It's been a while now since I read this book out of curiosity after reading the Da Vinci Code. I admit that when I read the Da Vinci Code did posses a historical background gained by the school books, encyclopedias, and usual historic books that I could borrow in the library. I heard many thoughts and rumors about this book which helped me have my own opinion about it. Nevertheless I have to say that I don't blindly believe every letter written on this work. Firstly I think that the authors did an enormous research, mostly unbiased and they deserve to be appreciated about that. Secondly, during the reading I was confused several times with the names of the people and the events, and sometimes I thought that this book is leading me nowhere into a further comprehension. Even the authors themselves seemed confused for what were they talking about, and there was a lot of guessing, which is always doubtful and increases the suspect in a scientific research. My constant inquiries led me to some conclusions while finishing the book. As a person with the complex of skepticism, I try to logically explain most of the events that occur, and honestly in the history school books there are lots of ridiculous information (can't call them facts) for which I feel pity that kids are obliged to learn them. I always like to mention the example of the crusades and the Medieval history, about which we hardly know more than 3-4 lines of explanation/definition (except the list of the European rulers). Basically history is supported by the facts, and so far I agree. Although I have to think twice in order to define the word fact itself. Facts should support the theory, and theories are what this book is made of mostly, but the fact is the theory itself in which the historians community agreed upon, and approved it as reliable. Thus, what the historians community considers reliable should absolutely be such for us? It is necessary to take into consideration the fact that historians are like the usual bank employees. They do a great work, but not always in their interest. Obviously I am skeptical about the historians as well.Going back to the content of the book above, I think that the three authors/researchers developed a critical way of thinking about the historical events by using logic and being constructive. Even that they possessed almost nothing except some suspicious data about certain people and places, there were strong conclusions, logically reliable in their work. For example the Grail is not described only as a chalice which held the blood of Jesus during his crucifixion, but also as a metaphor for the womb, symbol for the fertility etc. Thus there are several images related to the Grail, and everyone is free to chose which one to believe unless he/she doesn't have another theory about it (which would be even better though).People, (including me) sometimes ask a lot from everything, we complain a lot, we are never fully satisfied with what (in this case) we read, and we tend to be often grumpy. In support of that, it comes to my mind the phrase: "Don't you like the cake I prepared? - No! - Okay than, make your own cake!" The best way to "cure" these tendencies to be grumpy I think would be if we free our minds, try to use logic more often, and be constructive as well. Don't simply blindly believe everything, but take into consideration everything that we need in order to form/construct an opinion/theory/else.
شيفرة دافنشي هي ما اعادت إثارته، إلى درجة ان ناشري الكتاب قاضوا ناشري دافنشي وبراون بتهمة السرقة الأدبية!إذا وجبت المقارنة فسأصوت للتسلية في الشيفرة، اما في هذا الكتاب الذي أريد له ان يظهر بلبوس علمي فلا يمكن الركون إليه تحت اي منطق، مجرد نسج لاحتمالات متتالية لاقناعك بنتيجة!لا مشكلة في مناقشة المسلمات الدينية إذا أخضعناها للمنطق البحثي طالما لا نعاني من سيطرة الأفكار المسبقة، لكن ما هو هنا مشروع طويل وممل من حياكة الاحداث التاريخية وربطها عبر أسلاك واهية ليصل بنا إلى نتيجة...العائلات الأساسية في اوروبا ومن ثم في العالم الجديد جميعها ذات جذور يهوديةلا يوجد شيء اسمه المسيحية، بل حركة ملكية يهودية مضطهدة تبحث عن العرش المفقودالفجر القادم، النظام العالمي الجديد، المستقبل المبهر، عصر الأسرار .. آتية لا محالة حين تعتلي سلالة "ملك إسرائيل"- "المسيح" عرش هذا العالممن جانب آخر يمكن تقديم بعض التقدير لعروض شاذة في جماليتها لمفاصل في التاريخ والتي لا بد من الاعتراف ان بعض تحليلاتها تمتلك بعضا من المنطق..
Do You like book Holy Blood, Holy Grail (1983)?
ما أروع هذا الكتاب،، واحد من تلك الكتب الشاملة العميقة،، الدسمة،، والوافية يتناول الكتاب بالتفصيل تاريخ (فرسان الهيكل) و (دير صهيون) وماضيهم وجذورهم وحُكمهم وملوكهم وحروبهم وطوائفهم وكيفية انبثاق (الماسونية) عنهم،، وقد يصدمنا الكتاب عندما يلفت انتباهنا إلى أصولهم وتطورهم بين الميروفيون إلى الاسبارطيون إلى شكلهم الحالي.. هناك الكثير من المعلومات التي يلزم للقارئ أن يكون لديه خلفية متينة عنها،، مثل تاريخ فرنسا الذي ورد بتركيز كبير على طول الكتاب،، وكان مهماً معرفته لتتبع سير الأحداث.. وتحدث الكتاب عن الجماعات الصهيونية المختلفة والدينية وعن بعض اللوحات الفنية والكتب والأدب والمسرحيات وربطها بموضوع الكتاب،، كما أورد الحديث عن أساطيرهم أهمها (أسطورة شمشون الجبار) ومدى تأثيرها على معتقداتهم وهيئاتهم وقواهم حتى يومنا هذا كل صفحة من الكتاب تحمل الأسرار والمفاجآت.. لكن الكتاب في النهاية هو مجرد افتراضات من الكاتب اجتهد كثيراً ليبنيها على الأسس المنطقية؛ فلم ترد معلومة مجردة إلا وتم الاستدلال عليها تاريخياً ومنطقياً لكن ليس الكثير لنعتمد عليه فالتاريخ لديهم مزور في كثير من مواضعه وكتبهم المقدسة قد حُرّفت،، فيبقى رأي القارئ هو المطلوب..بالنسبة لترجمة الكتاب،، فإنني أجد أنها جيدة لكن يلزمها التحسينات في بعض المواضعالعنوان كان موفقاً؛ فلم يأت الكتاب على ذكر حقيقة الكأس المقدسة إلا في الفصول الأخيرة من الكتاب،، فالكتاب بمعظمه وضع ليلقي الضوء لاقتفاء أثر الدم المقدس أو سلالة المسيح.. البحث المتعمّق في موضوع صلب المسيح أثار استنكاري،، العديد من المسيحيين حالياً يشككون في هذا الموضوع،، وقد عرض الكاتب تناقضات وردت في العهد الجديد ثم قام بعمل تحليل يقارب المنطقية لكنه ليس الصحيح،، فلو أنهم يؤمنون بما ورد في القرآن لكان هذا يغنيهم عن وجع الرأس!.. أعجبتني انفتاحية الكاتب وإيراده لاستشهادات من القرآن والكتب المقدسة على اختلافها.. هو كتاب من الواضح جداً أنه قد بُذل مجهود كبير لوضعه
—انشراح شبلاق
This is book is a great example of academic dishonesty. The first half of the book is very well documented, and sets the reader up for the idea that the two authors are dealing with hard facts. When the conjectures and meat of the book begin though the sources stop getting cited, and assumptions are made which have no basis except for the authors fantastical logic. (Saying things like, of course this is well documented (but where?), or setting up as a premise something that they admit is unknown, and then turn the unknown into a truth later in the book, with no basis). Not that I'm shocked by their more controversial conjectures, or find the ideas contained in this book as absurd, just that they do a grave misjustice to the readers trust in the way they present the information.
—Greg
While much of the evidence in this has been debunked since it's writing, and most of the research has been called into question, this is an interesting book nonetheless, with much more depth, twists and turns than The DaVinci code, which stole many of these author's ideas. There are many concepts in this book, some are very dubious, and others seem downright plausible. If one approaches this with the right spirit; which is to say, with an open mind, but with the desire to do lots of independent research, it can become a wonderful real life detective story. At worst, you could take it as an interesting mockumentary-style story, and still have a pretty gripping tale. (there is a long stretch on geneology in the middle that lags quite a bit, but stick with it, it's worth the payoff.) At best though, it is something that will make you question what you've been told, and try to do a little independent thinking on the matter.Read this book, absolutely, if you have any interest in religious history, but take it with a grain of salt. I hope to see someone pick these ideas up again, dust them off, and do the work that the authors didn't, giving us a real chance at looking at some of these theories honestly
—Robyn
