Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Debunking "UFO's" in Biblical Paintings

page: 5
26
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Yeah, this thread confuses me. Let's all take a step back for a minute. None of these paintings were done by artists that actually "saw" any of this. Each painting is based on biblical events that were supposed to have occurred years and years and years earlier.

There are at least two fallacies here:

1) People arguing that the OP can't know what the artists were thinking or trying to convey... As the OP has nicely explained and demonstrated, there were strict guidelines in place that determined how certain events were supposed to be depicted. Again, the artists aren't depicting what they personally saw. However...

2) The OP claiming that there is no mystery here because the actual depictions are exactly what they seem to be... While the OP can explain which events are portrayed a certain way, he does nothing to explain why those events are portrayed that way in the first place. It's kind of like this:

Person A: "THERE'S A UFO IN THIS PAINTING!"
Person B: "No, it's a luminous cloud with two circles of angels in it shooting a beam of light down to the Earth."
Person A: "Oh OK, that explains everything!"

The real question here is why?

[The previous does not apply to the painting of the red hat with tassles. That one is stupid to argue, as the OP mentioned.]




posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Maroboduus
 


The red hat is a Saturn Hat.

en.wikipedia.org...

Saturn! El in Caanite means Saturn. They code everything to Saturn, and Saturn's demiurge is depicted as devouring his own children.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Maroboduus
 


That one is sited as a ufo because it IS a cloud ship ufo much like the ones from Mount Sinai depicted in the literal translation of the Old Testament, that led Moses.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 7-9-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Maroboduus
 


That "disc" could also just be a gateway to heaven. It doesn't really look like a disc anyways. Just sayin



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
community-2.webtv.net...




"For now, I believe that it is safe to say that UFOs appear to be more of a problem for the Judeo-Christian tradition. Most scientific and religious literature in the West does not address the issue of UFOs. On this both science and religion agree: UFOs are a drunken relative that we would well never to speak of in public," writes Rev. Carter (page 100).

Before Rev. Downing, now a retired Presbyterian minister in Endwell, N.Y., first brought the subject up in his 1968 book, republished in 1998, clergy were openly involved in UFO investigations and sightings. A clergy member served 45 years ago on the board of directors of pioneering NICAP, the National Investigations Committee of Aerial Phenomenon. The Rev. William Gill, an Anglican priest, along with other witnesses at is mission, saw and communicated with hand-waving UFO entities over Boi-ni in Papua, New Guinea on June 26, 1959, a famous sighting report.

Bringing the issue into the public arena, Rev. Carter writes, "The UFO phenomenon must force us to rethink our concept of the sacred," asking us to "open ourselves to endless possibilities" and to consider that "the questions are much more important than the answers."

In raising this, Rev. Carter, a comparitive religion student, also cites Hindu, Mayan, Vedic, Greek and Buddhist text and sources, among others, including the Book of Enoch, excluded from the Bible like the Gnostic texts.


yes citing other ancient documents of Hindu, Mayan, Vedic, Greek, Buddhist, Enoch and I would also include Sumar, would tend to lend a supportive hand.

In the Literal Translation, Mauro Biglino points out that the Hebrew language did not exist in the time of Moses, and that it consists only of consonants, and placement of vowels changes word meanings, so 70 different translations are possible, but there are default words, that come from more ancient places and literature from other places that link words, or define them. Elohim and Annanuki for example.

Ruach which after many many years became associated with God's Spirit, in Genesis, God's Spirit upon the water, which is a Sumar word, that depicts something hovering over the water creating wind.



From my thread here and quote from the video's translated of Mauro Biglino's lecture.



Mauro Biglino: Unexpected Bible - Translating it literally (1 of 6) - Eng. subs


www.abovetopsecret.com...


Roughly 11 11 in the video.

(At 11 14, it shows this craft, and wind RU and A. I suppose it could be an acorn wearing a strangely bent streamlined helm or something like that. Hmmmm......) me lol.

--He says, because the word isn't Jewish, but Sumerian origin.

--That is the pictogram made by those that saw the first RUACH, which is where the RUACH of the Hebrews come from.

So, that is a thing we don't know what it is, let say we don't know it, so we can take it easy, but which decidedly hovers on the water.

---As we don't know what it is, we'll name it by borrowing the name directly from the Vatica, so that we won't go wrong.

If you read last editions of the “Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis”, published by the “:Liberia Editrice Vatican” where they insert the latin neologisms, you'll find that the Vatican inserted “navis sideralis”, which means “starship” They inserted “areia navis”, thus “airship”, they inserted “aireus viator”, that is “astronaut” and they inserted an acronym, “R.I.V” which means: res inexplicatae volantes”, that is UFO's.
---The ones of you that just saw that stuff now will realize that it's an unknown thing that hovers on the water.


The reason there are depictions of ufo's in the artwork is because there are ufo's depicted in the bible and the Vatican even has this information buried in its texts.

And Mauro Biglino was credentialed in the thread as well.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
There seems to be a massive misunderstanding on this thread, when people are pointing out that some of the things in these art works might be clouds, others are clearly not. And when the term "UFO" is used it means UNIDENTIFIED. The Op may believe it's a cloud, however some of these objects look nothing like clouds.

Now the OP seems to think that they're all explainable in some way, shape or form which they are clearly not. Secondly, due to the OP not answering my question on his stance on UFOs, I would have to question the true motives of this thread


I still see there has been no explanation offered for the Nuremberg carving of 1561 either.
edit on 7-9-2012 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
Now the OP seems to think that they're all explainable in some way, shape or form which they are clearly not. Secondly, due to the OP not answering my question on his stance on UFOs, I would have to question the true motives of this thread


I still see there has been no explanation offered for the Nuremberg carving of 1561 either.
edit on 7-9-2012 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)

I did explain my stance on UFO's. Maybe you should actually go back and read the thread again. You will find my stance on UFO's, as well as my numerous explanations as to WHY these artists HAD to portray these events in certain ways.
Painting religious events in any other way other than adhering to the strict Church guidelines and accepted Church symbolism was considered heresy, and was punishable by excommunication or death.
Therefore, all of these paintings were done within that strict framework of the accepted Church symbolism of the time.


The Nuremberg carving is not a religious painting, and thus has no relevance to my thread specifically about religious paintings.

No comments on the paintings you smugly tried to stump me with, which i proceeded to explain in full detail> Are you just going to ignore that?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Maroboduus
 


No, you didn't explain in full detail, you gave your theories on what you thought they all meant.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TurkeyTots
Yeah, this thread confuses me. Let's all take a step back for a minute. None of these paintings were done by artists that actually "saw" any of this. Each painting is based on biblical events that were supposed to have occurred years and years and years earlier.

There are at least two fallacies here:

1) People arguing that the OP can't know what the artists were thinking or trying to convey... As the OP has nicely explained and demonstrated, there were strict guidelines in place that determined how certain events were supposed to be depicted. Again, the artists aren't depicting what they personally saw. However...

2) The OP claiming that there is no mystery here because the actual depictions are exactly what they seem to be... While the OP can explain which events are portrayed a certain way, he does nothing to explain why those events are portrayed that way in the first place. It's kind of like this:

Person A: "THERE'S A UFO IN THIS PAINTING!"
Person B: "No, it's a luminous cloud with two circles of angels in it shooting a beam of light down to the Earth."
Person A: "Oh OK, that explains everything!"

The real question here is why?

[The previous does not apply to the painting of the red hat with tassles. That one is stupid to argue, as the OP mentioned.]


Yes, I agree with you. Also the first one is a good explanation for a misunderstanding. With the UFO objects being the sun and the moon. But scince the hat, all the other explanations have been pretty weak, a luminouse cloud
with angels being the gospel for what actualy happened sounds as ludicrous as a UFO, depending from what side of the fence you are looking, and so do the words in the book for that matter.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by Maroboduus
 

No, you didn't explain in full detail, you gave your theories on what you thought they all meant.

Dude, i will explain this one more time:
It's not a matter of what i THINK they meant. It's a matter of what they HAD to mean, according to the strict guidelines of the Church that commissioned the artwork. No interpretation. They HAD to depict these things in a very specific way according to the church law of that time and place.
Please explain to me what you're having a hard time grasping about this. I'm not even being sarcastic anymore, i am genuinely curious as to what you don't understand about it...


Originally posted by TurkeyTots
2) The OP claiming that there is no mystery here because the actual depictions are exactly what they seem to be... While the OP can explain which events are portrayed a certain way, he does nothing to explain why those events are portrayed that way in the first place.

It was not my intention to explain WHY they were depicted in these manners. Maybe i'll cover that in another thread down the road.
The sole purpose of this thread was to show that these are not depictions of UFO's, nothing more or less. It's obviously a common misconception, and one that can easily be cleared up by actually researching the paintings, the Church symbolism of the time, etc etc...


Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
reply to post by Maroboduus
 

That "disc" could also just be a gateway to heaven. It doesn't really look like a disc anyways. Just sayin

??? That's exactly what i said: the circle of light symbolizes the heavens opening up, allowing God to "descend like a dove" from the heavens. It was very common to symbolize the heavens opening by using a circle of light. See also, the "Miracle of Snow" wherein Jesus and Mary are contained within a circle as they appear to Pope Liberius.

edit on 7-9-2012 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

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.


A brick isn't the whole wall either. And there is a huge difference between symboloism and UFOs Dude.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Is the idea of symbolism totally lost?

Is it so hard to believe that one thing could mean another, especially within something as traditionally interpretive as religious allegory and artwork?

To the proponents that these artwork depict UFOs: What message are you trying to convey? Because the way I read your posts, you're explaining that even though the depictions that the OP has supplied and examined were created the way they were by church doctrine and not via the artist's comprehension or physical witness of the events, the artists themselves were trying to put forward the idea that there were craft in the sky, rather than what the church was telling them to paint?

I'm not understanding why it is so hard to grasp that the artists who painted those pictures were neither there for the events they were painting, nor had any say in how the events were portrayed. They were the Xerox machines of yesteryear (is how I'm seeing it now). So the physical painting is not a factual event of the scene they're depicting (which is why they included symbolism, to show the audience what they're intending to portray), nor are the objects in them supposed to be exactly what was witnessed during the events themselves. It is symbolism, so the people of the artist's time could understand what was being portrayed.

Ask yourself if you are able to take the bible literally as an historical document, and believe everything it states literally. Most of you will say no, so why is it so much more likely that the book is correct except it's about aliens rather than God? Aliens are easier to get behind nowadays than God, that's one thing, but it's still taking the translation of a book that doesn't even hold up to most religious people who still believe. So why would it hold up to something even more abstract?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Op are you skipping my questions, or was you getting to me?


What you are saying is exactly what a priest would say if I asked him what the pictures were. And he follows a book. Not feelings, not instincts, not nature, a book.
edit on 7-9-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
And when the term "UFO" is used it means UNIDENTIFIED. The Op may believe it's a cloud, however some of these objects look nothing like clouds.


"Unidentified" in the sense that the objects in the paintings are symbolic of holy events? Or aliens? Because these are renaissance paintings depicting holy events. They are religious in nature and quite clearly portray the symbolism that was used during the time to show the audience which event was taking place.

Sometimes the clouds don't look like clouds because the artist couldn't render clouds as well as some others. I don't know how much artistic talent you possess, but I know I couldn't draw a cloud without it looking like one of those "UFO"s.

Also, I know it's difficult for you to go back and read the thread, and you're stuck up on what the OP's stance on the ETH is. I went back and found it myself:


Originally posted by Maroboduus

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.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Reading through some of the comments, allow me to clear some things up. Some of you don't understand the purpose of the thread, or what i am doing.

A) I am not attempting to disprove aliens or UFO's, or the theory that aliens have visited in the past, etc etc..
As i said before, i am undecided about that. Not enough proof one way or the other.

What i AM doing is disproving that these particular paintings depict UFO's.
If you truly want to find evidence of UFO's in ancient times, it would probably be helpful to get the patently false "evidence" out of the way so you can concentrate on the good stuff, no? Do you really think it helps your ancient alien theory to cling to the belief that these paintings depict UFO's, when there is copious amounts of evidence proving that they don't? It hurts your credibility, and sends you down a false path.
Get stuff like this out of the way, then you can narrow your focus. You should be thankful, not bitter.

Once again: proving that these paintings do not depict UFO's in no way disproves aliens as a whole. I'm not even certain how some of you are making that connection, other than extremely faulty logic. Disproving one piece of "evidence" in no way equates to damning a theory as a whole.


B) I am not making any comment upon the Bible, or God, or angels, etc etc.
For the record, i don't believe in God or the Bible. But that is completely irrelevant to what i am doing.
This is not a religious commentary: it is simply evidence that these paintings do not depict UFO's, and that there was an established, concrete symbolism that these artists were using.

It was not a matter of them interpreting these events however they saw fit, or painting things they saw in the sky. It was a matter of them painting WHAT they were told, HOW they were told, according to the rules and guidelines of the church that commissioned them

C) Many of you are ACTIVELY searching for UFO's in these paintings, rather than considering them objectively. You are making no effort to learn what people, places, and events these paintings are depicting, or what the established church symbolism at the time truly was. I hate to break it to you, but that stuff is pretty important to understanding these paintings.

If you can't comprehend why actively searching for UFO's while remaining wholly ignorant of the context of the painting is a poor strategy, as opposed to actually researching them and considering them objectively, then you are pretty much hopeless.




I have plenty more to come, i'll post some more after lunch and whatnot.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Wifibrains
 


The artists who painted those pictures also followed a book. And a church, which explained explicitly how to depict the events they were to paint. Not feelings, not instinct, not nature.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wifibrains
But scince the hat, all the other explanations have been pretty weak, a luminouse cloud
with angels being the gospel for what actualy happened sounds as ludicrous as a UFO, depending from what side of the fence you are looking, and so do the words in the book for that matter.

What is weak about them? If you sincerely feel any of my explanations seem "weak," i will be more than happy to explain them in further detail.

Yes, a luminous cloud sounds pretty ludicrous.
I hate to break it to you, but there's a lot of stuff in the Bible that sounds completely ludicrous. And yet, there it is. Last time i checked, the Bible wasn't exactly full of realistic imagery. It's full of fantastical imagery. It's full of outrageous stories. What is your point? Everything that seems strange or outlandish must necessarily be referring to UFO's? Is that the logic you are trying to use? I don't understand.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
reply to post by Wifibrains
 


The artists who painted those pictures also followed a book. And a church, which explained explicitly how to depict the events they were to paint. Not feelings, not instinct, not nature.


In typical religious fashion, "do as you're told".



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
reply to post by Wifibrains
 


The artists who painted those pictures also followed a book. And a church, which explained explicitly how to depict the events they were to paint. Not feelings, not instinct, not nature.

EXACTLY!!! Thank you very much. I legitimately don't understand what some people don't understand about this.

The artists weren't free to interpret these things however they wished, unless they felt like being burned at the stake. They had to fall in line exactly with the guidelines of the church that commissioned the artwork to begin with. No freedom for interpretation. That is why these aren't MY interpretations or theories; they are, once again, established and documented church guidelines from that time.
That is the ENTIRE point of this thread. There is no room to interpret these things; they were basically following rules.

A math equation isn't open to multiple interpretation, because certain symbols necessarily have certain meanings.
In religious artwork of the Middle Ages, certain symbols were necessarily used to depict certain events and ideas. They had concrete meanings. I am not making them up or interpreting them on my own: they simply had to symbolize certain events in certain ways.

So, to say "i think the glowing object in the Announcement of the Shepherds is a UFO" is just as absurd as saying "I think the plus sign in this math equation actually means to divide." It can't be something else, it can't mean something else. It HAD to be depicted a certain way.

I'm so happy that you finally hit the nail on the head that i even gave you a star!
edit on 7-9-2012 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-9-2012 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
reply to post by Wifibrains
 


The artists who painted those pictures also followed a book. And a church, which explained explicitly how to depict the events they were to paint. Not feelings, not instinct, not nature.


In typical religious fashion, "do as you're told".

That's basically exactly it, to be honest.
Only in those days, if you didn't do what you were told, you were branded as a heretic and probably killed. That's just the way things were in those times. That's exactly what i've been trying to explain.

When they commissioned you to depict a certain Biblical event, you weren't free to choose HOW to depict it. You had to do it exactly as the Church wanted, exactly according to the accepted church symbolism of that time and place, or you were committing heresy.

There was no way around it.
Paint a UFO where you're supposed to paint a cloud, or paint a flying disc where you were supposed to paint a dove within a circle of light, or paint flying saucers where you're supposed to paint clouds dropping snow, and you were forfeiting your life by committing heresy. It was as simple as that.





new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join