Those Who Follow the Beast

by cameo-d 24 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Mythbuster

  http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/m/master/zunk_hu/zunk_hu1/index.html says it is Saint Martin and the Beggar.

  The Episode of the Cloak

  While Martin was still a soldier at Amiens he experienced the vision that became the most-repeated story about his life. He was at the gates of the city of Amiens with his soldiers when he met a scantily dressed beggar. He impulsively cut his own military cloak in half and shared it with the beggar. That night Martin dreamed of Jesus wearing the half-cloak he had given away. He heard Jesus say to the angels: "Here is Martin, the Roman soldier who is not baptised; he has clad me." (Sulpicius, ch 2). In another story, when Martin woke his cloak was restored, and the miraculous cloak was preserved among the relic collection of the Merovingian kings of the Franks.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_of_Tours#The_Episode_of_the_Cloak
• 

  journey-on

  Thanks, Mythbuster (once again :-)

  There always seems to be a story behind the published story, one told in the details and peculiarities
• 

  cameo-d

  Journey-on: "Why do you think this is a harlot, cameo-d? It's dressed more like a cleric of some sort to me."

  Well, who do you think the harlot represents if not the clergy classes? The potentates wear robes of scarlet and purple---even today. The harlot rides the beast---means the Harlot is the one who is driving or controlling the systems today; and the beast represents the world governments. It is Rome that dictates to ALL nations through treaties.

  The clergy is simply another, albeit lower, echelon of secret societies. They are all connected into the body of the Harlot.
• 

  coffee_black

  As Mythbuster pointed out, this painting is titled "St. Martin and the Beggar" Are you saying that the artist didn't know who he was painting?

  Coffee
• 

  cameo-d

  As Mythbuster pointed out, this painting is titled "St. Martin and the Beggar" Are you saying that the artist didn't know who he was painting?

  Coffee

  Coffee, It was the Church who sponsored and supported these artists. Without church sponsorship, they would have no reputation and no income. Even if they more enjoyed painting portraits for the wealthy, or beautiful pastoral scenes, they had to go where their bread was buttered.

  I imagine that many artists may have been priveliged to get a glimpse of the inner workings and politics of how the Church created such a lucrative business and the power they wielded over the people. I like to think that perhaps some of these artists attempted to communicate truths in a subliminal manner and made up an opposite, but appropriate, story to the clergy to satisfy their pomposity.

  Consider this: Does the Church really have any use for someone who cannot contribute money or material wealth to their cause? Does the Church have any use for someone who has no Status in the community and thus has no influence and can put no peer pressure on others?

  Even in today's world this is true. Do you know or have you seen people who are believing all the WT crap and yet they are not accepted into the fold because they "don't look right"? Maybe they don't dress right, or maybe they don't have teeth? They don't fit the "JW image"? Maybe they are lame like the beggar above. They would not even be fit for door-to-door service, according to the criteria of those in charge. I have seen those ones kicked to the curb and denied a place. They may go to the Hall once in a while and ask for some literature when they have a few dollars to pay for it, but they are not really welcomed in the group.

  When I think on these things I also think about the huge gardens at the Vatican. Of course, the Pomps eat well from this garden. But do you think any of it goes to feed the poor? From what I have read elsewhere, it is another souce of income. According to the information I read, apparently, they squeeze every penny they can get. Supposedly, the surplus is sold as fine organic produce to the markets for those who can afford the tarriff and status of eating from the Vatican's garden. I will see if I can find the source to document this as I do not want to accuse anyone wrongly and also so that we can weigh the source.

  Oh, and beware of trick wording when you see publicity that says food goes to "Feed the hungry". Being hungry is not the same as being poor. Even the wealthy get hungry. You only think "the hungry" means the poor because the subliminal deception translates to "poor" in your mind because that is what you expect and what you want to see. But it is not reality. It is a word trick.

  I posted something recently from a church website where people who will not pledge a regular tithe amount or who fall behind in paying it are now disfellowshiped from their churches for their lack of support. This is currently going on now. I remember reading here about a year ago or so, WT was asking JWs to fill out "voluntary" monetary support. I expect they will follow the lead of the other churches and also DF people who do not live up to "their monetary promise to Jehovah" as things get worse with the economy.

  So when I look at this painting, I see the Harlot clergy "cutting off" those who are truly needy and desperate because that is not the true goal of the Church. The purpose of any Corporation is to use people for commerce and the Church is no different. This is the heart of the matter.
• 

  coffee_black

  I understand your point Cameo, but I think you are placing way more significance in this painting than is called for.

  My second major in College was Art History. I fully understand how artists survived in the 1400s (the time of this painting) This was an unknown artist, and if this was truly commissioned by the church, he would not have been unknown. Those who were commissioned to paint were, for the most part, the known or up and coming artists of thier time. We don't know who commissioned the painting, or even why it was painted. To interpret the meaning of a painting without further info about the artist, his views, and who, if anyone, commissioned the painting.... is pointless. You are attaching your own opinions/bias to an obscure work of art.

  Of course, you are free to do so, but that doesn't mean you know what your're talking about.

  Coffee
• 

  MissyM

  Why does the beggar appear to have a left foot on his right leg? VERY creepy!!!!
• 

  coffee_black

  MissyM This artist was not particularly skilled.

  As to the significance of the red robe (if in fact, the artist was using that symbolism)

  from: http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/symbols/colors.htm

  Redis the color of blood and therefore is the liturgical color for the commemoration of martyred saints. Red is used as the liturgical color for Pentecost, since it is the color of fire.

  Coffee
• 

  cameo-d

  Coffee: My second major in College was Art History. I fully understand how artists survived in the 1400s (the time of this painting)

  I am thrilled to have your input!

  Coffee: This was an unknown artist, and if this was truly commissioned by the church, he would not have been unknown.

  So maybe he pissed off the Pope, or maybe too much copal in the varnish mixture and his signature darkened beyond recognition?

  Coffee: Those who were commissioned to paint were, for the most part, the known or up and coming artists of thier time. We don't know who commissioned the painting, or even why it was painted.

  True. I'd like to investigate further. I am reading on another of his paintings right now dealing with Saint Katherine. More later.

  Coffee: To interpret the meaning of a painting without further info about the artist, his views, and who, if anyone, commissioned the painting.... is pointless.

  Surely, knowing something about the artist and his viewpoints could tell us a lot. But you know if he had any viewpoints opposing his benefactors that it would not be made known in an overt manner. Since we do not know his true feelings, and whatever we do find out could very well be contrived or heresay, we have to go with what this artist left us. We have only the painting and must decipher it's meaning and intent.

  Coffee: You are attaching your own opinions/bias to an obscure work of art.

  And isn't this often the very purpose of art? To evoke interpretation based on how we relate to it? Isn't art itself subject to our reaction to it?

  Coffee: Of course, you are free to do so, but that doesn't mean you know what your're talking about.

  Being an art scholar doesn't mean that your opinion is any more valid than mine.

  However, I do appreciate your viewpoints and your expertise is most welcomed because I would really like to discuss art pieces of this era and I think you can offer balance, insight, and challenging questions that would lead to deeper pursuit.

  Thanks for responding.
• 

  cameo-d

  Coffee:

  Redis the color of blood and therefore is the liturgical color for the commemoration of martyred saints.

  And who has always been responsible for martyring the saints? Perhaps they wear red to symbolize their blood-guilt.

  In scripture, it is the ones who have made their robes white who gain salvation.