Tomb: My Response
I've been following closely reports on the tomb since it came out on Monday and the response which it generated over the last few days. It looks like the people involved and associated with the making of this film are in for major embarrassment.
Here are some of my personal views. Okay, I must admit first off that the way the filmmakers present the "evidence" in the film makes the case pretty convincing, especially to lay people who are not familiar with archeology, science or biblical history. It also gives skeptics, who are only too happy to find evidence to discredit Christianity, ground to dance on. We know how irresponsible preachers could take Bible verses out of context and make them support their own interpretation of scripture. So this could well be a case of the filmmakers trying to join dots that don't belong. Many so-called Christians are biblically illiterate and therefore more prone to swallow everything that comes along especially where powerful words like DNA, scientific evidence and archeology were thrown around.
I personally feel that if such things were discovered and there is any possibility that it could be of great significance, they should be made public so that further investigations by more experts can be done. So the fact is that these tombs had been discovered and the names on the tombs may suggest a link to the holy family. Cameron and his team made the initial investigation and is now trying to present to us their conclusion. Now it's up to the other experts to take-up the case. What I don't like is the way the filmmakers try to sell us their conclusion. Discovery insist in their press release that "they do not have a point of view" and that this is just a platform for real discovery to begin. That's Discovery's assertion and it may well be true. However that is not the idea you get from the film. It was so obvious that the filmmakers were trying to sell us their opinion.
So what are we to make of it then? Wait I guess..... wait for more experts not related to this film to make their own investigations. My prediction is that it will always remain a mystery, if not totally refuted, because like one of the experts said, archeology can never conclude 100%. So it's always up for debate. The really good thing is that, people will be interested to investigate the bible for themselves. I myself have went home to re-read the 4 gospels because they were heavily quoted. What I discovered was that some claims the filmmakers made were utter nonsense. They were trying to use the bible to support their theory and one read will tell you that it's impossible. Was it a case of intentionally mishandling the Bible or perhaps they didn't know any better? I mean, scriptures are interpreted very differently by those who have the spirit of God to guide them and those who do not. A good example is the case of Judah, the supposed child of Jesus, as the filmmakers claimed. Jacobovici suggested that the young lad leaning on Jesus' breast was Judah and he said that this person was never named in the gospel except by the description, "the disciple whom Jesus loved". We all know that this is John himself, the author of the Gospel of John. Upon reading that chapter again last night, I am definitely convinced that this could not be Judah because later in the gospel, John refers to himself on several other occasions where it wouldn't make sense if the lad was indeed Judah. Even if you question if the real author was indeed John, it still doesn't make sense that it could be Jesus' son! Read it and you'll know what i mean. So I felt it was very irresponsible of the filmmakers to make such bold suggestions without bothering to do their homework. I have also been re-reading Lee Strobel's Case for Christ with regards to the empty tomb case and his case is just as convincing if not more.
Some people ask, does it really matter if the remains of Jesus were found? Of course it does! Christianity stand or fall based on this very foundational belief that Jesus was resurrected. People say what's important are His teachings. That's religion, not Christianity. If you know Christianity you will know that Jesus did not come to make bad people good, He came to make dead people live! Christianity does not have the luxury or being wrong about such an important fact like the resurrection. If the Bible is wrong about Jesus' resurrection, then it may well be wrong about a whole lot of other issues fundamental to the faith.
So that's my take. But what we really want to hear are from the experts themselves, people of authority who really knows what they're talking. I have a very good piece which I will share with you in the next post.
rk
Here are some of my personal views. Okay, I must admit first off that the way the filmmakers present the "evidence" in the film makes the case pretty convincing, especially to lay people who are not familiar with archeology, science or biblical history. It also gives skeptics, who are only too happy to find evidence to discredit Christianity, ground to dance on. We know how irresponsible preachers could take Bible verses out of context and make them support their own interpretation of scripture. So this could well be a case of the filmmakers trying to join dots that don't belong. Many so-called Christians are biblically illiterate and therefore more prone to swallow everything that comes along especially where powerful words like DNA, scientific evidence and archeology were thrown around.
I personally feel that if such things were discovered and there is any possibility that it could be of great significance, they should be made public so that further investigations by more experts can be done. So the fact is that these tombs had been discovered and the names on the tombs may suggest a link to the holy family. Cameron and his team made the initial investigation and is now trying to present to us their conclusion. Now it's up to the other experts to take-up the case. What I don't like is the way the filmmakers try to sell us their conclusion. Discovery insist in their press release that "they do not have a point of view" and that this is just a platform for real discovery to begin. That's Discovery's assertion and it may well be true. However that is not the idea you get from the film. It was so obvious that the filmmakers were trying to sell us their opinion.
So what are we to make of it then? Wait I guess..... wait for more experts not related to this film to make their own investigations. My prediction is that it will always remain a mystery, if not totally refuted, because like one of the experts said, archeology can never conclude 100%. So it's always up for debate. The really good thing is that, people will be interested to investigate the bible for themselves. I myself have went home to re-read the 4 gospels because they were heavily quoted. What I discovered was that some claims the filmmakers made were utter nonsense. They were trying to use the bible to support their theory and one read will tell you that it's impossible. Was it a case of intentionally mishandling the Bible or perhaps they didn't know any better? I mean, scriptures are interpreted very differently by those who have the spirit of God to guide them and those who do not. A good example is the case of Judah, the supposed child of Jesus, as the filmmakers claimed. Jacobovici suggested that the young lad leaning on Jesus' breast was Judah and he said that this person was never named in the gospel except by the description, "the disciple whom Jesus loved". We all know that this is John himself, the author of the Gospel of John. Upon reading that chapter again last night, I am definitely convinced that this could not be Judah because later in the gospel, John refers to himself on several other occasions where it wouldn't make sense if the lad was indeed Judah. Even if you question if the real author was indeed John, it still doesn't make sense that it could be Jesus' son! Read it and you'll know what i mean. So I felt it was very irresponsible of the filmmakers to make such bold suggestions without bothering to do their homework. I have also been re-reading Lee Strobel's Case for Christ with regards to the empty tomb case and his case is just as convincing if not more.
Some people ask, does it really matter if the remains of Jesus were found? Of course it does! Christianity stand or fall based on this very foundational belief that Jesus was resurrected. People say what's important are His teachings. That's religion, not Christianity. If you know Christianity you will know that Jesus did not come to make bad people good, He came to make dead people live! Christianity does not have the luxury or being wrong about such an important fact like the resurrection. If the Bible is wrong about Jesus' resurrection, then it may well be wrong about a whole lot of other issues fundamental to the faith.
So that's my take. But what we really want to hear are from the experts themselves, people of authority who really knows what they're talking. I have a very good piece which I will share with you in the next post.
rk
posted by rk | 12:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home