Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
This book is a collection of sensationalist ideas., February 11, 1999
By A Customer
To start, K&G largely copy others' research that possibly supports the authenticity of the Turin shroud and present it as their own, in order to make themselves appear to be leading edge researchers in a variety of fields. Based on poor analysis of the shroud, they conclude that Jesus did not die from the Crucifixion but, rather, lied in a coma for three days as a result of sipping the wine vinegar offered to him on the cross, then was lead away by Essenes, went to Damascus to recuperate and later went to Kashmir, where his tomb, they say, exists today. Their analysis of the shroud fails to hold up to review, since the things they cite as supporting their claims can be easily explained. For instance, they claim that the presence of blood on the shroud indicates that Jesus was alive, since a corpse does not bleed. However, they do not consider the largely accepted belief that the blood on the shroud is a remnant of blood serum, i.e., blood that has already begun to clot and dry. To find evidence for their claims in Christian writings, they whimsically take bits and pieces from all variety of canonical and non canonical writings. They often imply that the authenticity of Christian writings is in serious doubt, yet do not hesitate to take the slightest phrase and apply it to their purpose. For instance, they suppose that the Roman centurion present at the Crucifixion was a Christian traitor who helped the Essenes and their political connections to do as the wished with Jesus' live body, a critical point in their theory, supported by spurious references and interpretations of various writings. However, they ignore the canonical gospels which clearly indicate that he became a Christian at the time of the Crucifixion and, although he could have been one before, this poses a problem, since some of the basis of their theory comes from later references to the centurion. As examples of their poor use of non canonical writings, they rely heavily on the Gospel of Peter, even going so far as to allege that it might be older than the canonical gospels. This clearly demonstrates the fallacy of this portion of their research, since only a fragment of that gospel is extant, it originated as a spurious document in Babylon sometime in the second century and was never held in any regard by anyone outside that area. Among the canonical gospels, they rely heavily on John, implying that his is the only reliable gospel, even though they attack for possibly having been written around 90 AD. Regarding the other three gospels, they generally imply that they are under Pauline influence and, thus, unreliable. The appearance of their research as good, originally established by copying others' research regarding the Turin shroud, has worn off, so they inject new life into it by copying other sensationalists' discredited theories about the Dead Sea Scrolls and the related Qumran settlement. They claim that Paul was an usurper to the original form of Chrstianity, led by James, in which Jesus was merely a teacher, not a deity, and that Paul founded Christianity when he was snubbed by the followers of James. To do so, they regurgitate the theories of others, quoting largely from the War Scroll and, in so doing, ignore most all research pointing to the contrary, such as that which suggests that the War scroll must be Maccabean, not Jamesian, and ignore New Testament writings and the writings of early Church fathers that clearly show a much more unified form of Christianity. They also claim, in all absurdity, that the Vatican shares their views about the shroud but wants to conceal it, so they allege a vast Vatican conspiracy to produce a fraudulent C14 dating for the shroud. To support this bit of sensationalism, they appear to have done a large amount of research into the cloth fragments taken from the shroud, as well as the fragments from other cloths tested at the same time. Their research is very hard to follow, as it often is at the climax of their sensationalism, and has been shown to be thoroughly errant since the time of publication. Even their own assertions defeat themselves, since, after trying very hard to prove that no fragments from the shroud were actually tested (they claim fragments from a medieval cloth were used) they reverse themselves by saying fragments were tested but presented as fragments from the wrappings of Cleopatra's mummy. This is ridiculous, since they had gone to great lengths to suggest that it would have been impossible for the people at the C14 labs to have not been able to have identified the shroud fragments form other fragments, yet no one at any of the labs said that the mummy's wrappings looked anything like the unique cloth from the Turin Shroud. It seems that, despite all their previous research, they do no even bother to ask such a simple question. Indeed, if the Vatican exhibits caution or restraint in any investigation of the shroud, it is to prevent sensationalists like K&G from ruining genuine processes of research. Toward the end, they generally imply that K's spurious theory that Jesus went to India is correct and, as a further slap in the face of Christianity, claim that Islam contains the true history of Jesus and his movement. Their overall writing is nothing more than sensationalism intended to sell books as quickly as possible, before their ideas are debunked. Indeed, their book has caused little more than a wake among genuine researchers of the Turin shroud. It is outdated and offers the reader little more than an opportunity to write a very long essay attacking it point by point.
|
|
|
5 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Kersten and Gruber are hot on the trail!, March 24, 2000
Those who are so quick to dismiss Kersten and Gruber's research are simply *not aware* of the *context* within which their study should be viewed. [Dear reader: Read it!]First, the ramblings in the Passover Plot come no where near offering the *wealth* of information offered by *ancient documents* regarding the post crucifixion life of Jesus Christ. Kersten's and Gruber's book *must* be read within the context of the fact that one can find, 1. Mention of Jesus amongst the Followers of Jesus in Afghanistan. 2. Mention of Jesus in Rauzat-us-Safa 3. Mention of Jesus in Ikmal-ud-Din 4. Mention of Jesus in the Ninth book of the Hindu Puranas, the Bhavishya Maha Purana 5. Mention of Jesus in the Buddhist book, Book of Balauhar and Budasaf (Yuz Asaf) 6. Mention of Jesus in Tarikh-i-Kashmir 7. Mention of Jesus in the ancient Chinese document, The History of Religion and Doctrines--the Glass Mirror 8. Mention of Jesus on the Takhat Sulaiman (Throne of Solomon) monument in Srinagar So, with Jesus mentioned in *so many* books of *various* religions [the Bavishya Mahapurana being among the most significant]--books that place Jesus in *in Asia* after the crucifixion--then the next legitimate question is: What was he doing in Asia? This is where Kersten and Gruber come in. Whether or not one believes the *particular* theory of Vatican intrigue regarding the carbon-dating, the fact remains that Kersten and Gruber have correctly re-revealed what had *already* been understood by Dr. Hirt, Kert Berna, and others: that the markings and stains on the Santa Sindone (Shroud of Turin) show that Christ survived the crucifixion. Kersten and Gruber present one part of the puzzle, and the ancient documents I mentioned above offer other parts. Not to mention the fact that St. Iraneous, a most respected father of the Christian church, clearly stated in his work, "Against Heresites", that Jesus Christ was seen *alive* in Asia during the reign of the Roman Emperor Trajan. Well, Trajan ascended the thrown of Rome in 98 A.D.! So do we simply dismiss this statement by St. Iraneous--a powerful early Christian? Or do we become honest enough to realize that another story exists--one that Kersten and Gruber have meticulously studied and laid out before the reader in a most fascinating work. If the Vatican *isn't* worried about Kersten & Gruber--they should be!
|
|
|
3 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Blows the Lid Off Modern Christian Mythology, April 25, 2002
This book requires an open mind.If Kersten and Gruber are correct (and they make an excellent case), the truth about the Shroud and about Jesus has the potential to destroy modern Christianity, which is why so many Christians find the book heretical and dangerous. The authors make the case that Jesus survived the crucifixion and spent the remainder of his life in Asia. They back these claims with concise and comprehensive facts gleaned from The Bible and other contemporary sources and texts. It is a very important book to those readers who are seeking truth, not validation of dogma.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
See all Editorial Reviews
