»Neo and Jesus Christ«

i'm sorry if this was already discussed, but let's look at the dual-nature of Christ and of Neo.

Jesus Christ was both fully man and fully God (according to most theologians of Christian thought).

could Neo be both fully man and fully program, and in this case capable fully of human emotion, but also programmed with purpose from the machines. digital and organic.

discuss . . .

He is human because....well he just is.

He is program because he has an anomaly code in him. A code which must be returned to the Source to stabalize the Matrix.

so what exactly are you saying? and is everyone on these boards a hack?

matrix spatrix....please get your cats snd dogs spsied and neutered!

Glock, are you looking for a metaphysical answer or a hard science answer about the human/program duality?

I don't think you're going to get a good hard science answer. How is Smith, a program, able to write himself over a physical human in the real world? What is consciousness? What is a soul? Is there an electrical pattern in our brain that determines our identity, personality, and soul? I think the Wachowski answer to that last question is yes. Which is why Neo can have a machine consciousness while his body is out and unjacked. The Oracle says that the power of the One reaches all the way back to the source and the architect says that Neo carries the code (of the One) within him. The Architect also says that Neo "was created" with certain personality traits (Specific love in pearticular) which leads me to believe that the machines design the humans as they are born.

I believe that the Wachowskis' concept from the beginning is that the human brain functions so similarly to a computer and that genetic code is so similar to program code that it is possible for human intelligence to be "programmed". So I think that the human/program duality is in everyone, not just Neo. Neo just happens to be carrying the code of the messiah which was programmed into him.

Quote:

Neo just happens to be carrying the code of the messiah which was programmed into him.

This entire messiah thing is something that has been programmed into us - as humans. We have - since the inception of culture, worshipped sacrifice. To see another human sacrificed for us is as basic to us as nectar is to the bee. We can't resist it. The doing of it ourselves is another matter all together.

The great thing about the trilogy is that its a story where you have a character ripe for sacrifice yet it has a bit of slant to it in that Neo hasn't really done anything other than what he was expected to do. It was another entity ( entities) that were able to watch and manipulate his expected response in order to make minute changes to a current established system of control.

Since all this discussion about the movies its almost as if the sacrifice was no big deal. No one ever really talks about it. Everybody wants to talk about the "how they made it happen" aspect.

I wonder... Was Neo's sacrifice a necessary event in the movie in terms of triggering our empathetic response? Does anyone care that he died.? It seemed a big deal the first couple of weeks but now its no big deal. An after thought at best.

Actually to me it was no big surprise that Neo died. It was almost expected. It was sad however.

The sacrifice wasn't that sad, but it was necessary. Neo had to establish his "Christ"ness by sacrificing his life for sin, blah blah blah. I think it was a short-coming of Revolutions, that it so closely followed the Christian formula. It seemed perfunctory. I think the movie failed to get people to emotionally tie themselves with Neo and Trinity. I didn't really care when Trinity died either. . .Okay, maybe I was a little sad when Trinity died.

One more thing, I think we all knew that Neo was gonna sacrifice himself, we were just their to understand the choice.

glocks out wrote:

is everyone on these boards a hack?

if you dont like it...fuck off

Quote:

One more thing, I think we all knew that Neo was gonna sacrifice himself, we were just their to understand the choice

I was actually hoping for some sort of "and they lived happily ever after". Trinity's death ( initially) really had me doing some psychological pole vault jumping let me tell you ( I'm over it now and content with her demise)

However, Neo had no choice - he had to sacrifice himself. But, because he was able to figure out WHY he had to sacrifice himself he was able to get some leverage with the machines and so was able to negotiate an advantage for humans who truly are shit-out-of-luck at this juncture in time. Hence, a revolution. He gave his life but there was a cost to the machines in order to get Neo's life.

Unless WE , as an audience, understand the why of human sacrifice ( the machines have figured out that Zionites need a scapegoat in order to appease their atavistic need for sacrificial murder in order to attain a state of peace) we will never be free of urges and our unconscious, aggressive desires.

I always felt some sort of disjoint with Mouse's line in M1 when he says to Neo " Pay no attention to these hyprocrites. To deny our own impulses is to deny the very thing that makes us human". On the one hand I completely agree with him and so my urge towards aggression remains intact - a natural and good thing. If I completely disagree with his statement then I am denying my most basic need and will be something other than human.

What do you think?

bachsoffice wrote:

Glock, are you looking for a metaphysical answer or a hard science answer about the human/program duality?

obviously a metaphysical discourse, since science does not explain anything but the physical.

Uh Oh....

Since we know that The Matrix is based in part on Gnostic ideas, I think we would be remiss if we did not talk about Gnosticism's idea of Christ in this discussion. Let's set aside religious beliefs for a moment and focus on a hypothetical; see, Gnosticism never was quite the same Christianity as the mainstream (Roman Catholicism, and later Lutheran Protestantism and all those who came from these two). We see this fairly plainly in Gnostic scriptures. But some believe that the Gnostics were actually the FIRST Christians, and that they adapted the Ancient Mysteries into the Christ myth -- a historical Christ never actually existed.

Christ, then, would be no different from Neo, or the Skywalker boys, or Osiris, or Dionysius, or Homer's Odysseus. He is a Mythic Hero, and an allegory for initiation into the Mysteries. (no, I don't think George Lucas is "up to" anything in his telling of Star Wars, as far as initiation allegory goes... I'm sure it's just coincidence based on the fact that he is using the same symbols, only without regard for their deeper meaning. so there.)

The closest thing we have to the Ancient Mysteries today is the so-called "secret society," such as Freemasonry, certain fraternities, or if conspiracy theorists have their way, "the Illuminati." In each, the Initiate is required to learn certain teachings, usually in the form of stories and parables, and then consummate their understanding by experiencing some profound truth, usually through acting out one or more of the stories. Then the Initiate is taught the symbolism of the story or parable, so that an even deeper understanding of the teaching is attained.

Right, so right now you're saying, "Huh?" Basically, it boils down to this: there are Outer, or Lower Mysteries, and Inner, or Higher Mysteries. You're taught the Outer Mysteries first, (in Gnosticism, this would be the story and teachings of Christ) and when you are ready, you are initiated into the Higher Mysteries (the secret, symbolic aspect of the stories).

So these forums are really a part of something that could be called "The Matrix Mysteries." (shameless plug - that's also the title of a little part of my web site, not up yet, but coming soon!)

questions so far? more to come....

...Like how I neatly ignored the "science only explains the physical" thing?
Let's all do, 'cause it's just WAY too far off topic!

d1 wrote:

I always felt some sort of disjoint with Mouse's line in M1 when he says to Neo "Pay no attention to these hyprocrites. To deny our own impulses is to deny the very thing that makes us human."

...I know exactly what you mean.

What Mouse seems to be saying is, our impulses, our instincts, our feelings, perhaps, are what separate us from the Machines. If this is true, then Mouse isn't contradicting the rest of the Human contingent in the film; on the contrary, it is Neo's impulse to save Trinity instead of the matrix and everyone connected to it, his instinct that it was the thing to do, his feelings for Trinity throughout the whole trilogy, that eventually brought about the end of the war. (When I thought of it that way, the line didn't seem so jarring anymore!)

I know, what about Neo's self-sacrifice? Well, I think Trinity's a part of that sacrifice. In the Passion (that's what it's called; I'm not talking specifically about Mel Gibson's movie - though it was quite an experience! I recommend seeing it once, just for the experience, whatever your beliefs.)
...
(shakes head, gets back on track)
...
Anyway, in the Passion, Christ is brutally beaten and tortured. This helps to show that his sacrifice was profound; by seeing your savior undergo great pain before his life is sacrificed draws you closer to him, as you relate to his pain. Who wasn't moved at least a little when Trin died? When Neo lost his eyes? When he told Smith he fights "Because I choose to?"

Neo is beaten and tortured (mentally and physically) and dies with his arms outstretched, perhaps to show that Neo bridged the gap between Humans and Machines. It can be argued that Christ's crucifixion symbolizes the same thing, bridging the gap between "Heaven and Earth," or, the spiritual and the physical.

I think that in The Matrix, we can assume that the Machines generally represent the physical aspect of Humanity, while the Humans (the actual, physical ones, Zion) generally represent the spiritual aspect of Humanity.

Anyone?

Quote:

How is Smith, a program, able to write himself over a physical human in the real world?

Even though this is not the main topic of this thread, I felt compelled (hehe) to add my two testicles on this issue.

As you may have noticed, people freed from The Matrix are not entirely human. They are all part human, part machine (They all have a plug in the back of their head). Just like Neo, but what makes Neo different is that is addition to being both human and machine, he also carries a code, making him human/machine/program. Now, Smith was able to copy himself into Bane because Bane is one of those freed from The Matrix that isn´t 100% human.

Something went wrong here...

See below for my post. thanks

I was watching TV while typing this post, and i came across something real strange: an advert for a video about the rising of the the messiah Jesus Christ.

and the advert went on to say about a war, man-kind, prophecies, and the finding of the new messiah.

It was funny because this two minute ad was discribing the Matrix movie. Now i'm no believer but there was somthing about this ad.

It seem's funny how the brothers wrote series of movies, based on events that could end up happening. Is it fate.

I am not a big reader of christian theology, but can anyone tell me, is there a connection at the end of M3 (ie the super burly brawl) where Neo is walking down the middle of the street flanked by Smiths, and the movie the passion of christ, where we seee christ walking, holding the cross flanked by people.

Is there a christian theological aspect here?

What do you actually know about Christian Theology? These things are easier to explain when you have a basis on which to begin (no matter how small).

The idea of comparing the Smiths to the crowds at Christ's crucifixion is very apt. Smith's copying represents mankind overcome by sin. Unlike Christ who knew what would be necessary, Neo is much more human. Like us (and like the followers of Christ in his day), Neo expects his victory to be a simple case of destroying Smith (sin - or sinners?). In fact it turns out that the only way to destroy Smith and save everyone (both in and out of the matrix) is to sacrifice himself.

Any questions?

(Some points - Merovingian represents Adam
- Trinity represents Christ's relationship with mankind

It's all very close to the theology expressed in the letters of Paul found in the New Testament)

Quote:

Unlike Christ who knew what would be necessary, Neo is much more human

i'm no expert but didnt christ go into the woods for a while and get tempted and all that before he knew what had to be done? plus it took him 30+ years to figure out his purpose..

annaerullo wrote:

Since we know that The Matrix is based in part on Gnostic ideas, I think we would be remiss if we did not talk about Gnosticism's idea of Christ in this discussion. Let's set aside religious beliefs for a moment and focus on a hypothetical; see, Gnosticism never was quite the same Christianity as the mainstream (Roman Catholicism, and later Lutheran Protestantism and all those who came from these two). We see this fairly plainly in Gnostic scriptures. But some believe that the Gnostics were actually the FIRST Christians, and that they adapted the Ancient Mysteries into the Christ myth -- a historical Christ never actually existed.

Actually there is signifigant historical evidence that Christ did in fact exist, a glaring example is that it is the single best explination for the growth of the christian faith is his death and ressurection since christianity had no powerful patrons until a roman emperor converted, many many years after christianity was formed and after several persucutions.

The ONE-der Man wrote:

Quote: Unlike Christ who knew what would be necessary, Neo is much more human i'm no expert but didnt christ go into the woods for a while and get tempted and all that before he knew what had to be done? plus it took him 30+ years to figure out his purpose..

Not really, Jesus knew all along what his purpose was, he made references to his coming passion throughout his life to his dicsiples. What he said at the garden was a request to God the father that he wouldn't have to be killed, and then he said that he would follow the father's will.

Adumbro Deus wrote:

annaerullo wrote: Since we know that The Matrix is based in part on Gnostic ideas, I think we would be remiss if we did not talk about Gnosticism's idea of Christ in this discussion. Let's set aside religious beliefs for a moment and focus on a hypothetical; see, Gnosticism never was quite the same Christianity as the mainstream (Roman Catholicism, and later Lutheran Protestantism and all those who came from these two). We see this fairly plainly in Gnostic scriptures. But some believe that the Gnostics were actually the FIRST Christians, and that they adapted the Ancient Mysteries into the Christ myth -- a historical Christ never actually existed. Actually there is signifigant historical evidence that Christ did in fact exist, a glaring example is that it is the single best explination for the growth of the christian faith is his death and ressurection since christianity had no powerful patrons until a roman emperor converted, many many years after christianity was formed and after several persucutions. Wether Christ was like he was portraded in the bible is debatable though. The ONE-der Man wrote: Quote: Unlike Christ who knew what would be necessary, Neo is much more human i'm no expert but didnt christ go into the woods for a while and get tempted and all that before he knew what had to be done? plus it took him 30+ years to figure out his purpose.. Not really, Jesus knew all along what his purpose was, he made references to his coming passion throughout his life to his dicsiples. What he said at the garden was a request to God the father that he wouldn't have to be killed, and then he said that he would follow the father's will.

Adumbro Deus wrote:

Actually there is signifigant historical evidence that Christ did in fact exist, a glaring example is that it is the single best explination for the growth of the christian faith is his death and ressurection since christianity had no powerful patrons until a roman emperor converted, many many years after christianity was formed and after several persucutions.

I hate to be Mr Doubting Thomas here, but where is this "significant evidence?" To me, your explanation for the growth of Christianity is actually strong evidence that a historical Christ did NOT exist.... The fact that the emperor Constantine was a really really nasty guy does nothing for the argument, either.... If Yeshua ben Yosef was a real person who really died and rose from the dead physically (as orthodox Christianity teaches), it seems to me that the very fact that no one mentioned anything about it for 60 years (Paul), and that the movement had no powerful patrons for well over a hundred, is very "fishy," if you will pardon the pun. Man, if I knew a guy who died and came back to life three days later, I don't know about you, but I'd be talking about it to everyone I knew. I'd make damn sure the "good news" got around!

I'm sorry, but your argument is not valid. I would be happy to entertain some REAL evidence, however. I don't know, maybe some birth records in Galilee? Or ANY recordings from that period in history that mention such an apparently influential leader? There are none. Why? I don't know. But I have an idea that makes more sense to me.

I don't mean to shake your faith, brother, (sister? no offense intended either way) but I have my opinions, same as you have yours. Leave me to them, and I will let you carry on as well.

If you want to take the Red Pill, I can show you just how deep the Rabbit Hole REALLY goes. But I think you've already made your choice. I hope that you will understand that choice. Peace be with you.

Gnostics were disliked originally as you know. This was because they did not want people to simply allow themselves to be martyred rather than denying Christ. The Romans did not understand Christianity and thought of it as a kind of atheism so getting away could be pretty easy. Gnostics were upset by the way people seemed almost to be encouraged to line up for death. They wanted people to try to gain a spiritual relationship with Christ, and claimed that those who died without this were dying for the dead body on the cross rather than the "risen Christ".

The reason this very sensible view was disliked was because it was mistaken as disrespect for those who had been killed in persecutions. Naturally it was of the opinion of the Christians that any of them who were killed in the persecutions would (like the theif who died with Jesus) be going to be "with God". Far from saying this, they werte discouraging people from 'allowing' themselves to be killed simply in order to get to God, because this seemed to be a misunderstanding of Christian doctrine.

Some of those who write about how important Christs death was were people who actually saw it happen. They knew that Christ had died. Whether Christ's "resurrection" is a physical one or a spiritual one is uncertain but that Jesus died has been borne witness to by many people. (Afraid I don't have my copy of "the gnostic gospels" by Elaine Pagels with me, cause there is an example in there)