Cav's Place

I finally watched the documentary, so I have to follow up on my earlier post on the matter. For further reference, just check out the official site.

Need to make some corrections first. Apparently, due to a mix of my poor short-term memory and what got distorted in the media, I was under the impression that Joseph’s osuary was found in the tomb instead of that of James. Actually, that part might be better left off the table entirely, seeing as the validity of the osuary of James is questionable. Also, it would seem that the symbol above the entrance can’t be linked with anything with any degree of certainty, so that should also be kept off the table.

There is also the question of translation. Everything assumes the names were read correctly. This would seem to be the very likely case, but there is always the possibility of an error. Then again, that possibility exists with all such finds and all we can do is trust the experts.
And one has to wonder why didn’t they compare other DNA as well, seeing if they can prove that Jesus and Mary were related for example? Might not have been possible, but should have been attempted at least.
Getting past that, I still stand by all other things I said in my first post on the matter.

What surprised me was how it failed to get a solid reaction. Dan Brown’s book and the subsequent movie, albeit fiction, attracted much more criticism from Christian officials. That could be because they realized that a strong reaction would only confirm that the producers are hitting too close to home, or because the documentary itself is pretty shabby and they didn’t see it as that significant of a threat.
And the documentary is indeed pretty shabby. But it’s shabby because the evidence is not clear and they didn’t have all the time they needed to investigate further. However, evidence being unclear doesn’t mean it’s false, might also mean that it has been covered up carefully. And, considering the way such investigations are hindered by various officials, that possibility seems quite likely.
What I liked about it, though, was that it did present the facts and talked about probabilities, not certainties, therefore openly revealing the gaps in the available information and not directly leading people on. The message is that it’s likely that this is it, but there’s also a chance that it’s not. I’m not sure how many other documentaries based on similar (or even much less) evidence do that. I find myself appreciating that stance. Then again, considering how touchy the issue is, there was no other way.

What do I personally think about it? I think there is a possibility for it to actually be the tomb of Jesus, but I don’t find it to be quite that high. And no, my religious beliefs have nothing to do with that view, as I don’t believe anything that would conflict with either part of the theory.
You might also want to browse through this for another statistical analysis, which deems it very unlikely.

But, whether that is the actual tomb of Jesus or not, the documentary did its job. It made people consider the possibility for such a tomb to exist somewhere. Indeed, it makes far more sense for it to exist than not.
The key element were the stories that surfaced shortly after the documentary was first aired saying that this can’t be the tomb of Jesus because there is less evidence pointing towards such a conclusion than there was in the case of two tombs found around the turn of the 20th century. It was also said that those discoveries have been purposefully hidden so they would not disturb the current world order. (I’m sorry that I can’t find a link for that right now.)
For me, the fact that it revealed that bit of information means it did all it needed to do. Got people thinking, or at least those who are willing to think. The debates you can find all over the Internet on the matter are proof of that.
And thinking is something people need to do far more of in general. As for thinking about religious matters specifically, figuring out what’s fact and what isn’t would solve a lot of problems. I say that because I’m sure that most, if not all, religions are based on some facts, but that many things were changed since then. Many things only seemed miraculous to the people at the time, but can be explained now, others got “lost in translation”, or either added or left out, either by mistake or purposefully. Saying again, I think most religions are based on some facts. Just that, as soon as they got mass appeal, some people realized they could be used to control others and didn’t waste any time in doing so.