Satan and the Passion of the Christ

I kinda read into the child's part as our own demons, if you will, our own guilt. In this case, his betrayal of Christ. Satans figure, in the beginning of the movie, I thought it was really weird but I think I got the message. When the snake came out...how true is that....something you don't expect? Then later on, satan comes up when you start to doubt, when you start to say, " How can this be in God's plan?". At the end of the movie as well as any trial in your life, it is ALL in accordance with Gods ultimate plan. Mel Gibson might not realize it, nor the media, but just the controversy that this movie has caused will send thousands if not hundreds of thousands to see it and many will come to Christ. This movie is stirring and heart wrentching..As a believer, a non=-believer, a parent or a child. It will hit some chord in your heart on some plane in your subconcious, but I guarantee you, it WILL hit.

 

i watched the movie (preview) n saw this big baby thing that the Satan figure was carrying ... kinda shrugged it off, thinking i'd probably missed reading a passage in the bible or something. later, i didn't find it in either the bible or the Dolorous Passion ...

so i can only echo James White's apologetic blog today, when he says:

"What on EARTH was that hideous baby thing in the devil-woman's arms?"
http://www.aomin.org/


so whence the source of this hideous thang?

 

I thought it was well done. The satanic figure was as "attractive" as it was dark. As Satan is often parading around as an angel of light. I wasn't sure about the thing it was carrying though. But over all, if your going to manifest evil for the audience to see, he did a good job.

 

I thought possibly the baby was the anti-christ.

 

Asked a Catholic. It is symbolic of this scripture:

Genesis 3:15

And i will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heal

 

that's interesting. didn't the Reformers identify the Pope, in his capacity as Vicar (anti/in place of) of Christ, as the Antichrist?

what do the Romist/papist participants here think of that "hideous" baby? is USN2Pulpit's identification correct?

 

And can you pick out the Roman Catholic heresies?

 

this review touched on a lot of the error in the film:

http://www.SeekGod.ca/gibson.htm

 

The several preceding posts on this thread are interesting for the speculation created by this film. It just goes to show the confusion, speculation, and nonsense spawned by this dangerous motion picture. Since the Antichrist and the worldwide apostate religion are thought to be the Pope and Roman Catholicism, it would be interesting to point out the antichrist elements and the relation to Mariology taught in the film. Coupled with the imagery of the child, this has strong symbolic connection with apostate religion, the Antichrist, and the child in Revelation.

Did you notice the juxtaposition of Mary and Satan? Do you understand the implication of this? Mary is sustaining Christ and thereby has a part in salvation. The mere intimation of this is blatant heresy and too dangerous to tolerate. How can any discerning, God-fearing, Bible-believing, born-again Christian support Mel Gibson’s travesty? Are we so inundated with postmodern relativism, political correctness, and feelings orientation that we have lost all discernment and knowledge of Biblical doctrine? This mockery of Bible doctrine will not evangelize poor, lost sinners but it will proselyte them into the entangled web of deception of Roman Catholicism, thus making them fourfold the child of Hell. Stop, think, and compare with Scriptural teaching (i.e. doctrine, not story line or narrative) before recommending this charade for the destruction of lost people.

 

When one thinks about it, it sounds more diabolical than godly. Huh?

 

The role of evil/satan was done well. satan's presence all of those times had to be evident.

I don't know what that baby was. SOmeone else suggested to me the antichrist.

 

Genesis 3:15!!!!

 

There were two ideas floated that I've heard on campus:


1. The baby represented the antichrist

2. The baby was Satan's way of mocking Christ. Kind of a "I'm taking care of my baby, why isn't your father taking care of you?" type of thing.

 

http://www.seekgod.ca/gibson.htm
is very good details and facts that movie have lot of errors.

 

http://www.seekgod.ca/gibson.htm
is very good details and facts that movie have lot of errors.

One thing that makes so diguisting is, Jesus' resurrection, he beings naked.

I do not accept that, I won't go to watch movie.

Mel Gibson knows better than that! Why?

I wonder, anyone of you who already attend watched that movie, was Jesus naked shown during resurrection?


'Christian' movies always make come from Hollywood. Many of these have lot of errors and off the point conflict with the Bible.

Is it worth for us go to watch that movie?

I do not think so.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

I thought the whole Personification of Evil role was over done. I liked the part where Jesus Crushed the Serpent's head in the garden. Some of the other scenes like the baby in the arms of Satan and the view of Satan at the end in anguish were unnecessary at least in my viewpoint.

 

"didn't the Reformers identify the Pope, in his capacity as Vicar (anti/in place of) of Christ, as the Antichrist?"
Yes they did.

"what do the Romist/papist participants here think of that "hideous" baby?"
They won't answers, 'cause Carson Weber and friends can't post here!

"is USN2Pulpit's identification correct?"
Personally I'm going with the it's an allusion to Genesis 3:15 interpretation.