Am I the only one who wants a Jesus Christ Cinematic Universe?

Am I the only one who wants a Jesus Christ Cinematic Universe?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=JWyVvyxu0-s
youtube.com/watch?v=de2ZQgRPLYo
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Collection
amazon.com/Abraham-Pt-1/dp/B01CN19GSU/
amazon.com/Apocalypse-Richard-Harris/dp/B00W7SIXM0/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

all i want is Jesus

Never because he spoke out against money lending and that is too controversial an issue for today's cinema to even touch.

Jesus is a Mary Sue and Paul corrupted Christianity by introducing the Trinity, equating Jesus, a servant, to God, not a father to anyone.

Unironically amen.

Who would you cast as Jesus?

Idris Elba

Jesus made himself a mary sue when he said he was the son of God and equal with him.

Yes, if they base it on the Nag Hammadi scriptures.

Money is evil.

Irdris Iibra

Ahmed pls

jesus was arab

WE WUZ GODZ N SHHEIIT

Make it the bible cinematic universe, when they are running out of bible stories to adapt they can start introducing other religions and myths

make by jews

>The Passion of the Christ
>P2 - Resurrection
>Rome's Way: TPotC 3
>P4SSION

Fuck yeah, make it happen

Gentlemen, gentlemen....you are both right

We're living the the Jesus christ cinematic universe, just most of our lives our the equivalent to shitty viral marketing videos on youtube that have 300 views

she does

>Not having universe take place during the Christian heresies
>Not having the proto-orthodox Christians against the Arians, who were both against the Gnosticism, for having the audacity to tell the truth: that the Old Testament God was evil, and can be never a Father to the True Divine Being known as Christ.
It was a sad day when the slaves of the corrupt Deity known as Yahweh managed to eliminate the true followers of Christ.

Tom hardly

that's not being a mary sue, that's called being based as fuck

The NT only got good when the MC Jesus "May Sue" Christ died and the Apostles had to endure life without the magical Son of God's help. Acts of Apostles was brilliant. Having Paul execute Stephen and all those other Jesus Freaks, only to suffer the same fate after he realized he was a Jew and wanted out, was ironic less than entertaining . Revelation of John is the only part when Jesus was actually cool, because he dropped the Prince of Peace garbage and went OT God on the world.

Is "The Last Temptation Of Christ" biblekino?

> hes a Gnostic

>being a christcuck

The Arians were right, though. Jesus can't be the Son of God if he wasn't created. It also makes sense of the Trinity and doesn't have to justify how one God can be three persons. Also, the Holy Spirit was just an active force of God, not a actual aspect of the Godhead.

>jesus is too controversial for cinema

You're confusing "controversial" for "boring".

You honestly think they would allow a movie about a guy going into a pseudo-bank and telling the people there they can't allow others to be in debt could get made in America right now?

> But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?”

Jesus had the power to lay down his enemies but stayed his hand. Pretty gangster to me.

this thread is truly blessed

the guy could walk on water and turn said water into wine

imagine the possibilities, he could also cure lepers

Wait a minute, you mean he doesnt solve his problems by punching his opponents in the face? What kind of hero or saviour is this?

I think a Mormon trilogy could be good if it was treated as sci-fi.

First movie is Elohim creating Earth and the conflict between Jesus and Satan.

Second movie is about Joseph Smith. I honestly have no idea what happens here, but Jesus does stuff.

3rd movie is Jesus and Elohim fighting Xenu and scientologists.

I want a religious cinematic universe that corroborates that Book of Revelations, and the Mahabrahta, using the Essene's War book as a middle-man.

/OC DONUT STEEL; COPYRIGHT: AN user IDEA. INC.

>Modalism is the only nontrinitarian belief that can accurately justify the existence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, without the trinity nonsense of somehow one God can be three people and not be seen as polytheism.
>It's seen as the heresy
How the hell is the Trinity not polytheism?

can an idea only be expressed one way?

is god limited the the conceptions of man?

what does God want but not need?

because One God! One Emperor! Gloria Romae! was the political policy at the time.

Make a movie out of the apocryphal shit like baby Jesus battling dragons and adult Jesus punching exorcised demons or something

>Muslim who doesn't believe in the trinity
>An dishonest to God Gnostic
>A Modalist manbaby
>A moronic Mormon
There's so much heresy in this thread. All of you are practicing Christianity incorrectly.

Never heard of this dilemma nor do I see why it would ever be a problem. For the record though.

God = the Maker
Son = God given form as a pattern.
Holy Spirit = The first Clause (i.e. that part of you that was present in God from the first moment and is trying to reunite with its Maker)

They're all One, you can't separate Them are keep the idea of the portion, the Whole, and the Godhead; yet They are also distinct, so it's neither polytheism nor modalism.

You're not helping.

*AND keep

Water can be liquid, solid and gas.
Same as God.

American Jesus seems weird as fuck

I like Middle Eastern Jesus better

Those relationships, specifically that of the Holy Spirit cannot exist in a universe that claims to support free will.

>God is piss
Andres Serrano pls

iktf
youtube.com/watch?v=JWyVvyxu0-s

>and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?
>implying I century Romans wouldn't beat those faggot ass punks with TACTICS

Water can't be all of them at the same time, terrible analogy.

The reason for the Trinity not being seen as Polytheism is because the Roman Emperor said so at the Council of Nicea because it was politically convent to push a message of unity as it was symbolic of him ending the civil war being fought between 3 factions at the time.

Get over yourself for "Gnostic" explanations when the secular history of the events explains it all.

Acts and Paul's epistles are the only ones worthy of being a film/tv series. The 4 gospels have been produced hundreds of times by hundreds of different people. Acts and the Epistles has conflict and persecution because Jesus is no longer part of the picture and the Apostles struggle to live in a world without him. Even with miracles, the ending is just bittersweet for all the early Christians.

I never realized how badly I wanted this until I read your post.

Daily reminder americanized christianity is literal ass cancer.

I would actually watch it if the miracles were ambiguous or off-screen leaving the audience to ponder if the disciples were telling the truth even in death.

>make a movie about one of the most corrupt organizations in history
>make a movie about the most hypocrite religious figure ever created

Will these movies include stories about the priests that fucked children?

Jessie Eisenhower

>implying Jesus looked like that dog haired paste boy

Not only does free will exist within that Triumvirate, but it is intrinsic to the third-dimension in fact, due to quantum entanglement.

4D = Time
5D = Idea
6D = Shroedinger's Principle (How does time unfold when it's not being observed)
7D = Akashi Record
8D = Mind of God

The premise behind the fruits of virtue and meditation is that they separate you from the confines of materialism, so that you overcome the fear of time and become attune with your higher sensibilities. The past and future are the contiguous and we can already know them as well as we know the present; provided our ideals align with what we really want.

James 1:8 "A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways."

Now THAT'S edgy.

If the past and future are a continuum you are literally defining a deterministic universe in which free will cannot exist because what will has has already happened. You are not even listening to yourself talk are you? Just regurgitating self-contradicting information.

>the truth is now edgy

O I AM LAFFIN

would a BARABAS! movie be part as well?

Jared Leto

>He thinks Shroedinger's principle is not just a confirmation error caused by the nature of active observation techniques by pitiful human scientists unable to make passive observations .

Toni Mahfud. Syrian Christian.

that guy that plays jesus in twd

Reddit, how are you friend?

not an argument

This is probably the closest you'll find to an actual Bible Cinematic Universe.

youtube.com/watch?v=de2ZQgRPLYo

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Collection

amazon.com/Abraham-Pt-1/dp/B01CN19GSU/

amazon.com/Apocalypse-Richard-Harris/dp/B00W7SIXM0/

I wasn't trying to argue, just calling you out for taking the stance of a redditor and typing like one

>confusing a Sup Forums meme for reddit
You have to go back.

>If the past and future are a continuum you are literally defining a deterministic universe
I never said they were a continuum. Whose regurgitating self-contradicting information now?

I'm saying they're a soup along with the present, inside yet a deeper soup that you can think of as 5D which is you can call an observation or idea of those things. Then 6D amounts to how the intertwine given a reference point at any of those. You have free will because you interact with all these dimensions on some level, quantumly.

An example is dreaming. It's very well known that dreams show you the future. You can choose to act upon them or ignore them.

BUT MUH BIOCHEMICAL MAKE-UP AND SYNAPSES HAVE ALREADY DECIDED FOR ME!

Listen, a boat is going to move when you turn on the motor, but there is no future for a choice not yet made. For that, the universe defaults to a state-of-hit-and-miss. Inaction/deterioration is not expedient to Universal activity. A future is stronger when an idea or and ideal has been set about it. If you don't steer, nobody is going to steer for you. You can choose to live the rest of your life as a determinstic edgelord, or you can wake up and smell the coffee.

Sure why not

The past and future are the contiguous. Those are literal words from your post. Contiguous Articles form a Continuum in English parlance you fucking idiot.

>. Contiguous
Obviously, the "the" was a type. Learn English before you open your mouth to me next time you donkey.

Russell Brand

>Paul introduced the Trinity
Nope. Pagan Pharisee Satanic people who made the Church adopted the Trinity from Egypt and Babylon.

Paul did nothing wrong.

Based Mel deliver a film about the fall of Rome?

>wine becomes cheap as dirt, alcoholism epidemic ensues
>worldwide water crisis, people die of thirst

Like I give a shit about the crackerjack 5 world definition google is giving for the word. In this context you cannot have past and future boarding each other geometrically unless they are a 4d-Torus equivalent shape and that shape would make them a contiuum.

Also you are entirely wrong about Schrodinger's Principle makes a lot of assumptions that are simply not correct. Just because something is not being viewed does not force it into an abstract state of being and/or not being. It just means we have no means of confirming it exists or is in a given state. Something does not need to be confirmed to exist to exist interdependently of Human observation. It only matters in Physics because they (the community of scientists) wont accept anything that cannot be confirmed/duplicated. If that was how the real world worked a fish does not exist until you find the second of it's species even though some fish are clearly accounted for in the ecosystem. It is entirely the nature of the measurement and accreditation that creates this problem, not the universe.

Geometry has no bearing on this conversation. Computer generations of trans-3D are only for the benefit of illustrative purposes. The Torus is just a fancy font for the idea of fractal reality as far as I'm concerned.

Schrodinger's Principle is applicable in real-life. Only something is confirmed it's not one way or the other. A nuke going off in a box, violates Schrodinger's Principle because it's observable. The idea is a controlled environment that can't be observed. Hence, in quantum physics it's applied to electrons that have no correlation in their spin until they are observed, upon which they will change to form one. Einstein called this "spooky action." However the microverse is just a nuance of the macrocosm made up of similarly congenital mass. Size has no bearing on state unless it's by interacting with something else relativistic. But in the end, who is the observer?

To God, we are deterministic to an extent. The train has started. It will reach the destination. We only have so many quantitative options, but for the variable they are infinite. In depends on where you focus the scope. However, to say that the Universe is unanimously deterministic because you are looking at the tree for the forest is nothing but solipsism.

*Until something is

>2011
>caring about religion
ISHYGDDT