General Discussion -  Symbolism in the Passion of Christ movie (130 views) Subscribe   
  From:  David (DavidABrown)    Mar-7 1:10 pm  
To:  ALL   (1 of 24)  
 
  831.1  
 
Source: www.Cuttingedge.org

II. As "The Passion" set all records for new release (Up to $153,000,000+) as of the 3/5 Daily News Updates, we discovered significant Antichrist symbolism within the movie that fulfills Zechariah 11:17; additionally, the strong, bold, and thorough Roman Catholic nature of this film became so strong that the point is not even arguable right now! Finally, we have seen strong evidence that Evangelicals have been cooperating with Gibson to promote this film as an "evangelizing tool" for a very long time.

We demonstrate that "The Passion" contains two very strong symbols of Antichrist by portraying strange events that are not found in the Bible, nor in St. Anne Emmerich's mystic writings, nor in any New Age literature! However, they are unmistakable as solid Illuminati symbols of the coming Antichrist. These are the two symbols:

1. Demonic Virgin Mother and Divine Child -- As the Roman soldiers who professionally scourge the enemies of the Empire are beating Jesus, the female Satan is suddenly seen gliding through the crowd opposite the Virgin Mary. Suddenly, as she emerges from behind the body of a soldier, you can see that she is carrying a very white child. Since the movie has made such a point to visibly juxtapose between scenes of the Virgin Mary and of the female Satan, and since Satan is dressed in the same type of Virgin Mother outfit, this demonic scene must be intended to depict a Virgin Mother - Divine Child scenario. 

If the female Satan is the opposite Virgin Mother to the Virgin Mary, then the awful white baby she is carrying must be the opposite of Jesus, whom the Bible calls Antichrist! This symbolism is quite strong. The baby suddenly turns to look upon Jesus' brutal beating with great glee. Then, when the scene shifts back to Jesus, Satan and her baby disappear, never to be seen again.

 

2. One-Eyed Messiah (Illuminati symbol of their planned Antichrist) was depicted for 110 minutes of this movie! About 10 minutes into this film, Caiaphas' guards viciously punched Jesus in His face so badly that His face was swollen and His right eye shut; for the rest of the movie, Jesus right eye is darkened! He is literally a one-eyed Messiah going to His death. Mac Dominick of Cutting Edge remarked about this one-eye phenomenon, not only because it was so strongly presented throughout the movie, but also because the Illuminati makes such a big deal out of their beloved All-Seeing Eye (look at the All-Seeing Eye on the back of an American One Dollar Bill, knowing that the eye hovering over the unfinished pyramid is the Egyptian god, Horus, the Lucifer of the Egyptian Mysteries -- "Masonic and Occult Symbols Illustrated, Dr. Cathy Burns, p. 326).

Then, during the Resurrection scene, in which Jesus is shown sitting at the foot of the place where the burial cloths lay, this fully restored Jesus is never shown with both eyes; the camera resolutely stays on his one eye. Then, as Jesus suddenly gets up to walk out of the tomb, you see His naked buttocks! The last scene you see is His buttocks! Now, how did this scene get into the movie, and why is it so important that Gibson would make it the very last scene you see?

Only when you realize that the Illuminati has long depicted their planned coming Antichrist as a naked one-eyed man does this scene make sense. This combination of scenes -- one-eyed Messiah and naked buttocks -- perfectly fulfills the Illuminist Antichrist symbol!

However, as we explain this depiction also fulfills Bible prophecy in Zechariah 11:17. What an amazing turn of events!

There can be no doubt but that the "Jesus" walking out of the tomb was a perfect representation of the Illuminist depiction of a one-eyed, naked Messiah! So here is the really deep question: was Messiah dying on the cross the Illuminati depiction of their coming Messiah? He was certainly one-eyed throughout the last 110 minutes, and in such a way as to fulfill the prophecy of Antichrist in Zechariah 11:17.

And, when "Jesus" walked out of the tomb, he was naked and one-eyed, the perfect personification of the CFR Antichrist.





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    Mar-17 6:43 am  
To:  ALL   (2 of 24)  
 
  831.2 in reply to 831.1  
 
Source: www.christianitytoday.com
What's Up With the Ugly Baby?
Everyone's asking about the Passion scene where Satan is carrying a hideous infant.
by Mark Moring | posted 03/01/04

"Please explain the symbolism in the scene showing Satan holding a bald baby. Thank you."


Rosalinda Celentano as Satan
 
That's just one of dozens of e-mails we've received in the last few days, asking about a surreal scene in The Passion of the Christ where Satan is shown cradling a hideous baby who looks like he's about 40 years old.

The scene occurs during the flogging of Christ. Satan is passing through a crowd of onlookers, cradling an infant in his arms. The baby turns to face the camera, revealing a sinister infant, creeping out audiences everywhere.

We took your questions straight to the source, e-mailing Mel Gibson's publicist for an answer.

When asked why he portrayed Satanan androgynous, almost beautiful being played by Rosalinda Celentanothe way he did, Gibson replied: "I believe the Devil is real, but I don't believe he shows up too often with horns and smoke and a forked tail. The devil is smarter than that. Evil is alluring, attractive. It looks almost normal, almost goodbut not quite.

"That's what I tried to do with the Devil in the film. The actor's face is symmetric, beautiful in a certain sense, but not completely. For example, we shaved her eyebrows. Then we shot her almost in slow motion so you don't see her blinkthat's not normal. We dubbed in a man's voice in Gethsemane even though the actor is a woman  That's what evil is about, taking something that's good and twisting it a little bit."

But what about the ugly baby?

"Again," said Gibson, "it's evil distorting what's good. What is more tender and beautiful than a mother and a child? So the Devil takes that and distorts it just a little bit. Instead of a normal mother and child you have an androgynous figure holding a 40-year-old 'baby' with hair on his back. It is weird, it is shocking, it's almost too muchjust like turning Jesus over to continue scourging him on his chest is shocking and almost too much, which is the exact moment when this appearance of the Devil and the baby takes place."

Copyright  2004 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  PPLAPEU   Mar-25 4:50 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (3 of 24)  
 
  831.3 in reply to 831.2  
 
"Again," said Gibson, "it's evil distorting what's good. What is more tender and beautiful than a mother and a child? So the Devil takes that and distorts it just a little bit. Instead of a normal mother and child you have an androgynous figure holding a 40-year-old 'baby' with hair on his back. It is weird, it is shocking, it's almost too muchjust like turning Jesus over to continue scourging him on his chest is shocking and almost too much, which is the exact moment when this appearance of the Devil and the baby takes place." 
Copyright  2004 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information--------- 

I heard someone said the mockery was that satan could not equal 
the incarnation of Christ. It was a perversion of the fallen angel 
trying to emulated God. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  PPLAPEU   Mar-25 4:53 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (4 of 24)  
 
  831.4 in reply to 831.2  
 
Rosalinda Celentano as Satan 
I thought satan was a man in the movie 
(I did see it.) Angels are sexless so 
the fallen one seeming to be a man proves 
that out as true. I thought the character 
was an effeminate man. The sexless thing 
really worked for me--- I was fooled. 
I just don't dwell on details like casting.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    Mar-25 6:26 pm  
To:  PPLAPEU   (5 of 24)  
 
  831.5 in reply to 831.4  
 
Hi,

 

Thanks for posting such interesting thoughts.

 

There are so many visual and implied layers at work in the movie particularly in this one scene as you have pointed out.

 

In my first review I wrote that as Director Mel Gibson did many things that worked and worked well in his movie.

 

I think the significance is that Satan has a seed-child of sorts and that is the Antichrist. It appears that for a moment Satan thought he was gaining a victory over God in having mankind reject their savior but Satan later would realize that it was actually his defeat in that Jesus put an end to sin on the cross and later conquered death in His resurrection.

 

So yes an interesting view of Satan as for the moment he thinks he is triumphant.

 

God Bless you,
David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  PPLAPEU   Mar-25 7:08 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (6 of 24)  
 
  831.6 in reply to 831.5  
 
I think the significance is that Satan has a seed-child of sorts and that is the Antichrist 

You got something there!
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  PPLAPEU   Mar-25 7:13 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (7 of 24)  
 
  831.7 in reply to 831.5  
 
"I think the significance is that Satan has a seed-child of sorts and that is the Antichrist. It appears that for a moment Satan thought he was gaining a victory over God in having mankind reject their savior but Satan later would realize that it was actually his defeat in that Jesus put an end to sin on the cross and later conquered death in His resurrection." 
I appreciate the sentiments but you are running two ideas into one. 
OR maybe three ideas into one. 

Should we think that satan is into advanced planning, or that satan 
is just a reactive beast, a sinful beast? Do you think satan tries to 
outhink God? Now how will that happen. I do not think the relationship between God and the embodiment of evil are like a good man and a bad man in a conflict. We forget that God made satan. Satan 
is nothing but a fallen angel and no on that even a footing with God although man is very suseptible to his snares. In reality God can use satan as his tool though we do not see it.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  PPLAPEU   Mar-25 7:14 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (8 of 24)  
 
  831.8 in reply to 831.5  
 
"...There are so many visual and implied layers at work in the movie particularly in this one scene as you have pointed out...." 
as a movie, yes----it is totally loaded and the artistic imagination has not gone too far astray from the Biblical accounts we know.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    Mar-25 7:28 pm  
To:  PPLAPEU   (9 of 24)  
 
  831.9 in reply to 831.8  
 
Hi,

 

I think that this is one of the many good aspects of the movie in that it causes dialogue regarding the Biblical matters of what is sin, what is evil, what is good, how does God conduct creation among this mix.

 

God Bless you,
David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  PPLAPEU   Mar-25 7:31 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (10 of 24)  
 
  831.10 in reply to 831.9  
 
".... how does God conduct creation among this mix...." 
This could be a fascinating topic. I was always 
interested in John Milton's poem "Paradise Lost" 
---now that is not in the Bible, but I am afraid 
that work had made an impression on me.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    Mar-25 8:51 pm  
To:  PPLAPEU   (11 of 24)  
 
  831.11 in reply to 831.10  
 
Its one of my favorites as well.

 

I have only recently listened to it on tape but have not yet read it.

 

It is one of if not the most brilliant of non-Biblical writings.

 

What he was doing with words and ideas was truly brilliant.

 

I instantly fell in love with it.

 

God Bless you,
David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  PPLAPEU   Mar-26 5:15 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (12 of 24)  
 
  831.12 in reply to 831.11  
 
"I have only recently listened to it on tape but have not yet read it." 
Who read it? I have not heard it read. 

"Samson Agonistes" is another poem about the same length. 
The style is pompus and medieval but fits the subject.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    Mar-26 7:56 am  
To:  PPLAPEU   (13 of 24)  
 
  831.13 in reply to 831.12  
 
Its only portions read thats why I have to read it.

 

Ill try to get the info for you.

 

God Bless you,
David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  PPLAPEU   Mar-26 11:23 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (14 of 24)  
 
  831.14 in reply to 831.13  
 
"Paradis Lost" is ten or twenty pages I guess 
...takes a whole afternoon...it is a trip for lack of a better 
term 
if you read Shakespeare OK Milton won't seem to hard 
to read...or if you can rread King James
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Ecce Vombatus! (wombatzu)   Mar-26 12:02 pm  
To:  ALL   (15 of 24)  
 
  831.15 in reply to 831.1  
 
when Jesus was thrown over the side of the bridge in the first few minutes of the movie the first thing i thought of was Odin who hung from the World Tree, Yggdrasil, pierced by a spear... Odin also gave up one of his eyes for rune knowledge. whether he knew it or not, Gibson was using motifs found in Western European mythology... 
whether this is part of some Illuminati conspiracy is another matter.





 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    Mar-26 1:52 pm  
To:  Ecce Vombatus! (wombatzu)   (16 of 24)  
 
  831.16 in reply to 831.15  
 
Hi,

 

Welcome to the forum.

 

Do you think Gibson is using ways to create bridges to other viewers and there is no Illuminati element?

 

Also for clarification All of the actual Biblical events the Passion  Holy Week events derive directly fro the Old Testaments as far back as Adam & Eve, Enoch (the true Enoch mentioned in Jude, not the modern faked one), Abraham, Joseph All the Prophets etc.

 

For a look at this please see www.BasicChristian.org/jesuswalk.html

 

 God Bless you,
David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Ecce Vombatus! (wombatzu)   Mar-26 3:01 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (17 of 24)  
 
  831.17 in reply to 831.16  
 
i've got no idea what Gibson's intent was... but it just now occurs to me that hanging from a bridge is a Freemason practice, i think... so who know know? 
thanks for the welcome.





 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    Mar-26 10:51 pm  
To:  Ecce Vombatus! (wombatzu)   (18 of 24)  
 
  831.18 in reply to 831.17  
 
You know for the record the Mel Gibson Revolution War movie that he stared in and I think directed is FULL of Masonic and Occult symbolism I wondered why no one pointed that out back then.

 

God Bless you,
David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  robocoastie    Mar-27 11:01 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (19 of 24)  
 
  831.19 in reply to 831.1  
 
Couple of problems.

1) I don't think the satan figure is female, actually looks more male to me with shaved eyebrows and everyone that has seen the movie that I know concurs with me on that.

2) It's not a baby satan's holding but a midget this is evident by the very large hard with adult features which is what makes it even more confusing. Again those I know that saw the film also concur with me on this.

3) And this is the biggest problem of all - Jewish teaching not now nor ever has had a teaching of original sin to be saved from in the first place,  and satan has never been viewed to be evil much less G-d's antagonist. Such teachings come from the greek mythology influence in the gentile first century church not Judaism.

 

Rob
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  David (DavidABrown)    Mar-27 11:11 am  
To:  robocoastie    (20 of 24)  
 
  831.20 in reply to 831.19  
 
Hi,

 

Interesting insights.

 

I think that is the point that Satan is this androgynous creature that is elusive and wont allow himself to be nailed down, sorry pun intended, and his Seed as this stunted, fallen, unredeemed impish type of being.

 

The original concept of Original Sin and of the Deceiver comes straight from the Hebrew Text Scriptures of Genesis.

 

God Bless you,
David

 



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 

From:  robocoastie    Mar-27 9:58 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (21 of 24)  
 
  831.21 in reply to 831.20  
 
>>I think that is the point that Satan is this androgynous 

Agreed it makes the most sense.

>>The original concept of Original Sin and of the Deceiver comes straight from the Hebrew Text Scriptures of Genesis.

Disagree strongly. Both the translation of it and interpretation thereof is influenced from greek culture in the first century church not Judaism and further expounded upon in the second and third centuries by centrist christians (Read "Who Wrote the New Testament?" by Burton Mack for an incredibly detailed historical study of this).  Regardless, I don't mean to derail the thread so that's all I'll say about it in this thread but I felt it was necessary to point this out as its relevant since Jesus was Jewish and supposedly died to save from original sin but since the Jews have no nor ever had any such teaching in the first place it places the ENTIRE subject in scrutiny to show why the Jews did convert but rather it was the Gentiles who knew nothing about the intricacies of Jewish theology (and still don't) that did.

 

Rob
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    Mar-27 10:25 pm  
To:  robocoastie    (22 of 24)  
 
  831.22 in reply to 831.21  
 
If there was no Jewish concept of Origional sin then someone should have told John the Baptist and everyone, all Jewish, who went out to Repent!! and it probably would have been a good idea to inform the Temple Preisthood as well who were offering sacrifices for sin.

 

God Bless you,

David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


Message 23 of 24 was Deleted    



   From:  David (DavidABrown)    Mar-28 8:33 am  
To:  robocoastie    (24 of 24)  
 
  831.24 in reply to 831.22  
 
*Note

The above deleted post can be found in the new topic Judaism and the Law.

Robocoastie realizing the departure posted it in two places and I went ahead and deleted it here, as it is a total departure from this topic.

It is always my desire to keep the topics relevant to the title. 

God Bless you,
David

 



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
 
