Assuming the passion narratives are historically accurate, the image of Satan seeming to float in the midst of the high priests, and later in the midst of the screaming crowds, is haunting and evocative. The image leaves a simple unconscious impression: Satan is standing here in the midst of the Jews.
Perhaps the point of this is to show that Jews, like anyone else, can be influenced by Satan. I don't think Satan's presence there was to indicate that Jews are evil. The fact, however, was that evil was present there, among the mob and among the Roman soldiers. Satan was there to encourage the evil acts taking place. Remember that "satan" is a Jewish title meaning "the adversary." Satan deceives and it seems that those Jews were deceived and they were just vicitms of Satan's influence, just like anyone else can be.
So, I would ask, why was Satan not shown in the cell when the Roman brutes were mocking Jesus? Why was he not present at the scourging? I can think of no answer.
Satan had already influenced the Roman soldiers. And Satan WAS present at the scourging. He just watched from the sidelines. Remember the demon baby in his arms? That scene was meant to show how Satan's evil was influencing the Roman guards who were scourging Jesus.
Think of it this way. Gibson took poetic license with the way he depicted both Satan and Herod. His depiction veers close to being un-scriptural and, I do not think accidently, occurs at the expense of people who are GLBT. If anything, more people will leave the theater with anger towards gays and androgynes than they will with anger at the Jews. It is more homophobic than it is anti-Semitic.
I don't get this at all. I never got that impression. My thought and I'm sure the thought of most Christians who see the movie is that Satan is depected as androgynous because he is commonly seen as also being the fallen angel, Lucifer. I know someone else mentioned it, but I'll reiterite this. Lucifer was the most-love and most beautiful of the angels before his fall. If we are to see Satan in this movie as that same being, then he should have been depicted as beautiful and androgynous, because that is the common Christian perception of angels. I have not heard of a single case of anyone becoming MORE homophobic than they already are because of this movie. That idea is just absurd.
I also do not see the film as anti-Semetic. The fact is that the corrupt political heirarchy of the Jewish church at the time decided that Jesus was dangerous and wanted him out of the way. So they incited the people to move against him. If a bunch of highly respected public officials paint someone out to be a criminal, then you can bet that a good majority of the populous will believe it. That's using the ignorant masses for personal gain. It is something that happens, and it's evil (which makes sense why Satan was present so much in the movie). This movie doesn't make me hate all Jews. It makes me feel sorry for the ones who were led on by the corrupt officials and it makes me think a lot less of ANY religious heirarchy. I disliked Caiaphus becauseof how he acted. But one man does not speak for all Jews in the past, present, or future.
no subject
Perhaps the point of this is to show that Jews, like anyone else, can be influenced by Satan. I don't think Satan's presence there was to indicate that Jews are evil. The fact, however, was that evil was present there, among the mob and among the Roman soldiers. Satan was there to encourage the evil acts taking place. Remember that "satan" is a Jewish title meaning "the adversary." Satan deceives and it seems that those Jews were deceived and they were just vicitms of Satan's influence, just like anyone else can be.
So, I would ask, why was Satan not shown in the cell when the Roman brutes were mocking Jesus? Why was he not present at the scourging? I can think of no answer.
Satan had already influenced the Roman soldiers. And Satan WAS present at the scourging. He just watched from the sidelines. Remember the demon baby in his arms? That scene was meant to show how Satan's evil was influencing the Roman guards who were scourging Jesus.
Think of it this way. Gibson took poetic license with the way he depicted both Satan and Herod. His depiction veers close to being un-scriptural and, I do not think accidently, occurs at the expense of people who are GLBT. If anything, more people will leave the theater with anger towards gays and androgynes than they will with anger at the Jews. It is more homophobic than it is anti-Semitic.
I don't get this at all. I never got that impression. My thought and I'm sure the thought of most Christians who see the movie is that Satan is depected as androgynous because he is commonly seen as also being the fallen angel, Lucifer. I know someone else mentioned it, but I'll reiterite this. Lucifer was the most-love and most beautiful of the angels before his fall. If we are to see Satan in this movie as that same being, then he should have been depicted as beautiful and androgynous, because that is the common Christian perception of angels. I have not heard of a single case of anyone becoming MORE homophobic than they already are because of this movie. That idea is just absurd.
I also do not see the film as anti-Semetic. The fact is that the corrupt political heirarchy of the Jewish church at the time decided that Jesus was dangerous and wanted him out of the way. So they incited the people to move against him. If a bunch of highly respected public officials paint someone out to be a criminal, then you can bet that a good majority of the populous will believe it. That's using the ignorant masses for personal gain. It is something that happens, and it's evil (which makes sense why Satan was present so much in the movie). This movie doesn't make me hate all Jews. It makes me feel sorry for the ones who were led on by the corrupt officials and it makes me think a lot less of ANY religious heirarchy. I disliked Caiaphus becauseof how he acted. But one man does not speak for all Jews in the past, present, or future.