Scorsese's depiction of Jesus as a schizo with a God complex hit harder than I expected and just gets sadder every time I re-watch it, especially his vision about having a normal life while being crucified and finally finding peace only to realize it's already too late for him. "It is finished" is one of the most devastating lines in film history imo. Willem Dafoe doesn't get enough credit for this role.
Scorsese's depiction of Jesus as a schizo with a God complex hit harder than I expected and just gets sadder every time I re-watch it, especially...
This phonograph "reads" a rock’s rough surface and transforms it into beautiful ambient music pic.twitter.com/PYDzYsWWf8— Surreal Videos (@SurrealVideos) March 3, 2023
you didn't get the line right and you misunderstood the film completely. are you 19? you had the view of the film i had when i was 19 as well. don't worry, you'll lose this edginess eventually.
I’m pretty certain that was the line. What was it if not the actual Bible verse?
"it is accomplished"
“It is finished” was the line, which is straight from John 19:30
well i just rewatched the scene to make sure i was right, and i am. i'm not talking about the bible verse, scorsese changed the dialogue in the film.
Then you might be unto something I found the movie to be poor as well.
In the Scripture it's clear and that's also what the Early Church that wrote and received that explains in extra places tells us it means - that the project of Salvation is finished and that Jesus willingly gave his spirit to the Father.
it's finished/it's accomplished = τετέλεσται, from τελέω, which all derives from τέλoς. "Finished" and "accomplished" means the same thing in greek. "Consummatum est!" in latin
he's saying the same shit
Why do repeat the same thing in a post you quoted there?
Mass quoters are unstable.
which of the posts i replied to overlaps with the point of my post?
Daily reminder that the bible contains three contradicting versions of jesus' last words. You can tell christfags don't actually read their own holy book; atheists know more about the contents than they do.
>Mark & Matthew
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
"It is finished."
"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit."
>3 completely different "last words"
why is this the case? who is lying here?
Nobody is lying. It is 3 different accounts which means this is simply what 3 of Jesus' disciples thought was worth writing down. I can't remember who in the bible says it but he basically said that if they were to write down everything Jesus did in life they would have more things to write about than paper in the world. Basically nobody is lying and it's just what each disciple heard and thought was worth writing down. The way each guy writes their accounts of the same situation places different importance on different things of the same event frequently, anti-christian fags are just midwits who are desperately trying to drum up any kind of petty doubt they can because they are assmad their parents drug them to church when they were a kid or something
It’s important to remember that the Gospels were written decades after the crucifixion by second / third hand sources
Written by the disciples of the disciples though, people who followed them around for the remainder of their lives and were probably writing down everything they said. It still doesn't change that each gospel is from the perspective of different singular men, and thus the importance of noting thing is different by each account. To construct as full of an understanding of Christ's actions you have to read all of them and stitche them together. It's honestly something to be thankful for as it helps get a more full understanding of what Jesus was doing
John was written by Jesus's favorite Apostle
> that if they were to write down everything Jesus did in life they would have more things to write about than paper in the world.
Ok this is just self-fellating. Such a bad and selfish rebuttal to the existence of a fragmented text
bro if I were to write about what you do every night when you sit up to unhealthy hours into the early morning browsing bullshit on the internet I wouldn't have enough pages in the world to detail how lame you are. Whether you think Jesus is great or not is irrelevant in the face of that just being a true statement
>man I wish there was more information on the life of our Lord and Savior
>OH COME ON SO YOU WANT TO READ ABOUT EVERY TIME HE TOOK A SHIT HUH SO STUPID, IMPOSSIBLE, COULDNT HAPPEN
come on man
There literally wasn't enough time in the lives of the men who walked with Jesus to write down everything. On top of documenting all of that on paper they also are busy spreading and establishing the church. This is well documented and understood come on man
Look I’m not complaining but they could have found some more paper or kept some more writing, it’s not that ‘they used all the paper in the world’ or that writing anything more means they have to use the sun total of all vellum in the world or whatever
I wish they wrote more as well my man, again, they were very busy establishing new churches and also keeping the ones they already established in check. You can read many of the letters past around after the crucifixion to know that the problems of the church then are much the same as they are now. By reading those you know that Jesus' life and actions left a huge impact on the disciples and there was obviously more He did than the main highlights that are written about
Whichever garden gnome updated it when they ~~*got a better understanding*~~, which is just code for "every time they changed it on a whim to sell a new edition." Funny how /tvpol/ hates God's chosen yet worships a book written by them. You can't make this shit up.
these books were written long after the time it happened, by different anonymous authors, with different agendas/ideas about the story in mind. different things are emphasized for different purposes.
the gospels are 4 different fanfictions about something which may or may not have happened, written by people who had various ideas about it in order to sell the stuff.
it should be noted that jesus in John basically comes off as a superhero who knows what he is doing and is a stoic, superman like figure. that's the one where he goes on the cross without any pain or strife basically and says "it is finished" once he's been offered.
in mark/matthew, he's represented more as a human figure and that's his cry out of pain and desperation. because he's human.
different perspectives on the story. think: how many different versions of spider-man's origin story are there? the original, ultimate, tobey, amazing spiderman, tom holland, etc.
Not contradictory the gospel are accounts from different people. Those are the last words according to the disciple writing
Or he said all three and the apostles being in different places with a roaring crowd around them only heard specific parts.
kek this religion is a joke. nothing is consistent at all. no christians even agree on the basics
There was just 3 replies you ignored on purpose to leave this comment. Why did you not respond to them on purpose?
>dude trust me, I didn't read the bible but I read an interesting post on r/atheism about Jesus' last words therefore GOD NOT REAL
Are you saying the Bible isn’t accurate to what actually happened?
The Bible is man-made therefore can be subject to errors and mistranslations
Also the accuracy of Jesus's last words is completely irrelevant
>The Bible is the truth
>The Bible is also inaccurate
relax senpai you’re not going to disprove religion
Not religion in general, just Christianity
yeah that’s a little too difficult for you too
It'd be a lot easier if most Christians actually read the Bible
Oh yeah and what are they not getting
Mainly that Jesus was a false prophet by virtue of making false promises to his followers which never came true.
>christians should take the bible literally because, well… i said so
it wouldn’t make any difference whatsoever.
>this moron doesn’t know about Lee Strobel and CS Lewis
Please, try to disprove Christianity. I dare you
Are you? Is that why youre hiding behind a faux question?
God is real
Your Semitic nonsense however is bullshit
Cope with it
“Mission accomplished” was the exact quote
nah it was "Morpheus, I'm in"
This jesus was in superposition and he realized it
it was Everything Everywhere All at Once but earlier
have you considered the possibility that you're the retard here and he got the message of the film just fine?
People forget the context of the first century. There were two laws you had to follow in Jerusalem: Roman and Hebrew. Jesus comes in like an antichrist and says fuck both, fuck the law, love your neighbor and yourself, stop cutting your dicks off, stop abstaining from pork, and stop usury. He was a Gandhi and MLK but to the status quo and complicit populous he was a Hitler or Che Guevara, threatening to overturn their entire society. From a normie standpoint he was absolutely insane. But Christianity won over the Romans and 1500 years later here we are.
Shit movie for pathetic bourgeois moderns. Even if we ignore that it is not a Christian movie, it's utterly insulting to toe Christian faith.
>using bourgeois as insult
have a nice day lefty bitch
>Thinking leftists care about the Christian faith
He used the word from the POV of an aristocrat.
The bourgeois are the gay Chardonnay left.
How so? For humanizing Jesus?
It’s not offensive unless you’re offended by the idea the guy who was a homeless street preacher killed by the authorities might’ve had some mental health issues. His own family believed he was insane.
When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”
That’s straight from the NT
I’m sure you already understand this but it’s critical to Christianity, that Christ is God and not just a delusional homeless man.
It’s critical to the Christian faith, not understanding Christianity itself
This is like saying the Greek myths aren't actually about myths. What the Greek myths are, are stories of divine beings. Not some euhemeristic story about the Gods originally being important kings. The essence of religion and myths are the stories, not some accidental convergence of events which, by the way, you clearly cannot make out. There is less evidence to suppose Jesus was a nut job homeless man than there is to believe in the account in the Gospels, obviously subtracting the divine elements if you don't believe it's possible.
It’s a shame but true that people don’t believe in miracles because religion has been unable to produce them. It used to not be a question if God and these things were real, because people had seen it or were closer to seeing it.
The point being that the character of Jesus on show is the authentic Jesus, which is most important for the understanding of Christianity, even if hypothetically, with no evidence, Jesus was an borderline nutjob coward.
It’s critical to Christianity that Christ is God though, there’s plenty of room in His first 27 years for Him to struggle in realizing this or to suffer confusion, but by the time His mission begins it’s core to the story that He and God are one
Imagine leaving out the rest.
Jesus Accused by His Family and by Teachers of the Law
20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family[a] heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”
22 And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.”
He was literally casting out demons and the pharisees accused him of being in league with satan.
>His own family believed he was insane.
that point still stands tho
too bad mary wasnt even there when this was said. The context of family were in reference to his friends.
The Greek word translated as "relatives" in the sense it's used there.
But we know that his "brother" which could be from Joseph's previous marriage - James, became the first leader of the Jerusalem Church so it's not like his entire family was a unified block against him.
Those people weren't possessed by demons, just severely mentally ill. These guys were primitives who thought everything was magic. They didn't know about the inner workings of the mind. They also did a lot of drugs back then and would hallucinate constantly.
Does that explain the unusually high incidence of schizophrenia in ashkenazim?
'Humanising' in this context only equates to bringing Jesus down to the most pathetic and generic characteristics of modern people. The idea that Jesus was just like us, but the only thing that set him apart was that he believed in something. Disgraceful, pseudo-Gnostic sacrilege. Even Gnostics would find it insulting to the highest degree. There is a whole tradition of humanizing Jesus, from the very earliest days of Christian theology through to the extreme Protestant sects of the Reformation. And I would cite Ezra Pound's poem, Ballad of the Goodly Fere, as a perfect example of this human Jesus, a noble man:
TLTOC is NOT that, it is a disgraceful liberal fantasy with new-age elements. Scorsese is a small minded nobody drug addict.
lel imagine being this butthurt over ones interpretation of a myth. Let it go, mate.
He is God bro wym. Trying to humanize Him is retarded. Imagine making a movie about Buddha or Mohammed or the Hindu gods and just making them hapless schizos. Stuff like this is only done to Christians because ~~*someone*~~ hates Christ and greenlights this
Believing you’re a God doesn’t necessarily make you one. After all, Jesus believed the apocalypse was going to happen within his followers lifetimes
> Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (Matthew 24:34)
>Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom (Matthew 16:28)
Which obviously didn’t happen
But the religion is that Christ is God, it’s not just about a very inspirational schizo
>"Jesus believed the apocalypse was going to happen within his followers lifetimes"
>Proceed to quote completely unrelated bible verses
Look at the context of both
Yes and he was right, because he was talking about Jerusalem itself, which was destroyed by the Romans in 70AD. He wasn't talking about the apocalypse.
Man you really don’t know much about religion do you
He isn't God, never says he is, he calls himself Son of Man and is called by others Son of God.
Yeah not the hapless schizo part of course, but Muslims believe that Muhammed was just a man. It's expressed explicitly and unambiguously countless times in Islamic theology. Chapter 18 verse 110 of the Quran is literally the following verse
>Say, "I am only a man like you
It's actually insane how Christians automatically think that other religions deify their prophets as if it's normal. No, it's not. That shit is retarded.
I almost forgot I had this image..
take a good read anons.
>claims to have extensively studied Islam but can't spell a basic word like seerah/sira and instead mixes it up with a eschatological bridge called the sirat.
So you think being a prophet means you're a God? Are you actually retarded? Also no one prays towards where he lived you gay. He's buried in Medina, Muslims pray towards the Kaaba in Mecca. They're two completely different cities that are over 200 miles apart. BTFO gay.
That's Shia you gay. Sunni Muslims praise and give individuals that weren't related to Muhammed the term Sayyid as well. Regardless, how is liking individuals based their bloodline deification? People like their family members because their part of their bloodline, is that deification?
As an example, Christians literally PRAY directly to Jesus, ask him for help, to heal them, to save them, forgive their sins etc.. you know they direct actual acts of worship to Jesus etc.. Doing that in Islam to Muhammed is considered outright hearsay and potentially punishable by death.
>you mispelled a poorly translated word that means your argument is finished
Word wasn't "misspelled". It was repeatedly spelled that way multiple times across multiple posts. It's a sign of someone that clearly doesn't have the credentials they claim to have. If you'd like I can systematically refute each and everyone of his points?
You can clearly tell he's mocking islam as a farcical sham as his ultimate point.
I don't think you have the constitution to read through the entire thing.
if even these micro aggressions set you off then I don't think you're prepared to read his other points.
I've seen and read this post multiple times on this site. Also literally none of his points are original which is the biggest give away as to how you can tell someone actually hasn't studied Islam and they're just using same recycled, tried and wash out points that Christian polemics have been making for years. Some gay watches Acts 17 Apologetics or reads Answering-Islam etc.. and them claims they've independently and objectively studied Islam sincerely, lmao it's always so obvious since there no academic rigour to them.
You also seem to be project massively and are upset by the fact a picture you saw on Cinemaphile and took as gospel is exposed as retardation within 10 seconds.
Ok then, do me a favour and I'll do you a favour. if you write out a counter to the screenshot, I'll save wha you write as a screenshot and spread it around when appropriate. That work out for you?
>we don't deify him
>we just base an entire religion on him saying "dude trust me I have a one way line to God" that nobody else will ever have for the rest of time and we pray towards where he lived 5 times per day
Don't forget all his extended family and children from his one daughter that reached adulthood are considered exhalted Sayyid who automatically deserve praise for sharing Muhammad's bloodline.
Honestly the older I get, the more I realize Muhammed just made it up so he can put himself and his family in an exhalted place in people's minds. All the behavior he showed was that of a conquering warlord that used "divine inspiration" to get others to follow his bidding.
The thing I love most about Jesus is his lack of desire for worldly goods. He taught love for God and love for one's craft, either directly or through his own behavior. The dude never ended up in a massive wealthy palace where he and his family held prestigious positions based on heredity.
Why didn’t jesus practice effective altruism and end exploitative labor?
According to Christian doctrine Jesus was God. So when he was teaching love for God he was teaching people to love him. And again Christians believe Jesus was LITERALLY GOD. How much more wealthy and prestigious can you get. Do you see how spastic your point is? There's zero humility and ascetism in this belief, you literally couldn't have a more arrogant belief if you tried.
And he was a carpenter, an everyday worker. Not a prince, a general or a warrior. an everyday man. he represents that even the most humble person has the holy spirit within them.
He didn't take 600 wives, become a warlord and told women they can't prove rape.
He said nobody is free of sin and to pass judgement isn't virtuous.
Lol. Merely drawing him can get you shot/decapitated. At least TRY my dude.
Do you understand what deification is you gay? Pagans (and Christians) used to draw and sculpt their gods, does that mean they didn't deify them? Does allowing or disallowing the drawing of someone relate to their statues as a god? Fucking spacker. Also, Muslims prohibit the drawing of any and all prophets. Can't draw Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Noah, David etc.. so my your reckoning they deify all those as well? Lmao, BTFO chud.
Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God and essentially an avatar for God. Jesus was essentially the perfect man, he is what Adam was meant to be. He is the savior of man who lived without sin and sacrificed himself for the souls of man.
Humanizing him is very much an insult to those who believe in him.
It's not about humanizing, Jesus is fully human and fully God he also faces all the issue and temptations humans face yet he managed to successfully resist them and overcome them due to his divine nature.
So yes I agree, depicting Jesus as anything less than a perfect sinless human is offensive, he might have struggled with mental issues who knows but they would never cause him in harm because he would have managed to fully overcome them even if they existed.
Who cares if it’s insulting if it’s still a compelling character study? Why should the feelings of a group matter more than art?
You people are just as bad as the cancel culture leftists
>Why should the feelings of a group
If the author presents himself as a Christian then promoting Christian ideas should be his main focus and build his art around that, if the author is a subversive leftist devil-worshipper that should be exposed so that Christians don't get confused by false teachings.
There's no cancel culture, just the pursuit of truth with is absolute and can stand on its own, they should be allowed to make any art they wish to but their intentions, goals and personal views should be exposed and criticized to give people a better picture behind their real intentions.
You are such a pseud, I can see right through you dude. Youre basically larping at this point and playing a game where anything other than 100% agreement will be met by more pseud rambling that is more for your own benefit than the person you are talking to.
Thanks for admitting you got completely destroyed you absolute imbecile.
I never once even mentioned this film or Scorsese specifically because I never seen it, but the same universal principles apply to all art especially art trying to present itself as Christian.
I just started replying to you. You think I give a shit some guy on Cinemaphile thinks im an "imbecile"? You dont even talk like this irl, acting like fucking skeletor over a theology discussion that should be good fun and turning it into your egowank.
>other than 100% agreement
What is there to disagree with if you're coming from a Christian perspective?
You could say well I am [INSERT DENOMINATION] we believe it it's actually [INSERT THE OPINION].
But instead you ran in defensively kvetching like a vile garden gnome that you are, who's only goal is to attack Christianity and blaspheme agains our Lord at every opportunity.
>what’s to disagree with as a Christian
The idea that Christ should not ‘really’ be depicted as fully man and that it was actually all so easy for Him in His Godliness to just breeze through life like being crucified and dying didn’t matter because He was so Godly He didn’t really suffer ‘like we do’. Part of His suffering was a fated destiny to suffer in all the ways man does, it’s just the Passion from an emotional perspective. The movie doesn’t go like OP says, he’s just interpreted it that way
Here's my post on that
He’s not mentally ill in the movie, that’s just what OP claims
The post I was replying to was claiming that the movie was not insulting and Christian’s had no reason to be offended by it and I was explaining why.
Gnostic moment. Jesus is fully God and fully man. Not an avatar, not half and half. Full divinity and full humanity in oneness of being
He's God and Man you Arian cretin.
Jesus was not "homeless," he was actually quite financially well off. Not only did his ministry have an accountant (Judas), but they had a dishonest accountant and still had enough money that nobody cared enough to look into it. The idea that Jesus was a hippie hobo is retarded and goes contrary to what is actually in the Bible.
think you're thinking of passion of the christ m8. catered primarily to suburbanite "christians" who detest violence in media unless its jesus torture porn. at least last temptation had soul
You said nothing here except seethe and slapdashedly try to make your insults congruent to each other. Oh what's that, urbanite Christians don't like violence? Oh, urbanite Christians like The Passion? Wow!
The Passion is entirely a traditional Catholic work and if you cannot understand it then you are simply uneducated. Would you call Grunewald's crucifixion torture porn? You imbecile. What suburbanites think of it does not matter, but if they are least do FOLLOW Christianity, unlike Scorsese, then they should be open to a sincere expression of it's message just as they should be to a Bach cantata.
Sorry but the Passion contradicts Scripture, I noticed that Mel Gibson changes the words of the Lord. This change was made by Mel to appease the Christ-denying garden gnomes. In the part of the movie where Jesus stands before Pilate, Mel Gibson has Jim Caviezal say:
>“My Kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants should certainly strive that I should not be delivered into the hand of this people.”
But Jesus actually said, as recorded in John 18:36:
“My Kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants should certainly strive that I should not be delivered into the hand of THE garden gnomeS.”
Notice the change that Mel made. He changed the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His meaning – simply not to offend the garden gnomes. If he had quoted the actual words of Our Lord the scene would have been more powerful and, most importantly, more accurate. This change was striking for me when I saw the movie
john is the most fanfictiony of all the gospels. jesus is presented as a stoic, self-aware superhero in it. pretty much nothing in there should be taken seriously even by biblical standards.
Mel also cut the God could send Jesus legions of angels to protect him
Jesus was a man, not a God, at no point in the bible he says he is God.
The movie is a masterpiece btw, I found it touching and I'm rather blasé.
Not sure about that one pal
have a nice day garden gnome
Jesus didn't exist
it's proven that he did, what is not proven is if he did any magical shit or was just a cult leader
>it's proven that he did
The judiasm's savior doesn't exist
Probably not considering even Christian accounts of him didn't even exist until multiple decades after his supposed death
The story is exists though and garden gnomes have tricked retarded goyim in to believing it
Di Jesus really use a white supremacist dog whistle, with "it's over"?
Why'd they make the new testament after the old one? How can you just pick and choose things you like about the religion and just say "this is how the religion is now"? Doesn't make sense to me.
Religious reformation doesn’t make sense to you?
I mean, you can't have god doing all this shit in the old testament and then write the new one and leave stuff out of straight up changed what happened. Then you're just making shit up.
The premise is that God came down and established new rules, and this is predicated in the Old Testament which said that would happen. The Old Testament directly promises that if it’s followers keep having children and stay healthy God will eventually send a messiah to set them on their new destined path
The New testament was largely written by men very well versed in the theology of judaism, you can be sure they didn't just forget stuff they didn't like.
From the perspective of Christians the old law has been "fulfilled", the need of sacrifice to attone for sin is made obsolete by Jesus suffering and death. The specific laws given by moses to the hebrews were always just meant to guide life among the tribes, even garden gnomes don't follow them anymore.
>then you're just making shit up
as opposed to the old testament?
If you don't anything about Christianity in the first place you should start by researching it. Basic questions like yours are answered in countless documentaries.
when you consider the fact that the temple fell and the romans sacked jerusalem not too much later, it makes more sense. It completely destabilized their religion, the rules had to change, even for non christian- garden gnomes.
You're not supposed to apply reason and logic to religion
You don’t even know the story dude Isiah was saying wash your dick so God will send a messiah to change the rules since way before 0 AD
God in this time period also decreed that wearing clothes made from mixed materials is a sin and Jesus never contradicted that, so it's still a sin but nobody really minds
Absolute brainlet take
Do yourself a favor. Go read up on the council of nicea.
This video is extremely basic but it gets the gist across.
Basically after Jesus's death and after his followers spread his name across the Roman Empire. Christianity became the dominant religion, but there were 800 different sects and interpretations. In the year 300 the roman empire invited every person who's a Christian scholar, priest or whatever to attend the biggest religion debate in history to basically establish Christianity.
It was like signing the declaration of independence while also having a thousand sweaty priests and fedoras debate the laws and history and lore ok the spot. It would have probably been the coolest shit to see. People literally arguing over how to run the religion. And they were sensible too. They all unanimously agreed that cutting off the foreskin was retarded. Some argued Jesus was a dragon. Some said Jesus "survived" crucifixion and just got down and continued to preach. Crazy shit
The greatest writers room of all time
No kidding. Some people talk about what they would see if they have a time machine and I would honestly check that debate out. In original Latin in the beautiful Anatolian countryside with the Royal roman retinue giving every scholar the royal treatment to debate theology that would go on to literally take over the planet.
I want to believe (I'm not an atheist), but the cynic in me thinks that the council was mostly political, and its main purpose was to define the version of Christianity most satisfactory to the political establishment of the time and for maximizing its ability to control people. What factors went into deciding which books were apocryphal and which ones part of the official canon?
Well that's just it. Christ was always political. And the concept of the Trinity is still debated after 2000 years.
A lot of it boiled down to key figures that held significant powers through followers and even though the council was concluded, there would still be major schisms that would later go on to wreck the roman empire.
If you want to believe, you must understand that the Bible is heavily coded and only through esoteric interpretation can it be made sense of.
It was a means to both preserve and conceal the truth, which is essentially non-duality. Look into christian mysticism. dogmatics and exoterisists are mouth breathers.
this is just cope for the fact literally none of it stands up to a modern interpretation
Stay ignorant then.
>this is just cope for the fact literally none of it stands up to a modern interpretation
Constantine was baptized by an Arian bishop, if it was a purely cynical ploy by the Roman Empire to consolidate Christians then they would have agreed to Arianism since its what influenced the Emperor.
Incredibly based. Would such a thing happen in this day and age or would it just be the self appointed elites sucking each other off as usual
same reason why islam exists, cultural differences. the middle eastern sand people were culturally very different from the western people from which christianity was spreading from. So they created their own version of christianity that is more inline with thier cultural identity.
Some just have different developments in their history that radically change their mindset.
Did you know russia never experienced feudalism? Because feudalism requires a land lord to protect the people that work his land. Russia was conquered by the Mongols and subjected to brutal tributary tithes. The people of russia had no control, and so their system adopted a brutalist absolutism of 1 central ruler having complete control.
When the mongols left, russia just couldn't break that system. the Tzar could continue to hold absolutist power over the land and go unchallenged. They've never experienced fairness, democracy or even security from the ones that rule them.
So although it's close to europe, they're the result of centuries of the most savage nomadic tribe imposing iron age laws on a fledgling territory that was known for having zero wealth besides rodent furs and slaves.
bro I saw you posting the Sergei Sergeev book on Cinemaphile are you going to insert what you read into every fucking topic?
fairly tale head ass bro
in what fucking deluded world are you going to deny the effects of historical cultural formation
get your retarded fucking head out of your stupid ass. Not even him, but holy fuck if you're going to shit on someone for being learned about something, at least come up with a legitimate critique beyond exposing yourself as a troglodyte
>Come up with a legitimate critique to headcanon and historical revisionism
shut the fuck dumb ass
>Also whats your point?
>the most savage nomadic tribe imposing iron age laws on a fledgling territory
Didn't happen, it's a Soviet revisionist invention. Ironically, this was proven by Ukrainian (Belinsky, Matvienko) and Tatar (Izmailov) historians.
I wasn't giving a dissertation, I was giving a hyperbolic summary with a bit of humour.
But none of it is false. Mongols did invade, did subject the land we call russia today with tithes, and when mongols left russia maintained the absolutist monarchy. Yes there were exceptions where democratically led city states with heavily western laws were established but they were stamped out and replaced with what we know as absolutism anyway. What is there to disagree?
I don't browse Cinemaphile but it's funny you think Cinemaphile is that small lol.
Also whats your point? that other societies were just faking it and were also as brutal as russia? get real dude. Besides expelling garden gnomes, Europe didn't have the signature Asiatic slaughter that was so common there that it builds tolerance of violence towards their fellow man.
>Besides expelling garden gnomes, Europe didn't have the signature Asiatic slaughter that was so common there that it builds tolerance of violence towards their fellow man.
>b-buh muh europe was brutal too!
Nothing compares to asiatic slaughter.
>has no argument that Europe was somehow less brutal than Rus, so here's a meme about China
I accept your concession
What? all you posted was a picture of a playwriter. what even was your argument to begin with?
>picture of a playwriter
but i guess i should've known better than to argue history on the lowest IQ board on Cinemaphile
you'rea complete pseud, no worst yet you're a retard who pretends to be smart.
Do you honestly think knowing about a playwriter gives you a higher IQ?
What the fuck is your argument, what is your point, what are you even trying to say. you haven't made a single statement that wasn't "lol lmao"
Nobody takes you seriously
Yeah I don’t know what this argument is. I’m stealing another post I saw here
Europeans were using the term “decimated” to describe huge losses, 1 in 10 where it could equate to a couple thousand or even hundred dead while the Chinese were killing each other by the millions, and the Slavs aren’t supper far behind
>they're the result of centuries of the most savage nomadic tribe imposing iron age laws on a fledgling territory
The Mongols were way more democratic and pluralistic than any European polity in 1200s, their supposed barbarism is just Russian cope.
Downplaying Golden Horde brutality is woke revisionism.
>buh muh non white bipocs can't be as bad as british
Of course they were brutal and murdered everyone who didn't comply. But the murdered people didn't live on to create culture, did they? The people who did comply were mostly left alone. Plenty of places were under Mongol suzerainty and some of them for longer than the Ruthenian principalities but it didn't end up creating such despotic political systems as Russia has. In some places like Georgia, Cilician Armenia or Bulgaria for a while the supposed Mongol yoke was a time of prosperity even.
didn't the mongols basically slaughter everyone everywhere they went if they resisted seriously
AND they subjected everyone to the tithes some other anon was describing. Out of curiosity, what would these tithes be like for the poor people living in bumfuck russia which is an awful place to live as a baseline with extremely harsh conditions? Could they, possibly, be described as brutal? Would you consider this tributary system as being feudalistic, with the mongols rendering some sort of service, or was it basically indentured servitude to their conquerors? But to be sure, their innovative social systems and justice reforms made all the difference here. Who could possibly consider the habitual conquerors, enslavers, and rapers barbaric?
Scorsese is a shabbos goy slave who will burn in hell 🙂
Why are you giving Scorsese credit for something Kazantzakis and Schrader did?
Gee, the mind boggles to imagine how a red blooded American institution would portray a holy Christian figure in this ugly light...
Curious also how figures like Solomon, although from the same lineage of ideology, are never shown on silver screen. Let alone attacked constantly and vehemently in popular culture...
If you were making a film, what would you naturally include or exclude based on your personal biases?
When watching a film, what can the biases tell us about the filmmakers?
It's could be Marxists or liberals or anything really, but those ideologies don't typically entail adherence to any one religious system...So then...what kind of person would be swayed in a direction to depict the son of god in the new testament negatively?
You’ve definitely got the usual suspects involved, but for what it’s worth there is a sensible attempt at secular Christianity which is meant to handle the real lack of faith have over what seems like unproven magic, while preserving the honored values of Christianity in a humanistic way. Of course though if Christ isn’t an actual intersection between the absolute divine and man, then you’re throwing out the baby with the bath water
Is amazing and hubristic that people think there is some worth in "humanizing" Christ, as if humanity has anything worthwhile to ooffer over the divine. Conceptual or not, the divine will always beat out humanity as for every good thing we do, we do 5 awful and wretched things in return. People who think there is worth in this have a pride issue they need to get over, which they probably will when they stop being 18
If humanity is so bad, it's because christ ie God made them that way
I know you just turned 18 and can post here now bro, but lurk more. You'll realize it's 20 years to late to have bought that fedora
I know it's hard for you to accept the fact that church attendance is plummeting everywhere in the world except uneducated third world countries, but eventually you'll realize the vast majority just grew out of fairy tales
I know it's hard for you to accept that you don't know everything in the world when you are 18 but eventually you will grow out of being retarded
Dude it’s fine but you should have a better idea of how the religion even works.
Why bother learning something that is becoming more irrelevant everyday? That's like learning a dead language
Ha true true but it helps to make sense of what people were thinking/doing rather than cynically writing it off as some idiotic scar in humanity. I mean Christianity has been quite the mess but there is some hope in there that’s nice to see in history
I think it’s majorly significant to the religion that Christ was fully man as well as fully God. That He lived in the world and suffered as people do is core. Fasting out in the desert and withstanding Satan’s temptation doesn’t mean nearly as much if Christ isn’t starving just like a man is
>DUDE WHAT IF WE SUBVERTED THE JESUS STORY AND ADDED SHIT JUST FOR SHOCK VALUE LMAO
I always felt there’s great potential in making a tv series or even comic about Jesus’ mission that would be joyous and fun, yet take the message seriously without being too sermonizing. I like when he went on tour doing riverside magic shows from a boat, dude was doing iron man numbers fr
that exists and is currently airing
Oh yeah what is it and is it fun? Or does it ‘feel like church’ so to speak
it's called The Chosen
it's fun at times but does have the "feels like church" air all religious programs have
Yeah I’m wondering the best way to spin this stuff. Life of Brian is too cynical and faithless, which is fine, but I almost imagine a setting where yes Christ is real and He’s God, that’s a given we don’t need to sermonize about that, but He is doing some interesting work and probably is stubbing His toe and getting irritated doing His own groupie work for His magic boat tour. Things like that. Also would enjoy a show or comic about Moses’ techies, these guys are getting stung by African bees finding snake paralyzing powder for this cool snake wand trick Moses has been cooking up
>Life of Brian is too cynical and faithless, which is fine, but I almost imagine a setting where yes Christ is real and He’s God
That's literally Life of Brian though. They don't even show Christ's face out of respect and his part is played completely straight. The comedy is another guy living a parallel life to Him.
everyone on this thread read St. Augustine's "De Trinitate" and then come back
Neque enim sic accepit formam servi, ut amitteret
formam Dei, in qua erat aequalis Patri
Illud enim prop-
ter formam Dei, hoc autem propter formam servi, sine ulla
st ergo Dei Filius Deo Patri na-
tura aequalis, habitu minar. In forma enim servi. quam acce-
pit, minor est Patre: in forma autem Dei in qua erat etiam
antequam hanc accepisset, aequalis est Patri. In forma Dei,
Verbum per quod facta sunt omnia 41; in forma autem servi,
factus ex mullere, factus sub Lege, ut eos qui sub Lege
erant, redimeret42. Proinde in forma Del fecit hominem; in
forma servi factus est homo. Nam si Pater tantum sine Filio
fecisset 'hominem, non scriptum esset: Factamus hominem
ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram i3. Ergo quia forma
Dei accepit formara serví-, utrumque Deus et utrumque
homo: sed utrumque Deus propter accipientem Deum,
utrumque autem homo propter aeceptum hominem. Ñeque
enim illa susceptione alterum eorum in alterum conversum
atque mutatum est: nec divimitas quippe in creaturam mu-
tata est, ut desisteret esse divinitas; nec creatura in divi-
nitatem, ut desisteret esse creatura.
The Bible is a parable. It's a metaphor for the truth, not the truth itself.
>people STILL the miss the point of the book/movie
>people STILL think the book/movie is anti-Christian and/or atheistic
Comedy show about hack Christ making it work, Christ hiding behind a wedding party spiking barrels of water with ink and pitch by the river in Galilee
Life of Brian exists buddy
Yeah but we should do it again and it wouldn’t have to be this old British comedy
nothing Scorsese ever did was profound. Taxi Driver was an accident by Paul Schrader.
>depiction of Jesus as a schizo with a God complex
What a fantastic bait, literally not what the movie is about.
was it even you that posted this in the sad movie moments thread yesterday?
Christianity is a schizo-tier religion. The Trninity is indeed a blasphemy.
>depiction of Jesus as a schizo with a God complex
Are you like actually literally retarded?
I simply don't understand why this movie makes so many people seethe.
>opens with a title card that says it's not intended to be accurate to the Bible
>is extremely on the nose that it intends to explore doubt, sacrifice, and temptation in a religious context
>shows how all of these things can be overcome
>does so from Jesus' POV
It's quite good. I really liked it. It's been a while since I last saw it, so I could be misremembering details.
I dropped the movie after the scene where Jesus watches his girlfriend get blacked
>there are still people out there that interpret the Bible literally.
Wake the fuck up
Are you one of those schizos buying ads here to spread your weird gnostic off shoot schizo religion?
I'm not gnostic and i don't buy ads, but I do qualify as a schizo.
>movie is about telling Satan to fuck off
>gets accused of devil-worshipping
Wow /misc/, very enlightened of you
it's kazantzakis. also christians are stupid thinking it's antichrististion.
the _entire_ point of the final act is to show "I was wrong to not die on the cross; it would be the good thing; take me back in time".
If Jesus died for our sins wouldnt that mean we are born with a clean slate and don't need to baptis ?
So he died for nothing
he dies, promises second coming
his death and promise open up the chairological, upon which His mystical body on earth assumes the form of the "universal gathering" (ekklesía katholiké, catholic church)
grace is bestowed upon members of this universal historical community through eucharistía
you live forever
I was taught baptism is your covenant to God, promising to try and live the holy man's life.
You'd figure writing some information down about the most important man in the history of the world and the savior of all of humanity would be a pretty high priority
But they were all like, nah, we can wait a few decades before we record some of this shit
Just shows he's always been a anti-christ Crypto-garden gnome. Silence proved that further when he added that "personal faith" bullshit at the end.
Read the book. You won't get that either though.
gnomishes depiction of Jesus
Well Jesus was a garden gnome after all.
I used to watch it every Easter. That Peter Gabriel soundtrack is great.
>all these young anons completely missing the point of the movie and sperging like normalfag snowflakes
you gays need therapy and friends. you all have no lives lol fucking creeps
>enter dead thread in Cinemaphile
>accuse random people of not having lives
>remain completely blind to the irony that just transpired
>all these "trad" midwits denying the human nature of Christ
>another trashing europeans thread
Tax money hard at work