>I'm Catholic. Depending on who you are and what you believe
>that means yes or no.

well the people who say no are retards, so just say yes.


>It's a difficult point to argue, but just because the film is
>called The Passion, doesn't mean Mel couldn't include more
>flashbacks.

I discussed this above in more detail with Frank, but ultimately the focus of the movie is on the suffering Jesus endured as the price of humanity's salvation. if you wanted more flashbacks to fully flesh out his life and teachings then you are looking for something in the movie that it wasn't meant to be.


>Really? I was under the impression his life was more
>important than his death.

funny, I was under the impression that they were both essential elements of Christianity.


>Maybe Catholicism is different than
>the other denominations.

Catholicism focuses on his death MORE than most Protestant denominations AFAIK.*

>For his death to mean anything his
>life had to have meant something.

I never said otherwise. But by the same token, without his death there is no salvation... seems pretty critical to me.

> I'm not denying the story
>of the Passion and crucifixion isn't central to Christianity,

it sure sounded like you were in the previous post.


>but what are the most celebrated days in the Christian
>tradition? Christmas - a celebration of Christ's brith and
>Easter - a celebration of his resurrection. Those are two
>celebrations of life and rebirth.

and what is the universal symbol of Christianity? The nativity star? an easter egg? nope - it's the cross.

If you want to see a story celebrating Christ's birth and resurrection, you can watch The Nativity Story and The Greatest Story Ever Told. The Passion is taking a different perspective and focuses on a fairly singular aspect of his story, and there's nothing wrong with that.


>Yes, the death was
>necessary for rebirth, but then why isn't Black Friday as
>celebrated?

because it's not exactly a time for "celebration" as such; Black Friday always seemed like more of a somber occasion rather than a celebration per se.


>And as a Catholic I've been to far more Holy
>Friday services than most protestants that I know.

* see above.


>Wrong. It is well documented that there was a Jesus of
>Nazareth who was put to death by crucifixion around 30 AD (or
>CE if you prefer). It was known that his teachings were not
>looked up favorably by the Jewish leaders of the day. I can
>trot out the sources if you would like. What's at issue is
>the miracles he performed and whether or not he was
>resurrected.

It is not "well documented" outside of the gospels, which is a religious text & not an objective historical account. there is no direct contemporary historical account, and the Josephus account is of dubious authenticity. but that's really neither here nor there wrt this discussion.


>>again, that's exactly what a Passion play is about.
>
>Again, I'm aware.

so you're complaining that Mel didn't include something in a movie that was never meant to include it? seems like a self-defeating argument.


>But I would assume that you're aware that
>the Passion is preceded by about 3 years of important
>material. To appreciate the Passion, it helps to be familiar
>with the man's life. You're assuming that everyone who went
>to see the film, was either a) Christian or b) knew everything
>they needed to know to truly grasp the end of the story.

well most of the world is somewhat familiar with Jesus' life, he's the most widely known figure in human history. but anyway, you're assuming that the purpose of the movie is to familiarize the viewer with Jesus' whole life story... well, it's not; the purpose of the movie is to evoke the suffering Jesus endured as the price of salvation - that's why it's called The Passion instead of The Life and Times of Jesus.

I mean if you didn't like it, fine. But you are criticizing the movie for not being something it wasn't supposed to be in the first place.