Debunking "UFO's" in Biblical Paintings

reply to post by Maroboduus


It IS a frikkin UFO

And my perception, that looks nothing like a cloud, neither luminous or not. At the angle it's at and the direction it's pointing, it looks like a ship, as in boat in the sky.

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by Maroboduus

 

It IS a frikkin UFO

And my perception, that looks nothing like a cloud, neither luminous or not. At the angle it's at and the direction it's pointing, it looks like a ship, as in boat in the sky.

So explain to me why all of these paintings depicting the same event all have the exact same symbolism: man in background looking up at the sky, man shielding his eyes, luminous cloud in the sky, etc etc...

You claim there couldn't possibly be rules dictating how to depict these things back then, despite the fact that it's a historical fact, so explain to me why every painter of that tradition just so happened to depict it in the same exact way.
Then, explain to me why every other painting depicting this event clearly shows a cloud, and yet this particular painting is supposedly a UFO. Explain why there was an established tradition of depicting this particular event by showing a man shielding his eyes looking up at a glowing cloud, and yet this must be a UFO despite the fact that this painting clearly follows that tradition. Explain why a nebulous grey blob shining light from it couldn't possibly be a cloud, like in every single other one of these paintings, but must be a UFO. Please, i would love to hear even one shred of logic from you. I have yet to hear any.

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
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?

Seriously? Why do people act like this? It's UFO or a hat? really. Objective mind? I think the problem is you spent too much money on books that sold you a load of BS and you can't face the fact they are BS. Face it, someone sold you a load and you bought it.

Originally posted by Maroboduus

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by Maroboduus

 

It IS a frikkin UFO

And my perception, that looks nothing like a cloud, neither luminous or not. At the angle it's at and the direction it's pointing, it looks like a ship, as in boat in the sky.

So explain to me why all of these paintings depicting the same event all have the exact same symbolism: man in background looking up at the sky, man shielding his eyes, luminous cloud in the sky, etc etc...

You claim there couldn't possibly be rules dictating how to depict these things back then, despite the fact that it's a historical fact, so explain to me why every painter of that tradition just so happened to depict it in the same exact way.
Then, explain to me why every other painting depicting this event clearly shows a cloud, and yet this particular painting is supposedly a UFO. Explain why there was an established tradition of depicting this particular event by showing a man shielding his eyes looking up at a glowing cloud, and yet this must be a UFO despite the fact that this painting clearly follows that tradition. Explain why a nebulous grey blob shining light from it couldn't possibly be a cloud, like in every single other one of these paintings, but must be a UFO. Please, i would love to hear even one shred of logic from you. I have yet to hear any.

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

There all UFOs mate, you don't expect me to accept your theories as fact do you? You haven't even answered my question of your stance on the UFO phenomenon.

A. It DOESN'T clearly show a cloud, in any way shape or form.
B. So if something unfamiliar was in the sky, you wouldn't shield your eyes or look at it then?
C. I don't recall ever seeing a cloud that shone light or looked like a burning fire ball.

Did you try and debunk this one yet?

Nuremberg, 1561:

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
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?

Seriously? Why do people act like this? It's UFO or a hat? really. Objective mind? I think the problem is you spent too much money on books that sold you a load of BS and you can't face the fact they are BS. Face it, someone sold you a load and you bought it.

Ahhh, so you don't believe the UFO phenomenon is real then?

Looks like someone hasn't weighed up all the evidence properly.

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
Ahhh, so you don't believe the UFO phenomenon is real then?

Looks like someone hasn't weighed up all the evidence properly.

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

you are just another brick in the wall of the deluded imaginary world of space aliens. You are all the evidence I need.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
Ahhh, so you don't believe the UFO phenomenon is real then?

Looks like someone hasn't weighed up all the evidence properly.

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

you are just another brick in the wall of the deluded imaginary world of space aliens. You are all the evidence I need.

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

I never even said aliens and nor would I, huge difference between UFOs and aliens mate.

Although, there's as much proof for aliens as there is for the theories on some these art works.

Deny Ignorance

reply to post by Maroboduus


In the interest of keeping this thread moving, I would suggest politely declining further comment toward Zcustosmorum. The rest of the participants in this thread will attempt to persuade him (to no avail, I'm sure, he has a very closed mind), but I am selfish and would rather see this thread continue to be informative rather than becoming what so many threads on this forum do. It's well-written and interesting, you're off to a great start and there's no point in wasting time barking at a wall.

I'll bark instead.

reply to post by Zcustosmorum


You classify something as a UFO in the attempt to keep it mysterious rather than looking for an answer because you're not actually looking for the truth. You want to maintain the fantasy you've created in your head, so even though you don't classify something as aliens (insisting instead upon relying on the fact that most people associate the term UFO with aliens), you have absolutely zero stake in finding out the truth of what it really is.

Step back and question your own assertions and you might realize that it's better to know the truth, rather than putting down people who are actually trying to figure out what's really going on with all of the questions out there.

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
reply to post by Maroboduus

 

In the interest of keeping this thread moving, I would suggest politely declining further comment toward Zcustosmorum. The rest of the participants in this thread will attempt to persuade him (to no avail, I'm sure, he has a very closed mind), but I am selfish and would rather see this thread continue to be informative rather than becoming what so many threads on this forum do. It's well-written and interesting, you're off to a great start and there's no point in wasting time barking at a wall.

I'll bark instead.

reply to post by Zcustosmorum

 

You classify something as a UFO in the attempt to keep it mysterious rather than looking for an answer because you're not actually looking for the truth. You want to maintain the fantasy you've created in your head, so even though you don't classify something as aliens (insisting instead upon relying on the fact that most people associate the term UFO with aliens), you have absolutely zero stake in finding out the truth of what it really is.

Step back and question your own assertions and you might realize that it's better to know the truth, rather than putting down people who are actually trying to figure out what's really going on with all of the questions out there.

A UFO is a UFO, nothing else. I never said aliens and all I'm saying is that some of the theories proposed here are ludicrous.

Secondly, your skewed view of me having a "fantasy in my head" is somewhat misguided, I am merely saying that you cannot tell what these paintings depict with any accuracy, correct me if I'm wrong on this, please do. We are all entitled to our opinion and the truth is something I would dearly love to have, but the fact is it isn't around on this subject.

Great explaination for these types of paintings. when you visit websites that always repeat themselves, they just say "hey look ufo right there!" i was always skeptical, but the last painting does look like a ufo though. ut you explained that as well. Good one! heh

We know what it is, but it does look like a ufo.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Because that's not how the bible was supposed to be interpreted. The King James bible uses the word "mount" for a reason. A mount is "a means of conveyance" (transportation). In this case, "god" descended from the sky in his mount, told Moses to make a perimeter around the mount, and anyone that touched the mount would die, which is exactly what the King James version says.

What you've just done here is called "eisegesis". You're reading meaning INTO the text, rather than reading meaning OUT OF the text (exegesis).

Using an English translation and insisting that your own interpretation is correct is really poor practice.

What you're looking at in this verse, in Hebrew, is the word "har" (translated "mount" in KJV). The word 'har' in Hebrew refers to: mountain 261 times, mount 224 times, hill 59 times, and hill country 1 time, in the bible. Nowhere is the word 'har' used to describe something with any form of movement or conveyance.

When talking about Biblical interpretation, it is utterly essential that you view the books in their original language, if you're seeking further clarification on a point. Otherwise, you can come to utterly incorrect conclusions - which is exactly what you've done.

For further info on 'har' and the fact that it means, quite literally and simply, 'mountain', check the blue letter bible.


[edit] ...for what it's worth, I'm NOT one of those who will argue that the Bible doesn't refer to UFOs. I think it does... and I think it does so very clearly (the manifestation in Ezekiel would be a key example); however, if you're going to argue that point of view, you should at least do it properly

Personally my own conclusion on this topic, having looked into it previously, is... yes, the Bible talks about extra (or -inter)dimensional craft and beings... but no, that's not necessarily what's being depicted in the kind of paintings that we've been looking at.

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
I don't recall ever seeing a cloud that shone light or looked like a burning fire ball.

I don't recall ever seeing an old man sitting on a throne of clouds in the sky, so that's probably supposed to be a UFO, too.
And i've never seen a person in the sky with wings, so those probably aren't angels; they're probably UFO's.
I've never seen a face on the sun, so that must be a UFO, too.
Now that i think about it, i've never seen dogs playing poker. That is obviously a painting of UFO's.

Everything that depicts something i've never seen before is probably a UFO. There is no such thing as symbolism!!!

But you're right...despite the fact that there was an established tradition, which that artist happened to belong to, of depicting glowing clouds as a representation of divinity, that's probably a UFO.
That makes much more sense than believing that it's a cloud as outlined in the tradition that the painter just happened to belong to. Good logic....

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
A UFO is a UFO, nothing else. I never said aliens and all I'm saying is that some of the theories proposed here are ludicrous..
you cannot tell what these paintings depict with any accuracy.

I'm not certain why you're seemingly incapable of grasping this, but they aren't theories. These were established, historically documented traditions. There were guidelines for how to depict these things. They are documented. You can do research and find them for yourself. Established traditions with established symbolism, part of documented history, which i have outlined in detail.

Honestly, think about how ludicrous this is:
There is copious amounts of historical evidence about these traditions and this symbolism. There is zero evidence suggesting these are UFO's. Yet you choose to ignore the historically documented evidence in favor of the proposition which has zero evidence.

You are actively searching for UFO's in these paintings, rather than considering them objectively.



For everybody else, i will post some more examples later tonight.

reply to post by Maroboduus


Some are similar of course, and you pointed that out very well, however you're still declaring what you believe it to be. No way can you claim to know what these artists, thought, seen or were thinking when they created these works.

reply to post by Maroboduus


Yep you're right! They look just like illuminated clouds you are spot on! Great detective work!

What about these little beauties?

reply to post by CaptainBeno


*sigh*
Have you even bothered to read my explanations? I just explained that bottom one on your first post, for example.

It was established tradition to depict that particular scene (Announcement to the Shepherds) with a guy shadowing his eyes looking up at a glowing cloud in the sky (which represented divinity).

It just so happens that an artist who just so happens to belong to that tradition just so happens to paint that event and just so happens to have a guy shadowing his eyes looking up at a glowing object...and yet you think it's a UFO, and not a cloud. Despite the fact that every other detail falls in line with the tradition, and that tradition includes looking at a glowing cloud.


I'm not sure what you guys don't understand about this, but art wan't the same back then as it is now. People couldn't paint whatever they wanted. They were commissioned to do these paintings. They were told what to paint, and how to paint it. The person who commissioned them had exact expectations of how these things would be depicted. And they expected them to be painted according to certain traditions. They had to paint these scenes a certain way. I've outlined these traditions and the symbolism behind them.

What's a bigger leap of faith: that the guy who belongs to the tradition actually, you know, followed it by painting a glowing cloud...
or that he said screw it and painted a UFO.

I just noticed the "or a hat?" post. So, are you debating whether or not that painting of St. Jerome depicts a red cardinal's hat? Please tell me you aren't....

Anyways, i'll cover the paintings in your second post later.
Once again, spoiler alert: those don't symbolize UFO's, either.

reply to post by Maroboduus


Hmmmm I would have thought having an over active imagination perhaps.

Faith? Or Facts?

We (Us) see UFO phenomena all the time.

Haven't seen Jesus or God yet on a cloud?........correct? Yes or No?

reply to post by Maroboduus

It was established tradition to depict that particular scene (Announcement to the Shepherds) with a guy shadowing his eyes looking up at a glowing cloud in the sky (which represented divinity).

No, it represented a glowing disc?

Mate, apples are apples?

Either you yourself painted these and know what everything on them symbolizes, or you're giving your subjective view as to what they are.

Who are who to dictate what and what not those (supposed) "objects" are? You don't know.

And by the way, prove Jesus was real and was the son of God first. I'll hold my breath.

Originally posted by CaptainBeno

Originally posted by CaptainBeno

Think i'll do these next, as i am already familiar with them. Just give me time to upload all of the pictures i will need.....

Originally posted by RomeByFire
Either you yourself painted these and know what everything on them symbolizes, or you're giving your subjective view as to what they are.

Who are who to dictate what and what not those (supposed) "objects" are? You don't know.

And by the way, prove Jesus was real and was the son of God first. I'll hold my breath.

I'm seriously not understanding what some of you aren't grasping about the fact that these were ESTABLISHED traditions of religious symbolism. They were following rigid guidelines. There were rules. It's not a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of documented traditions. They were following specific, rigid guidelines regarding a specific system religious symbolism.
It's not as if i'm making my interpretations of these symbols up as i go along. They are firmly established.
What is hard to comprehend about that?

Also, i never said anything about God or Jesus. That has nothing to do with it. I'm not religious, and i don't believe in God. This is about the supposed UFO's in these paintings and what they truly symbolize, nothing else.