UFOs and ancient artwork

[DangerousBeliefs]

A great deal of this "UFO in Art" stuff looks like wishful thinking.

We have to keep in mind the mindset and beliefs of pre-modern people.

I see lots of comets, hats!, angels, stars, etc.

Who knows what that image is with the Madonna. It looks to me like a deep-sea exploration submarine. But the only way to really know is to ask the artist (who is dead).

 

[The Mighty Thor]

the Holy Spirit

It would be interesting to know if Halley's comet, or some other bright astronomical phenomenon was taking place when this painting was made.

If it is indeed a badly executed cloud with rays of light emanating, then I think this is an iconic representation of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete.

Given the subject matter, Mary, John the Baptist and Jesus, this would be seen to prefigure the descent of the Paraclete at the Baptism of Christ.

The Paraclete was often represented by a dove in paintings (“The Baptism of Christ,” panel painting by Piero della Francesca, c. 1440–45; in the National Gallery, London) but the form of 'rays' in the sky emanating from a cloud or 'all-seeing eye' would have been immediately recognisable to contemporaries.

Religious paintings often 'quote' events in the life of Christ to emphasise the 'eternal nature' of the Godhead. A cross, or tree might be seen in the background to a 'Jesus as boy carpenter' painting. The iconography of painting is truly fascinating -- skulls represent 'mortality', mirrors=vanity, broken jar = a life cut short etc. There are probably millions of them and they were important elements in devotion when populations were mainly illiterate. They would immediately recognise the icons for 'Faith, Hope, and Charity', or for the various Saints, for example.

Symbolism can be much more compelling when used to represent abstract ideas than mere words.

From Britannica:

"also called Paraclete, or Holy Ghost (from Old English gast, “spirit”), in Christian belief, the third person of the Trinity. Numerous outpourings of the Spirit are mentioned inthe Acts of the Apostles, in which healing, prophecy, the expelling of demons (exorcism), and speaking in tongues (glossolalia) are particularly associated with the activity of the Spirit.

Christian writers have seen in various references to the Spirit of Yahweh in the Old Testament an anticipation of thedoctrine of the Holy Spirit. The Hebrew word ruaR (usually translated “spirit”) is often found in texts referring to the freeand unhindered activity of God, either in creating or in revitalizing creation, especially in connection with the prophetic word or messianic expectation. There was, however, no explicit belief in a separate divine person in biblical Judaism; in fact, the New Testament itself is not entirely clear in this regard. One suggestion of such belief is the promise of another helper, or intercessor (paraclete), that is found in the Gospel According to John.

The definition that the Holy Spirit was a distinct divine Person equal in substance to the Father and the Son and not subordinate to them came at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381, following challenges to its divinity. The Eastern and Western churches have since viewed the Holy Spirit as the bond, the fellowship, or the mutual charity between Father and Son; they are absolutelyunited in the Spirit. The relationship of the Holy Spirit to the other Persons of the Trinity has been described in the Westas proceeding from both the Father and the Son, whereas in the East it has been held that the procession is from the Father through the Son.

Most Catholic and Orthodox Christians have experienced the Holy Spirit more in the sacramental life of the church than in the context of such speculation. From apostolic times, the formula for Baptism has been Trinitarian. Confirmation (in the Eastern Orthodox Church, chrismation) although not accepted by most Protestants as a sacrament, has been closely allied with the role of the Holy Spirit in the church. The Eastern Orthodox Church hasstressed the role of the descent of the Spirit upon the worshipping congregation and upon the eucharistic bread and wine in the prayer known as the epiclesis.

From the earliest centuries of the church, various groups, discontented with the lack of freedom, active charity, or vitality in the institutional church, have called for a greater sensitivity to the ongoing outpourings of the Holy Spirit; one of many such movements was the Pentecostal movement of the 20th century. See also Trinity."

and

"The Paraclete is promised to come to the disciples, and it is necessary that Jesus go away in order that the Paraclete may come to the church. In John, Christ is depicted as belonging to a higher world, and his kingship is not of this world."

malc

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Also, notice the shape of the large cloud in “The Baptism of Christ,” panel painting by Piero della Francesca.

Same shape as a 'UFO'.

malc

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Since the object looks more substantial than a cloud, I suggest the artist was depicting the Paraclete as described by Ezekiel, just as an earlier poster suggested.

Boy, was that one bad trip old Ezekiel had:

Ezekiel 1:1 ¶Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river of Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God.
2 In the fifth day of the month, which was the fifth year of king Jehoiachin's captivity,
3 The word of the LORD came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand of the LORD was there upon him.
4 ¶And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire.
5 Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance; they had the likeness of a man.
6 And every one had four faces, and every one had four wings.
7 And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf's foot: and they sparkled like the colour of burnished brass.
8 And they had the hands of a man under their wings on their four sides; and they four had their faces and their wings.
9 Their wings were joined one to another; they turned not when they went; they went every one straight forward.
10 As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle.

Ezekiel 1:14 And the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning.
15 ¶Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with his four faces.
16 The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel.
17 When they went, they went upon their four sides: and they turned not when they went.
18 As for their rings, they were so high that they were dreadful; and their rings were full of eyes round about them four.
19 And when the living creatures went, the wheels went by them: and when the living creatures were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up.
20 Whithersoever the spirit was to go, they went, thither was their spirit to go; and the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels.

Ezekiel 1:21 When those went, these went; and when those stood, these stood; and when those were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels.
22 And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.
23 And under the firmament were their wings straight, the one toward the other: every one had two, which covered on this side, and every one had two, which covered on that side, their bodies.
24 And when they went, I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of great waters, as the voice of the Almighty, the voice of speech, as the noise of an host: when they stood, they let down their wings.
25 And there was a voice from the firmament that was over their heads, when they stood, and had let down their wings.
26 ¶And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.

Ezekiel 1:25 And there was a voice from the firmament that was over their heads, when they stood, and had let down their wings.
26 ¶And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.
27 And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about.
28 As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.

malc

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Hey Malc!, thanks for your enlighting posts.

Since the object looks more substantial than a cloud, I suggest the artist was depicting the Paraclete as described by Ezekiel, just as an earlier poster suggested.

4 ¶And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire.

27 And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about.

28 As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about.

Ezekiel's account is fascinating indeed. (Emphasis mine)

 

[King of the Americas]

The conclusion

Conclusions:

In the painting named Madonna and Child with the Infant St. John, probably made by Sebastiano Mainardi (school of Ghirlandaio) there are no UFOs. The three little stars under the great Nativity Star are symbols of the triple virginity of Mary (before, during and after the childbirth), The shepherd with the hand on the forehead is similar to many other shepherds in dozens of Nativity or Adoration paintings of the same age; and the lighting cloud, symbol of the God's Glory, comes from the narration of the nativity in the Protogospel of James (chapter 2, 19).

From one of the 'Explaination' links provided:

---

I disagree

Whole heartedly...

Artists have depicted 'gods of heaven'/'Extra-terresterials', in MANY different ways, from MANY different perspectives. Sometimes, their 'views' came from first-hand experiences, and sometimes they came from hearsay from another person of an event.

However, almost always the artist is trying to relay 'something' to his audience. Sometimes that something is clouded in imagery,the artist's mis-perceptions, or just his inability to relay a clear image. For example, Monet's use of color and light, along with his "bluristic" method often leaves some viewers of his work bewildered, and yet after enough study, one CAN decipher the setting Monet was trying to show us through his painting.

Sometimes that 'something' is an emotion, or a feeling, and sometimes that something is a nothing...

THIS time...I gotta say 'I' can identify the 'something' the artist was going for. I've seen that air-bound image in other forms of media, not so bound by an artist's perception & his ability to recreate it.

Personally, I think it is sad that so few of you 'get' Sebastiano Mainardi. Moreover, I think it's a little disingenuious to apply such an ignorant standard to Art in general.

Most Art is clear and direct in its motive, a lot of it isn't, but to 'ignore' or mis-place & mis-characterize rather accurate representations is intelectually irresponsible, if you ask me.

'gods of heaven' EXIST, and they've been depicted in almost every form of media or expression you can name. Some have been accurate, some fanciful, and some have turned absolutely mythological. But to ignore the present consistancy, or theme in these heavenly beings/forms showing up...

...well what's good for you is good for YOU.

 

[Tricky]

Re: The conclusion

'gods of heaven' EXIST, and they've been depicted in almost every form of media or expression you can name. Some have been accurate, some fanciful, and some have turned absolutely mythological

This is very interesting. Can you give me any examples of the "accurate" representations of "gods of heaven"? I think all of us are curious.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Re: The conclusion

Conclusions:

In the painting named Madonna and Child with the Infant St. John, probably made by Sebastiano Mainardi (school of Ghirlandaio) there are no UFOs. The three little stars under the great Nativity Star are symbols of the triple virginity of Mary (before, during and after the childbirth), The shepherd with the hand on the forehead is similar to many other shepherds in dozens of Nativity or Adoration paintings of the same age; and the lighting cloud, symbol of the God's Glory, comes from the narration of the nativity in the Protogospel of James (chapter 2, 19).

From one of the 'Explaination' links provided:

---

I disagree

Whole heartedly...

Artists have depicted 'gods of heaven'/'Extra-terresterials', in MANY different ways, from MANY different perspectives. Sometimes, their 'views' came from first-hand experiences, and sometimes they came from hearsay from another person of an event.

However, almost always the artist is trying to relay 'something' to his audience. Sometimes that something is clouded in imagery,the artist's mis-perceptions, or just his inability to relay a clear image. For example, Monet's use of color and light, along with his "bluristic" method often leaves some viewers of his work bewildered, and yet after enough study, one CAN decipher the setting Monet was trying to show us through his painting.

Sometimes that 'something' is an emotion, or a feeling, and sometimes that something is a nothing...

THIS time...I gotta say 'I' can identify the 'something' the artist was going for. I've seen that air-bound image in other forms of media, not so bound by an artist's perception & his ability to recreate it.

Personally, I think it is sad that so few of you 'get' Sebastiano Mainardi. Moreover, I think it's a little disingenuious to apply such an ignorant standard to Art in general.

Most Art is clear and direct in its motive, a lot of it isn't, but to 'ignore' or mis-place & mis-characterize rather accurate representations is intelectually irresponsible, if you ask me.

'gods of heaven' EXIST, and they've been depicted in almost every form of media or expression you can name. Some have been accurate, some fanciful, and some have turned absolutely mythological. But to ignore the present consistancy, or theme in these heavenly beings/forms showing up...

...well what's good for you is good for YOU.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but are you saying that the artist was depicting the 'UFO' because he had seen such an object?

Remember this is an imaginary, highly iconographic, religious scene. It is as unlikely that the artist had actually seen the object in the sky as it is that he had seen any of the characters (other than as 'models' or in his 'mind's eye') or that he had seen anyone with a halo above their head.

If, however, there was a comet in the sky at the time he was painting, it is quite possible that the astronomical event is being recorded by the artist and he has associated this with the 'Glory of God' imagery that was common to his artistic tradition.

malc

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Hey Malc!, thanks for your enlighting posts.

Ezekiel's account is fascinating indeed. (Emphasis mine)

You are most welcome. It is indeed a fascinating topic.

malc

 

[King of the Americas]

To Tricky:

Those would be the popularly ignored 'home video footage' of UFO's, that skeptics claim aren't 'conclusive enough', to PROVE anything.

To ME, the images, across millenia, have been quite consistant, from my perspective.

 

[c0rbin]

However, almost always the artist is trying to relay 'something' to his audience. Sometimes that something is clouded in imagery,the artist's mis-perceptions, or just his inability to relay a clear image. For example, Monet's use of color and light, along with his "bluristic" method often leaves some viewers of his work bewildered, and yet after enough study, one CAN decipher the setting Monet was trying to show us through his painting.

KOA, you cannot compare the personal work of an artist like Monet to the commissioned work of the religious depictions.

Further, Monet was an impressionist. Very different approach when compared to religious work where specific details were required by the commissioner of the piece.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Malc:

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but are you saying that the artist was depicting the 'UFO' because he had seen such an object?

*No. I said 'some' artists paint from a first hand experience, while others do not. While this artist may NOT have seen anyone with a halo, I think (given the detail) he MAY have seen a 'skybound god', or maybe a shepard told him what he saw...not unlike a police composite sketch...

Remember this is an imaginary, highly iconographic, religious scene. It is as unlikely that the artist had actually seen the object in the sky as it is that he had seen any of the characters (other than as 'models' or in his 'mind's eye') or that he had seen anyone with a halo above their head.

*I think you make a common mistake among skeptics. 'I' have never seen a "Halo-ed", nor have I seen video footage of one, and I always interpreted these images to mean an enlightened person. I HAVE however seen first-hand, unidentifiable flying objects, and I can't tell you how many samples of video footage I have seen of that VERY image in the painting. I KNOW 'gods' exist, and it appears to ME that this artist did too.

If, however, there was a comet in the sky at the time he was painting, it is quite possible that the astronomical event is being recorded by the artist and he has associated this with the 'Glory of God' imagery that was common to his artistic tradition.

*Comets have tails. This is clearly an image of something, that he pictured someone looking at it, in the background of a religiously significant scene. 'I' interpret this as the artist trying to say, there is some kind of relationship between this heavenly image & the scene in the foreground. It is almost as though one is overseeing the other, and to boot there is a common man witnessing the whole thing.



malc

 

[King of the Americas]

To cOrbin:

KOA, you cannot compare the personal work of an artist like Monet to the commissioned work of the religious depictions.

*I wasn't comparing the two. I was characterizing Artists, and their common goals.

Further, Monet was an impressionist. Very different approach when compared to religious work where specific details were required by the commissioner of the piece.

*Different approach, but the SAME goal- to relay a 'something' (or sometimes a nothing, or possibly an emotion) to their audience.

'Artists' paint to express something.

'I' get what this Artist was trying to show us, it is sad that you don't...

 

[hgc]

All this fuss over just another Madonna phone home painting?

By the way, I saw a spaceship in this movie. Further proof of alients/gods?

 

[c0rbin]

One can clearly see (in the enhanced image below) the evil demon the artist included in the piece. Perhaps he or she was saying "Look. ET is an evil demon."

 

[King of the Americas]

ToHGC:

See, you miss the point, yet again.

It isn't about saying ALL things are as they appear. It is about trying to decipher what it was the artist was trying to reveal to us through their work.

I don't think Speilberg was saying that aliens exist in that form, but rather it was a portrail of innocence when faced with the unknown, in a drastic comparison of how 'non-innocent' persons deal with the unknown.

I can't believe you don't 'get' Speilberg, either...

 

[Tricky]

Re: To Tricky:

Those would be the popularly ignored 'home video footage' of UFO's, that skeptics claim aren't 'conclusive enough', to PROVE anything.

Um... that's very interesting. Now could you show us an image of God or gods that you consider to be realistic, as per my original question?

To ME, the images, across millenia, have been quite consistant, from my perspective.

Yes. To you. From your perspective. I am aware that each believer in God/gods has their own concept of the appearance of God/gods. Now I want you to tell me what you meant when you said:

Some have been accurate

In order to be "accurate" you would have to have a real God/gods to compare them to. See, that's how realism works.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Tricky:

Speaking UN-metaphorically...

'god' is/are those entities NOT 'from' Earth.

Generically speaking, of course.

'god' has assumed MANY different forms, to many different people, ONE of which is the image found in this painting, of which I HAVE seen in numerous clips of present UFO footage.

I think you are confusing terms here.

I am not talking about the supreme being-"God", but rather our heavenly betters, the 'gods'.

There is no comparison work to be done here, other than that of comparing what this Artist tried to portray yesterday, and what I have seen for myself today.

 

[hgc]

Re: ToHGC:

See, you miss the point, yet again.

It isn't about saying ALL things are as they appear. It is about trying to decipher what it was the artist was trying to reveal to us through their work.

I don't think Speilberg was saying that aliens exist in that form, but rather it was a portrail of innocence when faced with the unknown, in a drastic comparison of how 'non-innocent' persons deal with the unknown.

I can't believe you don't 'get' Speilberg, either...

Hey KOA. I'm not as dumb as I look. I can handle things. I'm smart! Not dumb, like everybody says - I'm smart, and I want respect!

I'll admit to not getting Spielberg, but I have a pretty damn good idea what Ghirlandaio was up to. His intention was to convey that the virgin should get on the phone and give God a call. I mean he gave her a pretty good ride, and got her full of the arms and legs of a Godlet. What kind of respect does she show? She sticks with that good-for-nothing (in the sack) husband of hers, and doesn't even acknowledge the father of her baby. You might ask, well why doesn't God call her? Everyone knows that God is restricted for outgoing calls. By Satan. Ever since that telling Abraham to kill Isaac fiasco.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Re: To Malc:


*I think you make a common mistake among skeptics. 'I' have never seen a "Halo-ed", nor have I seen video footage of one, and I always interpreted these images to mean an enlightened person. I HAVE however seen first-hand, unidentifiable flying objects, and I can't tell you how many samples of video footage I have seen of that VERY image in the painting. I KNOW 'gods' exist, and it appears to ME that this artist did too.

If you've seen a UFO, how do you know if it was man-made or not? How do you know it's a 'god' and not just a mundane celestial object, a bird or any other accepted and existing thing? After all, UNIDENTIFIED is the key word here. I think the problem is that some people just can't accept that what they saw is, most-likely, not a spaceship, alien or pixie. They don't know what they saw, so they assume it must be a 'god'.