Debunking "UFO's" in Biblical Paintings

Good thread OP. Too bad there are so many lunkheads on these forums, arguing with them is like hitting your head on a brick wall.

The UFO-proponents seem to imagine that a painter was just hanging out there at Jesus's crucifixion, saw a UFO, and said, "holy crap, I've got to get this down on canvas!" and pulled out his paint set and captured it like a photograph.

Then when you point out that it's actually symbolism, specific symbolism which is documented in religious history, such as angels, etc. they get all confused: "wait, are you saying angels are real?"

It's like they don't comprehend that a painting is not a literal snapshot of a real event...

Originally posted by Wifibrains
reply to post by EsSeeEye

 

What am I missing. Back then it was angels, what would we call them now? ETs. Coming down in crafts, because we now know what a craft is.

Today we would call this science fiction or a hallucination. Back then they didn't know what that was either. I think the part you are missing is that you are assuming ET reality.

Originally posted by Maroboduus
Next up:

Originally posted by CaptainBeno

and, lo, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending ...

Or is it simply a disc of light which symbolizes the heavens opening, and God descending...

Not to post for one side or the other, but isn't there like some odd coincidence of the overall shape and what is depicted in the painting and the recent sighting of some odd cloud/portal thingy in Artctic?

I believe a similar instance occured recently in Russia as well.

I also find sprites of similar shape:



According to our current conventions in communicating, what we write, paint, or otherwise depict now may seem perfectly clear to us, but in the future it may be less clear to the audience. Good topic and thread - thanks.

This is a very entertaining thread...

reply to post by EsSeeEye

(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

The Bible hasn't been through "numerous translations". Yes, there are many translations of the Bible today, but all the translations are based off of the original language texts. The Bible wasn't handed down through the ages in tons of languages—just two, Greek and Hebrew.

Originally posted by Maroboduus


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...

Listen to what you have just posted: "luminous cloud". Look at the object. It clearly depicts a saucer-shaped object with "rays" coming off of it indicating that it is shining, whether the skin of the object is shiny or it is emitting light.

Clouds can't be luminous, nor can people ride or fly on clouds as depicted in different paintings of this event:




The painting is showing a being flying in the sky on a cloud. Angels were depicted with wings in paintings to indicate they are the one's that can ascend and descend from the heavens via their chariots. The cloud represents the craft, the wings on the being represent that the object and person are flying in the sky.

Originally posted by Maroboduus
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.

That's correct. The "old man" is likely on his craft (chariot / luminous cloud) that is hovering in the sky. Since we know that someone can't sit on a throne in the sky, nor sit on a cloud in the sky, the image is symbolism of someone being in his craft that is hovering in the sky.

Originally posted by Maroboduus
And i've never seen a person in the sky with wings, so those probably aren't angels; they're probably UFO's.

Again, angels were depicted with wings to not only distinguish them from regular humans in paintings, but to also portray that they can ascend and descend from the heavens via flight. Again, it's more symbolism. Angels didn't really have wings, but they could fly via their chariots (or luminous clouds).

Originally posted by Maroboduus
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.

It's more symbolism. Clouds can't glow, nor can people fly or ride on clouds. The object clearly depicts a saucer-shaped craft that is glowing / shining. This is the point you are missing.

Originally posted by Maroboduus
Like a dove. This is always phrased in this manner... What's that in the middle of the UFO? It's almost shaped like a bird. Wow! It IS a dove!

The dove was used as symbolism, representing that something was flying in the sky. This image:




...depicts a perfectly round saucer-shaped object in the sky shining light onto the ground. The object is also depicted with a dove indicating that the object is flying in the sky,.

And yes, they had limited vocabulary back then. They didn't have words for spacecraft or lights. The only things that flew in the sky in those days were clouds and birds. So, a chariot hovered or landed as gently as a dove.



Take this bible verse for example:

Isaiah 60:8

"Who are these who fly like a cloud, and like a dove to their window?"

So, who were those people in those days who could fly like clouds and like a dove? They were the gods and angels who ascended and descended the heavens in physical craft.


Here's another bible verse for you depicting symbolism:

Acts 10:11

He saw the sky (or heaven, depending on which bible interpretation) open, and a certain vessel (or object, depending on which bible interpretation) descended upon him like a great sheet knit at four corners.

A sheet knit at four corners would act like a parachute. This vessel or object slowly descended from the sky and slowly landed like an object with a parachute would.


Having said all the above, I do agree (for the most part) with your analysis of the crucifixion paintings indicating the sun and moon and not spacecraft. For now.

reply to post by Maroboduus


Even if you may be right about SOME PAINTINGS (maybe be), you are not right about cases such as the Nuremberg sighting, similar seen in Swizterland in previous sighting, where there is a description of things shooting each other,, While what they are cannot be confirmed, your idea that ALL depictions are some symbolism is a FAIL

And like most things in ufo topic if you want to sound credible, sure give suggestions but do not debunk or put everything under the same flag.... this is one pure ignorance of the facts to say ALL is symbolism.

You all who want to debunk unexplained things, do it right, do not put all under the same situation and 'That must be it' - yes some paintings could be that, others couldbe something else. YOU DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE - and because you do not know for sure, quit making it like this is the ultimate truth...

Debunked... nonsense.

Plus - newsflash! If you think you've discovered America you are wrong, a lot like you have explained or tried to explain why they draw them point is - NO ONE KNOWS and when this is the answer NOTHING IS CERTAIN...

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Thank you, you have saved me the bother.

OP - Also, personal emails childishly prompting me to respond is not on. Get over it..

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Listen to what you have just posted: "luminous cloud". Look at the object. It clearly depicts a saucer-shaped object with "rays" coming off of it indicating that it is shining, whether the skin of the object is shiny or it is emitting light.

Clouds can't be luminous, nor can people ride or fly on clouds as depicted in different paintings of this event:

What are you talking about? You repeatedly mention symbolism in your own post, but then argue that clouds can't glow so it can't be a cloud. How can you repeatedly reference the fact that the artists were using symbolism, and then turn around and say "but it can't be a cloud, because clouds don't really glow?" Where is the disconnect here?
Feel free to look up other paintings from that time period, and see how many of the clouds look exactly like real clouds. You will be disappointed.

You're making the mistake of assuming that the symbolism was a reference to something in reality. "They said that because they were referencing something that was truly flying, therefore aliens." This may surprise you, but not everything in the Bible and in art is a literal translation of real events. Crazy, i know....

Some of the arguments people are trying to make are completely boggling my mind. I can't even muster the energy to explain this stuff any more.

reply to post by Maroboduus


I Understand what you are trying to refer to, but unfortunately you may be grasping at the wrong end of the stick.

I also understand that your reality states that "a luminous cloud" represents something it's not, but would it be fair to say I believe "the saucer shaped object" represents something to me......a saucer shaped object?

How on earth can you say with utmost certainty that that object (and it is an object) is a cloud with a dove?

It strikes me a completely dumb to suggest it is God?

It is quite clearly a golden colored disc with rays coming from it.

Would it be fair to say that the only thing that flew in those days was a bird? Therefore, surely it was a bird that supported it in the sky yeah? (Not really) Well, quiet obviously because that's the only thing that fly's isn't it? Same goes for angels, the mind could not comprehend a human flying or hovering in some way so they were painted with wings.

Ever thought about all the things "FLYING" in these paintings and why when all that could really fly in those days was a bird??? Hmmmm?

To be fair I can't say for certain I am right. But I can say some of your claims are a bit wild.

Lets have a look at what you accept as completely normal:

God?
Jesus?
Angels?
Luminous clouds?
Cylindrical objects in the sky - Clouds?
People floating on clouds.
Solid objects hovering in the sky with light coming off them - quite obviously a cloud.
Hat shaped objects (not to scale even though most things are in the picture) - A hat??
In fact, anything that fly's in the sky or is hovering in the sky - a hat or a cloud?

Do you see where I am going here? To suggest anyone is closed minded here is an understatement.

You CAN NOT claim to know what was painted in these pictures?

However, you can claim to tell everyone WHAT YOU THINK is in these pictures, just like me.

The only difference is, someone has not schooled or told me what to think.
It my own opinion.

Double post

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
reply to post by Maroboduus

 

Lets have a look at what you accept as completely normal:

God?
Jesus?
Angels?
Luminous clouds?
Cylindrical objects in the sky - Clouds?
People floating on clouds.
Solid objects hovering in the sky with light coming off them - quite obviously a cloud.
Hat shaped objects (not to scale even though most things are in the picture) - A hat??
In fact, anything that fly's in the sky or is hovering in the sky - a hat or a cloud?

Do you see where I am going here? To suggest anyone is closed minded here is an understatement.

You CAN NOT claim to know what was painted in these pictures?

However, you can claim to tell everyone WHAT YOU THINK is in these pictures, just like me.

The only difference is, someone has not schooled or told me what to think.
It my own opinion.

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

Nowhere did he say those were completely normal, just that they were being represented by strict rules of the church and artistic guidelines.

The only argument against the OP's points are "Well, the bible might have been talking about aliens instead of luminous clouds (or angels/god/Jesus/etc)!" But that's not what he's talking about at all. He's talking about the paintings, the artists (who did not witness the events they are portraying) and the extremely strict adherence to guidelines they were forced into.

Whether or not the luminous clouds, Jesus, angels, God, or anything else in the bible is aliens is not the point of this thread. Should one day the bible be proven to be describing ancient aliens, then absolutely these paintings will be portraying ancient aliens, but as of yet it is not proven. These paintings are painted according to the strict guidelines of the church, who use symbolism to represent the events the paintings portray, since nobody who painted them witnessed them!

This is the most insane circular argument I may have ever seen on this forum. Sorry Maroboduus, I think you've done amazing work here, but I've said all I can say to help before I either get mean or beat my head into pulp against the wall. My suggestion is to continue posting the paintings and explanations, and ignore the flood of ignorance that follows. I'm very interested in reading what other pieces you have explanations for.

I've starred and flagged and all that happy stat stuff. Good luck!

I did write a rather lengthy piece in reply to your earlier comments.

I deleted it all, I just can't be arsed.

Ok you win, they’re clouds and hats.

Here are some more clouds and hats painted in the traditional manner..............

So intent on debunking what is there, and understood by even the Vatican, in its encyclopedia, just want to pull that box firmly over your head and live in a reduced dream.

Maybe one day you'll notice more than ufo's but mushrooms and odd looking plants depicted as well in the religious works and relate it to pineal.

We saw the sun and moon, in the first paintings, on the first page, trying to show no such UFO's but in reality the sun and the moon have a different code in the paintings, for the sun has spokes and the moon is the unicorn that purifies the toxins, and that takes some research.

But Christ also mentioned the precious pearl, and the kingdom within, and quite possibly, this comes to mind:

en.wikipedia.org...

Taoist alchemical practice involves creation of an energy body by breathing meditations, drawing energy into a 'pearl' that is then "circulated".

Ecclesiastes 12:6

Remember him--before the silver cord is severed, or the golden bowl is broken; before the pitcher is shattered at the spring, or the wheel broken at the well,

2 Corinthians 12:2-4

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know--God knows. And I know that this man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows--was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell.


There is so much more than mere UFO's in the religious pictures, and alluded to in the literal translations.

Open your mind.

Great post OP. Starred and Flagged.

I remember reading in the bible about how the 3 Wise-men followed a supposedly moving star to the manger where Jesus was born. In my mind I thought, "That sounds like a UFO to me!" Then as I started becoming more familiar with UFO lore I came across these artistic depictions and thought of them as further evidence of the possibility.

You have given me a strong cause to reconsider that position. Thanks for the effort you put into the explanations, I will go to sleep today knowing more then when I woke up.

PS: I'm still a believer in alien life. After all we all are aliens walking around and talking on a planet floating through space are we not? But are we being visited by "aliens" in gravity defying ships? Hard to say, their publicity agents are not doing a very good job at the least.

Originally posted by Unity_99
Maybe one day you'll notice more than ufo's but mushrooms and odd looking plants depicted as well in the religious works and relate it to pineal.

ionaparamedia.50megs.com...

Physicist Cliff Pickover argues that, "'___' in the pineal glands of Biblical prophets gave God to humanity and let ordinary humans perceive parallel universes." “Our brain is a filter, and the use of '___' is like slipping on infrared goggles, allowing us to perceive a valid reality that is inches away and all around us.”

He suggests, perhaps our ancestors produced more '___', leading to extraordinary spiritual visions. “Maybe this is why the ancients seemed so in touch with God and with miracles and visions. Maybe Moses, Mohammad, and Jesus had a greater rate of pineal '___' production than most.” Pickover blames artificial light for a reduction in our '___' production rate.

Or perhaps more likely, as most ancient cultures, they simply supercharged themselves with shamanic herbs. Some claim the “burning bush” was Cannabis sativa, Assyrian Rue (Pegunam harmala; Zoroaster’s Hoama, Asena ) or the North African Acacia tree, and that Moses either smoked the leaves or got high downwind in the '___'-containing smoke.

Originally posted by Unity_99
So intent on debunking what is there, and understood by even the Vatican, in its encyclopedia, just want to pull that box firmly over your head and live in a reduced dream.

...

'A reduced dream'?

Is this part of some new philosophy of self deception and ignorant bliss while ingesting shrooms liberally, or what is going on?

reply to post by CaptainBeno


Good one,
_______________________________

Now do you see OP, how everything is not symbolism, consider it whatever you want, that's the truth. And it is - not symbolism, some could be, others is a CERTAIN NO.