Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Debunking "UFO's" in Biblical Paintings

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

In John 18:36, Jesus himself said:

"My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But my kingdom is from another place."

Where and what other place could Jesus' kingdom possibly be? Christians will say "heaven" (the sky), but what's in the heavens/sky? Other stars and other.......planets.


If you take the bible literally without any thought, then you believe in giant flying rolls, flying pillars, flying furnaces, and flying chariots.

We know none of those things fly. But we do know that spacecraft fly. That's how the gods and angels ascended and descended from the heavens (sky).

For instance, in Exodus when "god" descends from the sky and lands, there was great smoke and fire associated with his landing, and the ground quaked.


You are making the same mistake you are accusing others of making when it comes to bible interpretation versus literal translation (which we're all aware is contradictory itself, considering the number of translations it has already been through has likely turned the language to mush anyway).

You are applying aliens to the stories and finding places it fits, and using those as evidence, which is flimsy.

Feel free to ignore what I say next: The bible is an absolute atrocity of poor wording via translation upon translation upon translation, and we can really learn nothing concrete scientifically about anything in the book. Why people cite the bible for evidence of ancient aliens baffles me.

As a test, run a simple sentence through google translate, and translate it five times, through five different languages, then back to english. Then imagine ages worth of stories, reams and reams of paper (once people actually started writing it down) going through the same process.

The language is faulty, and has been re-written too many times for any actual facts to make it through. We can learn just as much about aliens from the Grimm's Brothers fairy tales as we can from the bible.




posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Maroboduus
 


Great thread, by the way. I'm really enjoying it. Are there more examples of other imagery that is taken out of context?



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
How about the so-called "Sputnik" painting?



This is often described, as i said, as being a depiction of a Sputnik-like satellite of UFO, complete with two "antennas."

Note that we have Jesus, God, and a dove. This is how the Holy Trinity was often depicted, with the Holy Ghost taking the form of a dove.
Two other things were also common in paintings of the Holy Trinity: God and/or Jesus holding the Celestial Sphere which represents the universe, and Jesus and/or God holding wands.
A common characteristic of the Celestial Sphere is that the Sun is sometimes visible on it, as are lines representing the lines of longitude and latitude.
The Sphere AND wands being held by Jesus and/or God are not ALWAYS present together, although usually they are. But at least some of these characteristics were almost always present.

In the "Sputnik" painting, we simply have a case where the position in which God and Jesus are holding their wands makes it appear as if the wands are projecting from the sphere itself.

Other examples:

Celestial Sphere present, God holding wand:


God holding celestial sphere, both holding wands:


Sphere present, both holding wands:


Sphere and wand:


Sphere, no wand:


edit on 6-9-2012 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-9-2012 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by Maroboduus
 

Thanks for answering. I have to admit, you make a convincing case with the paintings... Are you saying, in summary that not only are these examples not depictions of ufo's, but that you also don't even believe they exist?

Not necessarily. I believe 100% that there are other lifeforms in the universe.
But as for UFO's visiting Earth...i must admit, i'm still undecided. I keep an open mind about it, but i feel no need to jump to conclusions one way or the other. Not until i finally see something that convinces me beyond any reasonable doubt, one way or the other. I just don't feel the need to immediately formulate answers to every question/mystery without proof. Nothing wrong with mystery.

I would like to think we have been visited by UFO's, if for no other reason than it would make life seem a bit more interesting and mysterious. But at the same time, i have yet to find evidence that convinces me entirely.
edit on 6-9-2012 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-9-2012 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-9-2012 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by shyster
Never mind the UFOS IN THE PICTURE YOUR MISSING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM .You firstly need to prove that God exists as the guy on the cross is ment to be his son . If you carnt prove that then this whole conversation is pointless and the painting is a fake !!


You won't find me supporting that debate.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Good thread, I would like to add 2 very good videos -






posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Maroboduus
 


This thread is a complete waste of time, it's all down to personal perception anyway


Debunking my left cheek, this thread is like trying to explain a Salvador Dali painting
, decide for yourself as there's no proof for or against on this one.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by Maroboduus
 


This thread is a complete waste of time, it's all down to personal perception anyway


Debunking my left cheek, this thread is like trying to explain a Salvador Dali painting
, decide for yourself as there's no proof for or against on this one.

Um, ok...you can just completely ignore facts if you want to.
But the FACT is that these were established artistic traditions with concrete symbological meanings. That is not "down to personal perception," that is a historical fact.

To say "there is no proof for or against this one" is just silly. Feel free to research this on your own. If you do, you will find that these schools of painting had an established symbolism, and traditional ways of depicting certain things and events, and that these were concretely defined. These paintings all adhere to that symbolism. I think that constitutes proof, no? What more proof do you want? I just posted numerous examples, and outlined the symbolism that was used in each of these traditions, all of which definitively explains what is depicted in these paintings.

But by all means, go ahead and ignore historical fact simply because it doesn't mesh with your worldview....
edit on 6-9-2012 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-9-2012 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maroboduus

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by Maroboduus
 


This thread is a complete waste of time, it's all down to personal perception anyway


Debunking my left cheek, this thread is like trying to explain a Salvador Dali painting
, decide for yourself as there's no proof for or against on this one.

Um, ok...you can just completely ignore facts if you want to. But the FACT is that these were established traditions with concrete meanings. This was a defined symbology. That is not "down to personal perception," that is a historical fact.
But by all means, go ahead and ignore historical fact simply because it doesn't mesh with your worldview....


You're missing the point mate, neither you nor me has any idea what the artists of these pieces seen or were thinking.

And you said painting(s) in your thread title, where are other examples of your "debunking"
edit on 6-9-2012 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by Maroboduus
 


This thread is a complete waste of time, it's all down to personal perception anyway


Debunking my left cheek, this thread is like trying to explain a Salvador Dali painting
, decide for yourself as there's no proof for or against on this one.


I have met many artists on many different levels.

I would never try to get in their heads.




posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
You're missing the point mate, neither you nor me has any idea what the artists of these pieces seen or were thinking.
edit on 6-9-2012 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)

*sigh*
No, you're apparently missing the point. Entirely.
We DO know exactly what they were thinking, because they belonged to certain schools and traditions, as i have said repeatedly, and these traditions had definitive symbols used to depict certain things. They were taught to use these symbols in their depictions. It was not a question of interpretation. It was not a question of choice or artistic license. It was a matter of FOLLOWING THE RULES OF THEIR TRADITIONS. These rules dictated how to portray these events, and they followed them.

You're making the mistake of comparing it to modern art such as Dali, when the two couldn't be more dissimilar. Art was completely different back then. It was a rigid discipline. People who belonged to these traditions had to follow these rules, or they wouldn't get any work. They were commissioned to do these paintings, and the people who commissioned them had certain expectations.

I'm not sure what exactly you aren;t understanding about this????


Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
And you said painting(s) in your thread title, where are other examples of your "debunking"
edit on 6-9-2012 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)

What are you talking about? I said i was debunking the theory that UFO's were depicted in these religious paintings, and that's exactly what i'm doing. I have debunked numerous examples already, and have more to come. What is your point, exactly? Am i supposed to be debunking other topics too for some reason?
edit on 6-9-2012 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-9-2012 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-9-2012 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


How convenient, do me a favour and debunk these then


"The Madonna with Saint Giovannino", 15th century


Carlo Crivelli 1439-1495


Aert de Gelder's The Baptism of Christ, 1710.


Appreciate it thanks




posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


How convenient, do me a favour and debunk these then


"The Madonna with Saint Giovannino", 15th century


Carlo Crivelli 1439-1495


Aert de Gelder's The Baptism of Christ, 1710.


Appreciate it thanks


Maybe you should read through the thread again. I already did that second painting you posted. It's on the first page. Go back and read it, and then try to tell me that i'm wrong. Good luck with that.

I will do the first painting you posted as soon as i put the kids to bed, trust me on that. I'm already familiar with that particular painting, and i know exactly what the symbolism means.

Spoiler alert: it doesn't mean UFO's.
edit on 6-9-2012 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Maroboduus
 


As I said, our perceptions are much different. Additionally, your debunkery is laughable, if you came up with one explanation which covered most of ancient "UFO" pictures, I would think about it, but different explanations for different paintings? Man c'mon, wake up.
edit on 6-9-2012 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by Maroboduus
 


As I said, our perceptions are much different. Additionally, your debunkery is laughable, if you came up with one explanation which covered most of ancient "UFO" pictures, I would think about it, but different explanations for different paintings? Man c'mon, wake up.
edit on 6-9-2012 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)

Are you seriously this dense? Or are you simply trolling?

What don't you understand about this:
A) Those paintings belong to different traditions/eras, and are depicting different Biblical events.
B) There was different symbolism in different traditions, and different symbolism specific to different Biblical events.
C)Hence, different explanations.
Really not hard to comprehend.
What you're saying is tantamount to saying "if you could come up with one math equation that solved every math problem, i would believe you; but different equations for different problems? Wake up!"
edit on 6-9-2012 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
First of all:

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
Carlo Crivelli 1439-1495




Originally posted by Maroboduus
As you said, this is often cited as a depiction of a UFO, as well:



Amusingly, this is as much an example of using a shoddy image as anything else. Let's look at a clearer picture of this painting:



It can now be seen that this "disc" shooting rays from the sky is actually a cloud, within which are two circles of angels, shining divine light upon Mary. A cloud full of angels shining holy light upon this particular event was a very common depiction:










edit on 6-9-2012 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maroboduus

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by Maroboduus
 


As I said, our perceptions are much different. Additionally, your debunkery is laughable, if you came up with one explanation which covered most of ancient "UFO" pictures, I would think about it, but different explanations for different paintings? Man c'mon, wake up.
edit on 6-9-2012 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)

Are you seriously this dense? Or are you simply trolling?

What don't you understand about this:
A) Those paintings belong to different traditions/eras, and are depicting different Biblical events.
B) There was different symbolism in different traditions, and different symbolism specific to different Biblical events.
C)Hence, different explanations.
Really not hard to comprehend.
What you're saying is tantamount to saying "if you could come up with one math equation that solved every math problem, i would believe you; but different equations for different problems? Wake up!"
edit on 6-9-2012 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)


Ok, I'll try and simplify it for you, my dense-ness and lower I.Q. make it hard to communicate here


Are you actually, in all honesty saying, that you can debunk every single ancient piece of art-work with what, seemingly depicts a "UFO" ?

And I can't even believe you used the cloud explanation on one of them
edit on 6-9-2012 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 


I'm with you on this, a lot of it is just personal portrayal, while I don't believe all of these depict UFOs, I believe they did see them back then, and it's highly possible they put them into paintings.

Also, just because someone belonged to a certain religion/culture doesn't mean we should assume they FOLLOWED every standard/rule when it came to art. It's literally impossible to know what they saw or were thinking based off of their standings with any society. To think otherwise is ignorant in my opinion. That's like saying they didn't have free will, or the ability to think/act for themselves.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Maroboduus
 


Seems to me like you're just making this crap up as you go along mate, sorry but that's the way I see it. You can't properly analyze anything without having an objective mind, and you clearly don't.

What's the real problem here? Either you have a problem with UFOs existing in general or you just can't deal with the fact that maybe, they've probably been here for a lot longer than we think, which is it?



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
How convenient, do me a favour and debunk these then


"The Madonna with Saint Giovannino", 15th century


With pleasure...

Note the person in the background staring up at the "UFO." This man is a shepherd. How do we know this? Because we know what event this painting is depicting, and we know the rules of these depictions according to the RIGID ARTISTIC DISCIPLINE the artist was following.
In the art of this particular tradition, with its concrete rules, we often see this same event portrayed in the background of depictions of the Nativity such as this one.
It symbolizes "The Announcement to the Shepards"



and there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field keeping watch over their flock by night. And lo, an angel of the Lord come upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear ye not: for behold!, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you was born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord


Now, according to this rigid discipline, how was the Announcement to the Shepards supposed to be depicted? In the same ways that angels and divinity were symbolized in some of the paintings i cited earlier: as either a luminous cloud, or a luminous cloud containing angels.

So, let's take a look at a few other painting of the Nativity by artists who were also members of this same discipline, shall we???
Gee, wouldn't it be weird if these paintings also showed a shepherd staring into the sky at some sort of luminous cloud?!?













WOW!!! What a coincidence!!!!
Note that, time and time again in these painting depicting the same biblical event by artists of the same tradition, we see a man shielding his eyes while gazing up at the object. Note, time and time again, they are gazing at some sort of luminous cloud

So in all of these paintings depicting the same event, we just happen to have these similarities. But you're right, it's probably a coincidence, and not the fact that this was an established artistic symbolism for depicting this event. We couldn't possibly know how all of these people happened to depict this event in the same way, right? It couldn't possibly be because they were following a specific tradition! And despite the fact that every other painting of this event clearly shows the man looking up at a divine cloud, i'm sure the other painting belonging to this discipline is actually depicting a UFO, and not a cloud with rays of divine light emanating from it....






You're right, that can't possibly be a luminous loud like every other depiction of this same event from this same tradition. Must be a UFO...

edit on 6-9-2012 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join