Welcome dneyro. We have a thread on the long hair issue, I am transferring your comments and SouthSideSlim's comments there.

Topic: Did Jesus Have Long Hair?
http://www.wineintro.com/forum/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000195#000000

Jesus was not married. Why? He's God in the flesh! If that's what you believe, or even if you don't, but consider a possibility, think about it! How could a supreme Diety come to have a sexual relationship with any human being? He wasn't really a man, but he was "made in human likeness".
Also, and I know many may think this is not much of a clue, but don't you think such a bloodline or relationship would have been prophesied? Many other things were. And Mary would've been included, because the Old Testament books were written long before, therefore, I don't think they would've been trying to protect her.
Another thing, and I don't belive anyone has mentioned this yet, which surprises me. Jesus has a bride. The Church! She is mentioned four times in the bible, all in Revelation, chapters 19, 21, and 22. Revelation 21:9 says," One of the seven angels... said to me,"Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God." If Jesus had truly been married would the Bible have this? Doesn't the idea seem weird? Would he have betrayed his wife, his love, his, as Fred P puts it, beloved?
One last thing. About love, yes, God is love, and he loves all beings and has a great love. But it is not romantic love and I don't believe he is capable of romantic love. See, God created us. We are his children. And for him to choose just one of us and have a romantic affection for us? To romantically love one of his children? Can't you see where that is wrong? Jesus loved Mary very, very, much, but in the way he loves everyone of us very, very, much. God loves with a divine love, and that is all. If Jesus were merely a mortal man, I would say that the Mary M idea is "acceptable" but I know he is the Messiah, and the idea is not conceivable.
Chew on that for a while.

Obviously Jesus was married. Obviously this is Mary Magdalene at his immediate right. First, look as He and Mary seemed to be conjoined at the hip forming a V shape or better known as the Chalice. This is the representative chracter of feminitiy in earlier times. Looking at Mary to His immediate right you will notice feminine features: the flowing red hair, the hint of a bosom. Also notice how He and Mary are opposites, mirror images. Red robe blue cloak, to mary who wears blue robe and red cloak.
Also, furthermore He was a Jew and in those times to be celibate as a jew or to be unmarried as a jeiwsh man was forbidden. It was a social decorrum at the time that forbid this.
"And the companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by ut and expressed dissaproval. They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us?"
In the Gospel of Philip. Companion in those days is literary "Spouse."

My question is this.....
If the person pictured to Jesus' right is Mary M which one of the disciples was left out of the supper and why? There are 12 people with him.

"Obviously"? Come on! It is not "obvious".

srschuellezes has merely parroted directly from Brown's books at chapter 58.

No, it is the Apostle John, just as he is pictured throughout other classic paintings of the time: as a fair-haired, "tender-eyed" man, the "one whom Jesus loved".

Not much has changed, has it? Just as people bought snake oil in the 19th century, people in the 21st century are ready to buy into a work of fiction by Dan Brown, which cites fictional and/or obscure "gospels". Dan Brown is a modern P.T. Barnum, a man who recognizes that a sucker is born very minute.

Welcome to:

TheFibberNabber
Pippa
srschuellezes
Hadassah

Thanks for your comments

First of all the painting of Da Vinci is in error. According to well known traditions the table during that time is lowered and not like the table on the painting. Secondly, Da Vinci does not have any idea at all about the last supper. He painted it according to his imagination and not facts. He does not have any idea whether who is sitting where. He was born 1400 years after the death of Christ. Not unless photography is already invented at the time when Christ died, then I would believe it. Thirdly, the painting has udergone too many changes already as per records. No one really knows what the real painting looks like except for the painter which is Da vinci himself. Fourth, according to the bible, it plainly states the 12 disciples and the Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing was mentioned not even the gospel of Mary M mentioned that she was a part of the last supper. That is absurd. According to the gospel of Philip. Mary M is the beloved of Christ. If Mary M was really part of the last supper, then why did the 4 gospels omit such an important information. Are we saying that the 4 gospel is wrong in their recording. Who should I believe, four people who where there in the last supper of a person born 1400 years later? Just asking???

Hi Hadassah,

We're both Christian, I being a Roman Catholic. But I presented my argument on a factual basis considering that not all in here are Christians. Cheers!

at topic: The Last Supper depicted the exact scene where Jesus had just announced that one of the apostles would betray him. At that instance, based on the Bible, John is sitting next to Jesus while Peter was sitting next to John. Da Vinci, if he would like to include Mary in the picture, would not take away John from the painting for John played a very significant role.

Jesus loved John so much because John loved him so much. This in the same way that Jesus loved Mary Magdalene so much because she loved him so much. It doesn't necessarily follow that Jesus and Mary had a carnal relationship.

The authors of The Bible said that they based their writings on true accounts, while Dan Brown is saying that The Da Vinci Code is fiction. I prefer to believe both statements.

I don't think that the marriage of Jesus and MM is obvious. There is some suggestion of it in the Bible and in the Gnostic gospels - depending on one's interpretation.

It seems that Leonardo may have believed in it - again depending on one's interpretation of The Last Supper.

I understand that, while most Jewish men of 30 would have been married, some were not.