If Satan was involved, then that, to me, would absolve the Jews in a sense.
Yes, you could see it that way. But to be honest it never occurred to me, which makes me wonder why show the image at all. It isn't scriptural. The only time in fact Satan was shown speaking or acting as "himself" in the gospels (and not by possessing Peter or Judas or someone else) was the temptation in the desert. The image of Satan floating among the high priests is haunting and lingers in the mind; and one notes that he did not go near the Roman guards but stayed amongst the Jews.
The scene about Caiaphas makes sense to me according to the Gospels which say that people "wagged their tongues" at Jesus, mocked him etc.
Perhaps. But public officials are rarely visibly involved with the execution of dissidents, in case the dissident becomes a martyr, as commonly happens. Caiaphas would have been ANYWHERE in Jerusalem but Golgotha that day.
In Catholic tradition, I believe, angels are frequently seen as being androgynous. The same would apply to fallen angels.
Maybe. In Jewish tradition they are "the sons of God" (b'ny Elohim) some of whom had children with the "daughters of men" and I don't recall seeing a reference to female angels anywhere.
I'm not sure why they'd depict Roman officials in such a way.
Because, don't you know, the Romans exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and so were given over to unnatural passions?
no subject
Yes, you could see it that way. But to be honest it never occurred to me, which makes me wonder why show the image at all. It isn't scriptural. The only time in fact Satan was shown speaking or acting as "himself" in the gospels (and not by possessing Peter or Judas or someone else) was the temptation in the desert. The image of Satan floating among the high priests is haunting and lingers in the mind; and one notes that he did not go near the Roman guards but stayed amongst the Jews.
The scene about Caiaphas makes sense to me according to the Gospels which say that people "wagged their tongues" at Jesus, mocked him etc.
Perhaps. But public officials are rarely visibly involved with the execution of dissidents, in case the dissident becomes a martyr, as commonly happens. Caiaphas would have been ANYWHERE in Jerusalem but Golgotha that day.
In Catholic tradition, I believe, angels are frequently seen as being androgynous. The same would apply to fallen angels.
Maybe. In Jewish tradition they are "the sons of God" (b'ny Elohim) some of whom had children with the
"daughters of men" and I don't recall seeing a reference to female angels anywhere.
I'm not sure why they'd depict Roman officials in such a way.
Because, don't you know, the Romans exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and so were given over to unnatural passions?