>>>I think they used the dna samples to determine whether the male and female in the tombs were related or not brother and sister or husband and wife. Also, I don't see how it disputes the resurrection since it could still have ocurred - only at a different location.
>>
>>If the DNA doesn't connect to Jesus, then all they've 'proved' is that two people who they postulate were Jesus and Mary (their translationsof the ossuaries, not everyone's) had a child. Also, if not brother and sister, then why necessarily 'husband and wife'? Because they had a child?
>>
>>If the resurrection is true, then there would be no bones belonging to Jesus to find, regardless where it may have happened. No? After resurrection he ascended, didn't he? Maybe I have it wrong, but I think, according to the gospels, he'd have ultimately left no body parts behind.
>>
>It's hard to find a person who would believe that Jesus did not exist, so finding his grave could be a great discovery. Would you agree, regardless to gospel?

Absolutely. But this seems to be more hype than substance. This documentary has been in the works for a while. How come a discovery of this supposed magnitude is only coming to light now that the documentary is ready to be shown? How could they have hidden such a huge thing for so long? It's hard to imagine that this discovery has been generally known for some time, but nobody was bothering to mention it.

Whatever happens, I do agree with you that if this is the real deal, then yes, it would be a magnificent discovery. Who knows, it might even be big enough to push Anna Nicole Smith off the front page. I just don't know how they'll ever be able to prove it's really Jesus, even if it is.