The Jesus Conspiracy: The Turin Shroud and the Truth About Resurrection: Turin Shroud and the Truth About the Resurrection [Englisch] [Gebundene Ausgabe]

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.

The basic idea of this book, written by two European investigators and translated into English, is that the Shroud of Turin is genuine and represents the actual image of Jesus. So why did carbon-dating tests conducted in 1988 show it dates only to the 14th century? The authors spend many pages showing in detail that the test was rigged. The cloth pieces that were analyzed by three labs were not from the shroud, but from a piece of cloth known to date from the 14th century. The authors were obsessive in their pursuit of the facts of the testing and show how the cloth could have been substituted. They interviewed everyone involved, often many times, and sometimes having to pursue people doggedly over time. They obtained photos of the supposed pieces of cloth and had the photos analyzed, and they watched (over and over) the video of the actual cutting of a piece of the shroud. They show how the reported weights of the pieces given to labs does not add up to the weight of the cloth cut from the shroud. Nor does the herringbone weave of the shroud match exactly to the weave pattern of the tested pieces.

So who would want the test to show that the shroud is not the burial cloth of Jesus? The surprising answer is -- the Vatican! The evidence that the rigging was a Vatican job is strong, and the reason also makes sense. The authors say the shroud shows a crucified man WHO IS NOT DEAD. If Jesus was not dead when he was taken down from the cross, then Catholic Church doctrine that makes Jesus' death a "sacrifice" that redeemed mankind from its sins is flawed. The Church cannot back down from any of its teachings, and would protect its existence by relegating the shroud to status of "interesting relic," probably hoping people would just forget about it.

But this is a story that holds endless fascination for the Christian nations of the world. Is the image on the cloth that of Jesus? And how did the image get onto the cloth? The authors tackle that mystery too, postulating that the mixture of aloe and myrrh described in the Bible and possibly used to heal the wounds of an alive Jesus would contribute to creating the image. They experimented with their own mixture and tried smearing it on one of the authors, who was then wrapped with a linen cloth similar to the shroud material. They succeeded in obtaining an image, but it was not of the amazing lifelike quality of the shroud image.

The authors' conclusion -- that Jesus did not die on the cross -- is not unique, since many other researchers and authors have stated the same belief, and many of the attendant theories include the idea that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, had children, and founded a dynasty that still exists. The Jesus Conspiracy just adds more fuel to the fire. This book builds a persuasive and believable case, built around an extensive investigation of the Turin Shroud.

Hello, I would like to start off by saying that I'm not a Roman Catholic but an idependant Christian (Non-denominational). A certain freind at a chat room forum recommended this book to me to show that Jesus Christ never died on the cross and that the Roman Catholic Church has lied about the shroud of Turin. As I read through this book and I noticed that there was this big contradiction in it. Keep in mind that the author believes that the shroud is authentic and that it really is the image of Jesus and that he survived the crucifixion! On page 26, the author said that the shroud shows a man that has been stabbed by a spear that went all the way through his body out of his back. And the author admits that this is the case and shows photo's of the shroud to prove it. But near the end of the book (I forget which page) he seems to change his mind and says that Jesus was just "lightly jabbed" by a spear. So, in the beginning of the book, the author admits that the shroud depicts a man that has been speared all the way through his body but then later, at the end of the book, he says that Jesus was just "lightly jabbed" and that the Essenes revived him after the crucifixion (which the shroud shows that the man was pierced right through the body and the author admits this). I don't know about you, but I don't think that a person can survive a spear that has been thrusted all the way through his body and be revived later on with herbs and a wet towel. The author can't seem to make up his mind. Was Jesus stabbed all the way through with a spear (which the shroud shows and the author believes) or was he just "lightly jabbed" as the author later claims? To make matters worse, the author tries to attack the Roman Catholic Church by saying that the RCC is covering up the "truth" (implying that they are lying). The RCC has hired several scientists to study the shroud and the results show that it was from the middle ages. Even scientists who weren't hired or even been told to test it showed that the shroud came from the middle ages. There has been numerous scientists and T.V shows that has proved that the shroud of Turin existed around the middle ages, not during the time of Jesus. In summary, this book is obviously anti-roman catholic and is an attempt to discredit the wonderful truth of the risen Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ!