT to legitimize himself as the son of god. Jesus quotes the prophets quite often. Are you calling jesus a liar?

"18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." -Rev22
2 Peter 1:21 NIV:
21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
2 Timothy 3:16 NIV:
"16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"
-These passages and others have been used by xians to claim that the bible is the word of god. As a xian yourself you should know this.

I notice that, like I said, none of your examples state every word is literally true.

Besides, all of those were written before the compilation.

@ubavontuba;
Only arrogant godders would think that just because they accept jc as their personal savior, that the holy spirit would infuse them with instant knowledge of scripture. You dont know the bible.

As demonstrated above, it seems YOU not only don't know the Bible, but you read things into it that simply aren't there.

Matt1:1"A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham: 2Abraham was the father of Isaac"
Mark1:1"The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
2It is written in Isaiah the prophet:
"I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way..."
Luke1:1"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the WORD."
John 1
"The WORD Became Flesh
1In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was God. 2He was with God in the beginning."
-You dont know the bible. The NT cant exist without the OT. And since the OT is full of verifiable lies, the NT is all lies itself.

I notice that, like I said, none of your examples state every word is literally true.

Read It Again:
"If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life"
Translation: EVERY word factual, NONE can be changed.

Besides, you have to examine the context. Is that passage about the whole Bible (which wasn't even yet compiled), or about the Word, in a more esoteric sense?

Are you saying that only some of the bible is the word of god? You dont accept the OT and all the prophesy of the messiah, the son of Abraham and David which gives him rightful claim to be king of the jews? Jesus uses the OT to legitimize himself as the son of god. Jesus quotes the prophets quite often. Are you calling jesus a liar?

Try reading Hebrews 8:6- 8-13.

Matt1:1"A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham: 2Abraham was the father of Isaac"
Mark1:1"The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
2It is written in Isaiah the prophet:
"I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way..."
Luke1:1"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the WORD."
John 1
"The WORD Became Flesh
1In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was God. 2He was with God in the beginning."
-You dont know the bible. The NT cant exist without the OT. And since the OT is full of verifiable lies, the NT is all lies itself.

See: John 1:17; Acts 13:39; Romans 10:2-10:4: Galatians 2-6, 3:13: and Ephesians 2:15.

I notice that, like I said, none of your examples state every word is literally true.

Read It Again:
"If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life"
Translation: EVERY word factual, NONE can be changed.

Really? "EVERY word factual." That's what you get out of that? I don't see it.

This is nothing more than an expressed (albeit primitive) copyright notice.

Maybe you think that if J. K. Rowlings uses her copyrights to prevent the alteration of her texts, that every word must be true? Maybe you think Harry Potter is real?

Try reading Hebrews 8:6- 8-13

Thanks. Paul was quoting Jer. 31:31-34 in this passage, an OT book you discount.

Maybe you think that if J. K. Rowlings uses her copyrights to prevent the alteration of her texts, that every word must be true?

I don't believe this- a xianist comparing god and Jesus to j. K. Rowlings. You are dense.

Try reading Hebrews 8:6- 8-13

Thanks. Paul was quoting Jer. 31:31-34 in this passage, an OT book you discount.

I don't discount it. I keep it in its place.

Read Mathew 5: 17-20. Here Jesus states that he came not to do away with the law, but to fulfill the law.

Try reading Hebrews 8:6- 8-13

Thanks. Paul was quoting Jer. 31:31-34 in this passage, an OT book you discount.

Sure, but doesn't that now make it part of the New Testament? I didn't see any prohibitions against overlap, did you?

Maybe you think that if J. K. Rowlings uses her copyrights to prevent the alteration of her texts, that every word must be true?

I don't believe this- a xianist comparing god and Jesus to j. K. Rowlings. You are dense.

I made no such comparison. I only pointed out your apparent interpretation of copyrights.

Really? "EVERY word factual." That's what you get out of that? I don't see it.

No, that's not what I get out of that. But religionists have been using that passage for ages to insist that the bible is the literal word of god. And you don't know that.

Maybe you think that if J. K. Rowlings uses her copyrights to prevent the alteration of her texts, that every word must be true?

I don't believe this- a xianist comparing god and Jesus to j. K. Rowlings.

It/reality just doesn't fit into your black&white picture. Into the great conspiracy theory you a such a fervent believer of.

Sure, but doesn't that now make it part of the New Testament?

No. Paul quotes a reliable source. I quote Paul here in physsorg but that doesn't make the bible part of this website does it? Aw, you're just being stupid on purpose. You're another troll aren't you?

It/reality just doesn't fit into your black&white picture. Into the great conspiracy theory you a such a fervent believer of.

Non sequitur. Hacking at the Jesus myth does not prove my theories. But it doesn't hurt them.

But religionists have been using that passage for ages to insist that the bible is the literal word of god

You just are not educated enough to know of the differences between the denominations. When you've seen one butterfly you aren't yet a lepidopterologist.

Hacking at the Jesus myth does not prove my theories. But it doesn't hurt them.

You don't see that you are nothing but a "godder" without a "god".

Really? "EVERY word factual." That's what you get out of that? I don't see it.

No, that's not what I get out of that. But religionists have been using that passage for ages to insist that the bible is the literal word of god. And you don't know that.

Oh, I know it. I also know they're wrong about a lot of things.

Sure, but doesn't that now make it part of the New Testament?

No. Paul quotes a reliable source. I quote Paul here in physsorg but that doesn't make the bible part of this website does it? Aw, you're just being stupid on purpose. You're another troll aren't you?

Ah, but your quote is now part of physorg, isn't it?

Really? "EVERY word factual." That's what you get out of that? I don't see it.

No, that's not what I get out of that. But religionists have been using that passage for ages to insist that the bible is the literal word of god. And you don't know that.

Oh, I know it. I also know they're wrong about a lot of things.

So you're saying you believe in god and the bible but don't have a religion? You've already stated that you do. "my religion" is what you said. Make up your mind.

Hacking at the Jesus myth does not prove my theories. But it doesn't hurt them.

You don't see that you are nothing but a "godder" without a "god".

Frajo, do you really disagree with what I'm saying here or the way I'm saying it? Like many religionists this person twists, obfuscates, insults with his nose in the air. I respond in kind, except I am more honest and direct with my disdain. And not once have I mentioned theories of mine so why attack me ad hominim? The thread is ABOUT alternate interpretation anyway, isn't it? What's your problem?

Hacking at the Jesus myth does not prove my theories. But it doesn't hurt them.

You don't see that you are nothing but a "godder" without a "god".

I believe in the power of people not god. I believe that the weakness of most people requires that they be managed for their own good. No supernatural forces involved. You know that. And it is evidence which has brought me to these conclusions, not prophesy or wishful thinking.

Congratulations, you "people" here on both sides of the religion argument have completely hijacked and poisoned this thread, which was about a renaissance painting of a bible scene and modern day attempts at its interpretation.

There was precious little discussion on topic, largely because there was little in the article that merited discussion. But that didn't stop you folks from making yourselves look like stubborn mules, no sir!

By taking a "if I am right then you must be wrong" approach and combining it with derisive terms such as "religionists", "godders", etc, you've completely poisoned the well here. I suspect those of you using these terms know this and are intentionally "flame baiting".

Personally, I wish physorg would lock this thread and punish the fool who posted this article in the first place.

Now for some serious conspiracy conjecture: if the guy at jesus' right hand is indeed Mary magdeline as Brown and others surmise, where is john? Why would he and not someone else be left out? If Mary makes 12 then was John fictitious? That is to say moreso than the rest of the fables which is the entire bible?

There are a great many scholars both of the faith and without faith who are inclined to state that John may not have been a single person but a school or sect of men who followed the teachings and self organized the beginnings of true Christianity as it was prior to enveloping the thousands of other sects.

@dozeriam
"The four researchers don't buy into the farfetched hypotheses introduced by Dan Brown in his best-selling book, The Da Vinci Code"-
Just what do you think the topic is then? If you have something to contribute then do so- don't just flame both sides.

have you looked at the archeological record that validates much of the Bible?

This is the ignorant nonsense which started the argument- you want it should go unanswered? It's obvious what participants here want to discuss- you want to discuss something else, go ahead.

Both sides are bad. Vote Jesus.

No thanks, his stance on tax reform is non-existent. The rest of his policies are just feel-good nonsense and I'm opposed to warring with people based on denomination.

So you're saying you believe in god and the bible but don't have a religion? You've already stated that you do. "my religion" is what you said. Make up your mind.

What? Perhaps you think if I don't agree with religious extremists I all of a sudden don't have a religion?

I believe in the power of people not god. I believe that the weakness of most people requires that they be managed for their own good. No supernatural forces involved. You know that. And it is evidence which has brought me to these conclusions, not prophesy or wishful thinking.

Wow. This smacks of totalitarianism bordering on Nazism. Now I understand why you seem to be filled with so much hate.

@dozeriam:

You're right, the article had little worth commenting on. It's a painting. The artist took liberties of his own choosing. It's pretty.

What else needs to be said?

@dozeriam
"The four researchers don't buy into the farfetched hypotheses introduced by Dan Brown in his best-selling book, The Da Vinci Code"-
Just what do you think the topic is then? If you have something to contribute then do so- don't just flame both sides.

Funny how you quote from my post and manage to not include the part that EXPLICITLY answers your question. You've got an entire article about the interpretation of a painting. In that article, a single sentence saying that the researchers aren't looking at conspiracy theories based on Dan Brown's books. Then dozens of posts from people who apparently hate religion, and an equal number from people who either believe the bible is the literal Word Of God or people who just want to slap fight with the first group of people. There were maybe 2 or 3 posts relating to the actual interpretation of the symbolism of the painting.

@dozeriam:

You're right, the article had little worth commenting on. It's a painting. The artist took liberties of his own choosing. It's pretty.

What else needs to be said?

Personally, I would be happy to engage in a discussion of the symbolism of the painting both from a historical perspective (what they saw) as well as from a modern perspective (what we see).

Better still, how about a discussion on the political and economic environment of that era that led to painters being commissioned to make painting withthe requirement that they adhere to specific sets of rules so rigid that they had to resort to using symbolism to sneak in their artistic interpretations?

I believe in the power of people not god. I believe that the weakness of most people requires that they be managed for their own good. No supernatural forces involved. You know that. And it is evidence which has brought me to these conclusions, not prophesy or wishful thinking.

Wow. This smacks of totalitarianism bordering on Nazism. Now I understand why you seem to be filled with so much hate.

That'd be the first time I've seen populism associated with totalitarianism or nazism.

Then dozens of posts from people who apparently hate religion, and an equal number from people who either believe the bible is the literal Word Of God

Like I said, godders started it.

Personally, I would be happy to engage in a discussion of the symbolism of the painting

Well since you havent actually done so but instead only talked about doing so, youre not gonna know whether anybodys interested or not, are you? Physorg includes these articles to generate traffic. They know what people enjoy discussing. You obviously dont.

sets of rules so rigid

Its called oppressive religionist dogma; the kind we would be living with today if we didnt oppose it.

Funny how you quote from my post

Funny, I only quoted from a post by kschultz222... is that you? Are you the deceptive godder who started all this? Typical lying xian-

Personally, I would be happy to engage in a discussion of the symbolism of the painting both from a historical perspective (what they saw) as well as from a modern perspective (what we see).

Better still, how about a discussion on the political and economic environment of that era that led to painters being commissioned to make painting withthe requirement that they adhere to specific sets of rules so rigid that they had to resort to using symbolism to sneak in their artistic interpretations?

Well, considering someone else was paying him for the work , shouldn't they expect to get what they were paying for?

There's no doubt that Mr. Da Vinci had quite an imagination, but would he really go out of his way to mess with the minds of those who's hands fed him? I doubt he'd be that dumb.

I think he just painted what he thought would be both cool, and accepted by the employer.

There's no doubt that Mr. Da Vinci had quite an imagination, but would he really go out of his way to mess with the minds of those who's hands fed him? I doubt he'd be that dumb.

By many records Leonardo was quite the closet heretic, especially as he was studying human anatomy (at the time forbidden by the church proper under desecration laws). I don't doubt that as an intellectual, and being as fond of puzzles as he was, that he hid many a symbol within his works, especially one as influential and allegedly spiritual as this one.

Hacking at the Jesus myth does not prove my theories. But it doesn't hurt them.

You don't see that you are nothing but a "godder" without a "god".

Frajo, do you really disagree with what I'm saying here or the way I'm saying it? Like many religionists this person twists, obfuscates, insults with his nose in the air. I respond in kind, except I am more honest and direct with my disdain. And not once have I mentioned theories of mine so why attack me ad hominim?

I'm not attacking you. Instead, I'm presenting my observation that the cultural structures you like to attack (religions, "godders") are exhibited by yourself, too. You never speak of a "Grand Scheme of Things" but it is obvious that you adhere to this kind of thinking. Whatever happens in this world - you assume it to be part of a Grand Scheme.

I believe that the weakness of most people requires that they be managed for their own good.

This is inherently evil thinking if you intend to "manage people" against their own will.
Do you have any reason to assume that your definition of "their own good" is in any rational way superior to their definition of "their own good"?
How do you intend to defend your view of "your own good" when someone else steps up to "manage" you because he thinks you need to be "managed" for "your own good"?