Jesus theory - simply NOT true!

[img]http://i1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj636/skybeast3/you-can-t-handle-the-truth2_o_GIFSoupcom.gif[/img]

The very fact that there are [s]4[/s] 5 (and counting) pages of commentary on this is why there was ANY mention of Jesus to the press or the inclusion of the "2,000 years ago" number regardless of what the *actual* back story is. Religion is controversial. Jesus very easily becomes controversial. The is the [i]Da Vinci Code[/i] factor. Controversy sells! [i]Prometheus[/i] is a product. Harrison Ford claims that Deckard is not a replicant. Ripley claims that he is (and put the mirror on him to make his eyes glow). According to Ripley in [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1080585/][i]Dangerous Days[/i][/url], the unicorn footage was shot (somewhat unscrupulously) with BR budget in order to support the case for doing Legend—as a function of the pitch. So it's perfectly valid that the footage be a *part* of the BR tapestry. There is also a unicorn toy in Sebastian's apartment and Gaff's origami is THERE. Even the fictional Deckard himself does not know if he is a replicant or not. That's part of the point. Life and all of its axises are largely ambiguous. The squadron(s) on LV-223 could have been ordered by the home world to disperse goo all over Earth 2,000 years ago for some reason that is absolutely opaque to the command there and utterly unrelated to ANY event in recorded human history that carries any import. One of the "soldiers" who was opposed to carrying out the order could have for his own *noble* reasons sabotaged the attack raid by infecting (himself and) fellow grunts so that they couldn't take off. If you believe in a righteous, wrathful Jesus returning corporeally to Earth à la Revelations, He could have shown up on LV-223 and kicked over some urns himself. It worked with the money-lenders in ANOTHER temple according to a certain view of history. A N Y thing is possible. Leaving it intentionally ambiguous is the [i]safest[/i] thing to do. There is almost always an explanation that can be pulled out of one hat or the other. The Hawai‘ians could have brought the mythology to the islands as an oral history and scratched it into a rock one day just for the hell of it. Welcome to the world of Ridley Scott.

Dangerous Days... Hampton Fancher: [about the unicorn dream sequence] And my interpretation had nothing to with 'oh, that shows that Deckard's a replicant'. I don't think anything should show that Deckard's a replicant. If you think that, you're already wrong. Ok....its outta my system now....thats all...

Who gives a shit what Fancher says. Not his film. He wrote the first drafts then got booted and they brought in Peoples. Why??? Because it was Scott's film and Fancher wouldn't write what Scott wanted. So while I like Fancher and all versions of the film his opinion of something he had nothing to do with doesn't matter one bit. Also, go back to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. That's where the idea od Deckard being a replicant came from. I'm a huge PKD fan but if he was alive and said Deckard's not a replicant that wouldn't even matter to me because it was no longer his. It chahnged. Same case with Fancher. The fact that I LOVE ambiguity and questions rather than answers yet I still believe Deckard was a relicant says it all to me. It's just too obvious...in the Directors and Final Cut that is.

@Jett...[i]No unicorn sequence when I saw Blade Runner in its day.. no narration either [/i] Well, that's awfuly strange being that in it's day the narration was there and there was a unicorn as well. A foil unicorn. Guess I'm thinking "in it's day" means it's original theatrical release and you mean something else.

I love how this thread is a mix about the possibility of Deckard being a replicant and at the same time Jesus being an alien lol.

You're all missing the point. DEKKARD WAS JESUS!

Dekkard was a proto-face-morph-enginner-tribolite-enginner-human hybrid. But Ridley (the RIDLER!) may well change his mind depending on which side of the bed he wakes up on today!

I was starting to suspect that Deckard was in fact Jesus. Thanks for clarifying that.

Maybe Ridley is Jesus... Prometheus is just as inconsistent as the gospels.

[u]Most people can't handle the Truth and will get furious when you try to imply someone may have used the greatest story ever told in the context of their sci- fi movie. After all it's the last place they have to hide from the Truth. In the Dark.[/u] You are aware, that horror writers deliberately pull on things from our own culture to scare us? Pushing our buttons? I will give an alternate take on this 'religious' film and how some of these things are there to pull in people with an inclination towards them, only to later confound. I'm discussing your theory on its merits of evidence, rather than whether I wish to believe it or not. Call me devil's advocate :p Janek - literal meaning - "God is gracious", sounds like Janus ... who marked transitions (among other things) Transitions.... like the transition from Warp speed to sub-light speed... Dec 21st, the Solstice. Oh, he had a "Christmas Tree" - he said he liked to celebrate the holidays to mark the passing of time. He didn't call it a christmas tree when asked what it is. Did you notice, nobody called it that? The Tree is pre christian, and christs birthday was not in December. A pre-existing pagan festival was appropriated. He drinks, he smokes, he has casual sex hardly 'my body is a temple' stuff. (who'd blame him with Vickers whose first name, by the way, Meredith is aso the name of a mythological Celtic Sea Warrior.) And he espouses no belief in anything, except keeping other people safe from WMD. He picks no side on the usefulness or philosophy of the mission. He only asks Vickers "did you want them to be wrong?" when she said something. No mention of religion, afterlife, just enjoying his life as it is now. But he is the one who sacrifices himself for others. Shaw (a believer) risks her life for ANSWERS. Weyland (a believer in gods and immortality) risks EVERYBODY else's life for a shot at his own immortality. 'choose to believe' thinking made Holloway eliminate some of those stars on the map on faulty thinking (go read the transcript - he assumes it would be 'perfect' like heaven perhaps, and that's why he selects the 'most likely' star, rather than check all stars that are of the right type to support life, even if borderline adequate. ) Shaw likewise reaches the conclusion that our DNA match proves we came from Space Jockeys rather than the other way around. (it's almost like she saw the first scene in the film, and presumed it was Earth too,,, but only the audience saw that) She also ASSUMES Armageddon, because an android gives her a vague answer (the same android who always gives double meaning vague statements when he wants to mislead rather than lie - as lying may be prohibited in his programming, and 'misleading double meanings' may be his loophole). He has seen her dreams, and he would know what she is likely to assume, because of her religious beliefs. And the fact that there is a cave drawing 680 years after the 'birth of christ', and nobody got wiped out, would seem to indicate that the 'wrath of god' was not upon us, and only an oversleeping angel postponed it. As I've said before, the only things targeted for destruction in order to create, might have been a cargo hold full of humans, to be 'altered' in Frankensteins lab on LV 223. It looks like some early American (Inca, or Aztec human sacrifice deal, but I'm thinking it's bio engineering slaves, and monstrous Xenos to use for terror and punishment.) Just saying.

ouch, you really reading into too much.. [b]original article: "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: [i]We definitely did, and then we thought it was a little too on the nose.[/i] 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." Movie.com article by Sean O'Connel June 5 2012[/b] So, you get confused with your personal believe just because Sir Ridley draws out a little SciFi story, really? Obviously he dismissed it by its own short after anyway: [i]We definitely did, and then we thought it was a little too on the nose.[/i] Hes a [i]movie director,[/i] so hes playing around with [i]plot ideas.[/i]. case closed. and the actual [i]Christ[/i] has nothing to do with a fictional emissary in a SciFi plot. He was/ is a high spiritual beeing part of the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity]holy trinity[/url]. cheers

[u]and the actual Christ has nothing to do with a fictional emissary in a SciFi plot. He was/ is a high spiritual beeing part of the holy trinity. cheers[/u] I am aware of the theology, thanks. I'm not here to convince anyway of the existence or non-existence of any deity. I'm simply arguing that the theory that this film lends itself to a plot favorable to christianity, is a flawed theory.

Why does it have to be the big JC himself. Didnt the Romans crucify loads of people? Honestly I dont know... Maybe the Engineers were responding to JC trying to spread his word of "God". Maybe that was one of the actions that led them to believe we need to be culled. Just so happens that their emissasry (probly in human form with all its physical flaws but retaining the intellect) was crucified too at or around the same time? Besides JC being an alien is not so unlikely. Virgin birth = impregnated by Engineers. "Miracles" he performed could easily be explained away with superior technology. Going to need more to debunk the theory besides saying its corny or just plain dumb. Of course if the man Ridley decides to elaborate then I guess thats it.

Hadley's is the man. Agreed. Interesting how everyone is going nuts here.

@Hadley's Hope There is one BIG problem in what you said. Janek might have never said it was a christmas tree but he did say it was christmas. Why else would you have a christmas tree in christmas. He aint celebrating any pagan ritual. Btw you keep referecing this 680 years after christ painting. Can you link us to it?

But the pagan tree goes up at Christmas. Christianity had nothing about trees until it went to Europe where the pagans celebrated with tree decorations, and he says it's to mark the changing seasons, not a word about christ. Link to the painting? It was in the briefing scene, "Let me show you guys why you are here. These are images of archaeological digs from all over the Earth. That’s Egyptian, Mayan, Samarian, Babylonian, that’s Hawaiian at the end there, then Mesopotamian" [img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1bnc3QUYj1rrwp9mo2_500.jpg[/img]

Good spot Hadley!

Is John the Baptist a Xenomorph then?!

Even if the Jesus theory is true then it still is about power only. Say Jesus was one of them sent to teach us to play nice... we didn't play nice so now they aren't going to play nice? Every creature has the right to defend itself; they certainly would from us.

Is mean digs lmao sorry. Is that in the weyland website? How do you know its 680 a.d. Not saying you wrong just want to know where you got the information. If they said it in the movie then im sorry, I honestly didn´t remember.

I'm not trying to say Ridley made some conscious decision to parallel the Bible with this movie or convince anyone whether or not God exists. It just so happens that there are too many parallels to be a coincidence. For example, the first thing Satan transformed ( morphed) Himself into was a serpant ( hammerpede). He lulled eve into a false sense of security through the beauty of the fruit ( lust for power). Once he entered into Her ( spiritually ) her DNA was corrupted . She became Spiritually barren and passed this on to all her offspring. Elizabeth was Abraham's wife. She too was barren. I could go on and on. The sad thing is if I showed you all the parallels to Persian ,Hindu ,Greek myths etc. , most people find that intellectually stimulating and fascinating,but as soon as the Biblical ( the original ) references come in to play people get furious. And here is where I get booted off this website ... Ready? The reason for that goes back to my original point. If you haven't been born again ( spiritually regenerated by Jesus the Christ) You have a dead spirit . A nature that agrees with spirit of this world. Antagonistic towards the Truth and Christianity. It's what I choose to believe.

I don't think anyone wants to boot you off the site for your beliefs or your mental abilities, certainly not me. You got my vote to stay.

[u]Is mean digs lmao sorry. Is that in the weyland website? How do you know its 680 a.d. Not saying you wrong just want to know where you got the information. If they said it in the movie then im sorry, I honestly didn´t remember.[/u] None of the characters SAY it's 680 CE. The dates and locations are given in text on each of the holograms. Obviously that picture above is too small to see, you can just see some blurry bits of blue/white where the text is.

[u]I'm not trying to say Ridley made some conscious decision to parallel the Bible with this movie[/u] Oh, I think he most definitely did. But not with the intent of preaching, but of lulling us into a familiar pattern, so he could use that state of mind to scare or surprise us. [u]If you haven't been born again ( spiritually regenerated by Jesus the Christ) You have a dead spirit . A nature that agrees with spirit of this world. Antagonistic towards the Truth and Christianity. It's what I choose to believe.[/u] It's probably better off if you don't get into people's personal beliefs by telling us we have dead spirits and are antagonistic. Logically, if you assume everyone who doesn't share your beliefs is antagonistic to them, rather than simply unconvinced and thereby uninterested, then most of us would be antagonistic to the tooth fairy, and Thor. I'd keep my opinions on other people's faiths off the board, it would get ugly real fast. Stick to whether or not its in the movie.

I am very antagonistic towards the IRS.

Shock tactics.

@Hadley´s Hope I agree with you. I don´t think Ridley added all the christian symbolism to preach Christianity. More like to a create a mindfuck. I think he is an atheist or an agnostic, he has stated several times that religion is the cause of many of the problems in the world.

.

.