Jesus theory - simply NOT true!

yeah i agree : )

This article mentions more plausible reasons as to why the Engineers were coming here 2000 years ago. [url=http://wp.me/p2tPJ3-1A]HERE[/url] jesus was not a massive bald headed Engineer for frak's sake!!! TALK SENSE PEOPLES!!! ;-) FLUTE - good man!

I don't think he denies that Jesus was a space jockey either. I think it's implied and I wouldn't say it's not true till its definitely said so.

It's not directly in there, merely implied. It's up to the individual to interpret any way they want.

It's ridiculous don't you agree? What next, Jesus was Batman?

jesus was not a massive bald headed Engineer for frak's sake!!! No indeed. But he was made to have a more 'human' form!

No - not agreed. It's a BAD theory.

"Movies.com: You throw religion and spirituality into the equation for Prometheus, though, and it almost acts as a hand grenade. We had heard it was scripted that the Engineers were targeting our planet for destruction because we had crucified one of their representatives, and that Jesus Christ might have been an alien. Was that ever considered? RS: We definitely did, and then we thought it was a little too on the nose. But if you look at it as an “our children are misbehaving down there” scenario, there are moments where it looks like we’ve gone out of control, running around with armor and skirts, which of course would be the Roman Empire. And they were given a long run. A thousand years before their disintegration actually started to happen. And you can say, “Lets’ send down one more of our emissaries to see if he can stop it. Guess what? They crucified him." It's better if what Ridley Scott ACTUALLY said gets known than an approximation or interpretation that puports to speak for the man himself. Movie.com article by Sean O'Connel June 5 2012

I'm not going to argue about this, I think many aspects of the movie are open to individual interpretation. What's so ridiculous about the so called (by us) Jesus being some sort of manufactured entity/emissary sent to us? Someone most likely 'manufactured' us & we will probably never find out the who or why of it.

Its ok if you don´t believe it, some people just can´t handle the truth ;•)

Good post Jett. They considered it, then scrapped it- agreed?

The truth- LOL. Gunwoman- not trying to argue dude. Apols. But you have it there from Rids! Considered it... Then scrapped...

I don´t see anywhere that it was completly scrapped. Maybe it is implied, but never actually said.

to me it says they got rid of the idea: "We definitely did, and then we thought it was a little too on the nose. .." ... but ok it's not EXPLICITLY said. Other's opinions on this?

I take from it that Ridley decided NOT to imply that Jesus was an extraterrestrial, and I have no religous training or faith at all...Ridley clearly says it was "too on the nose"

Yes considered, then IMPLIED! LOL

Jett- I love you.

The Jesus Theory you're referring to is that Jesus was an Engineer/was sent by the Engineers?

It can go both ways. As someone else said, it is open to interpretation. It being a moronic idea doesn´t rule out that it could be true.

"The truth is out there" LOL

It's true! True!! TRUE!!! [b]TRUE!!!![/b] lol!

The Lone Gunwoman hit the nail on the head in her first post! It's up to the viewer to decide. Unlike Deckard being a replicant in the DC and FC. Nothing left up in the air there. He was a replicant lol.

Here we go again

I quite prefer it the other way around religiously speaking; that the heresy was not killing a Xristos figure, but rather that humanity pervasively, cross-culturally began to turn away from polytheism to monotheism. If the Engineers are to be interpreted as Annunaki/Igigi or Horus/Thoth/Isis [i]et al[/i] or the denizens of Asgard or the Greco-Roman Pantheon etc. roughly 2,000 years ago was when their mindshare and authority [u]really[/u] began slipping on Earth. Up to that point the concept of monotheism had been largely contained/constrained to single cultures.

LOL @Jett Agreed Engineering!

please please PRETTY PLEASE...not here not now....sigh...Deckard a replicant? Not again....ohhh...lets wait,,,wait..wait for the sequel board to get fired up...we got enough goin here,,,,,groan...

Hey, it's not up for debate...in the director's cut and final cut he's a replicant...end of story...Ridley directed the film...the film is Ridley's...he says he's a repplicant...he is...PERIOD. And for it to even be debated based on what's in those 2 cuts is ridiculous. Anyway...

..waitin for the sequel board...gonna find yourself reverse engineered..hahaha

And of course Ridley's going to say he "considered" it. He's not going to come right out and say that's where he's going to go in the sequels. I think he might. It would definitely be a way to make money. Christianity+controversy=$$$. He's done a very religious film before and I'm not going to sit here and say he wont go that way because he just may. Saying "I considered it" doesn't mean he decided not to go that way. You consider anything before you do it or not.

I think what's most interesting about this is what now seems, to me, to have become his habitual tone of self-congratulation and self-justification while talking in empty circles - here, he seems to explain that they dismissed it, while then immediately being unable to resist explaining in detail, why it was such a good idea - I think it's that bizarre combination of tone and meaning that is causing confusion. Furthermore, he explains that it was dismissed, not because the suggestion is plainly, slightly idiotic, for a great many reasons - but because it was, "too on the nose"? I wish he'd given any reason in the World but that one. What does that even mean? That it couldn't possibly be suggested, after all, because it was just too damn near to "the truth"? Presumably then, he's come to the conclusion, on our behalf, that we are just not ready for his genius to expose "the truth", or his alternate suggestion of truth, quite so clearly - so he's had to be more indirect? That would be because, I imagine, the weight of 2000 years of recorded human history - war, religion and all - would really be likely to tremble because of any single nonsense that Ridley Scott could come up with for his Sci-fi movie?...I think not. I'm starting to wonder if everything hasn't finally gone to his head and had exactly the effect you might predict.

And I'm sure Ridley Scott reserves the right to change his mind any damn time he pleases like everyone else. He can say no and turn around and say yes 5 seconds later if he wants.

To keep all of us talking?..It works.

@Jett...Change my mind...I dare you. Really though, if someone gives me reasons that make sense and I can agree with I can change my mind. It's happened before. That's why I invite people to try. I'm not here to say I know everything even though sometimes I act like I do.

@Jet Don´t forget the $$. @Engineering There is a fact that no one can deny and it is the heavy christian symbolism present in the movie.

& it would be just like Ridley to tell Harrison to 'act' as if he were human.......& of course Deckard THINKS he's a human......oh bugger never mind I'm doing my own head in.......lol

I like the theory about the spread of monotheism pissing off the engineers. I just hope that this addressed in the next movie. I am of the opinion that the sequel will answer some questions, but also generate more questions. Thats what happens in philosophy and science. Anyone who thinks that there are black and white answers in life does not understand the nature of science.

Nobody has mentioned that if there is a cave drawing from Hawaii then the whole 'lets go avenge Jesus' plan falls apart. The settlement of Hawaii was at earliest 300 CE (or as the christians say 300 AD) and the Hawaiian cave drawing being 7th Century. Just sayin...

You mean....why Harrison Ford said he played a human in Blade Runner, not a replicant? And why this came up years after the film was made and never hinted at until RS came out with it on his own? Sounds like a familiar strain from Ridley...years later we find out that the Space Jockey wasn't the skeleton we had all thought it was for dozens of years, but now it's a suit for the purposes of another film? Or perhaps a recent quote from Ridley is most telling of all in this peculiar trait Ridley seems to have..." A canvas, is never done, it's never done"..speaking about his own pastime painting, and other painters as well, I believe the Old Masters. A revealing personality trait I beleive, and in full operational mode whenever it can be judicously applied. Now...Rildey pulled off a convincing arguement for the suit idea with this film, I'll give him that...I'm not happy with it, but it did work..sorta. Barely. Ford is on record flatly denying he played a replicant and the evidence is legion in his favor...it is no challenge at all to claim years later and EDIT years later as well that the actor who played the role didnt know what role he was playing. There really isnt enough space here to really make the case which shouldnt even be a question LOL But enough...wheres Jesus? Isnt he supposed to know the real deal, the true blue, the Mojo Raja? Engineering...youre cool, it's all good.... we're here to just ramble

The unicorn footage from "Legend" was added into the DC [i]long[/i] after "Bladerunner" was in the can.

@Darthgator...[i]I am of the opinion that the sequel will answer some questions, but also generate more questions. Thats what happens in philosophy and science. Anyone who thinks that there are black and white answers in life does not understand the nature of science. [/i] Amen to all of that. I've always had the PKD view that questions are so much more interesting than the answers. If there even are any answers in the true sense of the word.