I don't mean to re-up this post to retread recent arguments, but I was listening to the great Bill Hicks this morning and was reminded of this discussion.

>>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.

Well that may be, but it happens.


>>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.

Well I'd like something other than flashbacks but I'm conceding the point that it's a passion play and that Mel was telling the only part of the story he'd be able to tell in his "style".

>>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.

I can roll with that. As long as we're not trying to say that his death is more important than his life.

>>Maybe Catholicism is different than
>>the other denominations.
>
>Catholicism focuses on his death MORE than most Protestant
>denominations AFAIK.*

Touche. Thinking back to my upbringing in the church and how my view of Catholicism/Chrisitianity has evolved since then, I'll concede this point too.

>>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.

Agreed. I'm still just annoyed over the fixation on his death with little to no mention of all the things he did during his life. Maybe that's where Christianity got it twisted: that the salvation became more important than the teachings during his life.

>> 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.

Again, it's because of the strong focus on the crucifixion and resurrection (and salvation as you've mentioned before). I often wonder if it's an appropriate symbol, but as we've already established my views differ a bit from traditional dogma.


>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.

There are a few non-Christian historical accounts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Confession time: I've taken several classes with E.P. Sanders who is considered the world authority on the historical figure of Jesus. If you're interested more than what's in those wikipedia articles, I highly recommend his books especially "Historical Figure of Jesus" and "Jesus and Judiasim".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.P._Sanders
http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/oct1993/v50-3-article8.htm

You might find it rather interesting reading. I know I did. He makes great arguments on the poetic licenses taken in many Biblical and Christian accounts, especially the Gospel of John.

>>>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.

Maybe I'm criticizing it for something that it should have been. Just because the film was called The Passion doesn't neccesarily mean it had no reason or responsibility to properly frame it's story. Did it have to? No. But it certainly could have. And saying that "most of the world" is "somewhat familiar" with Jesus' life is an interesting and dangerous statement. Christianity only accounts for 1/3 of the world's population. Further, I'd argue that many Christians have it somewhat twisted and this movie certainly didn't help.

We may have to agree to disagree on this, but I think it's well known as to what themes Mel Gibson decides to permeate his films with. The death of Jesus gives him a lot to work with in that sense. I'd like to argue that his life doesn't really appeal to Mel because it lacks his favorite themes. I think it's an argument worth considering.