Christopher Hearn's book delves into the origins of Christianity, examining various theories and evidence surrounding its inception. In a concise 120 pages, Hearn navigates through complex topics with some clarity and depth.

The book's strength lies in its exploration of differing perspectives on the birth of Christianity, including theories of hallucinations, fabrications, and myths. Hearn presents these theories alongside evidence, allowing readers to critically evaluate each argument.

Despite its brevity, the book offers a comprehensive overview of the historical and theological factors shaping Christianity's beginnings. Hearn's writing is accessible yet scholarly, making it suitable for both academic and general audiences interested in the subject.

While some readers may crave more in-depth analysis on certain points, the book serves as an excellent starting point for those seeking to understand the historical context and evidential basis of Christianity's origins.

Overall, as a first book on the topic of Christian origins, How Did Christianity Begin? Hallucinations? Fabrications? Myths? Resurrection? A Look at the Evidence may be felt to be a thought-provoking exploration that invites readers to engage with the complexities of Christian history. Do study some more, but ... ( )

Christopher Hearn accomplished his purpose very well with the short .PUB book _How Did Christianity Begin?_. It is not targeted toward an academic audience but rather for Christian believers in the reality of Jesus' resurrection who might find themselves in conversations with skeptics or unbelievers. On a popular level, Hearn provides a wealth of well-documented material refuting three common claims made by people who are asserting that the resurrection of Christ is not true.

The material in this short book likely will not be sufficient to convince every doubter. Those whose minds are already set firmly against the possibility of a dead man coming back to life will be hard to convince. However, people with honest uncertainty about the resurrection will find this easy-to-read work a useful aid as they study for themselves and reach conclusions that are based on solid evidence. ( )

The purpose of this book is to help Christians share their faith and answer questions about how Christianity began. Well, not so much how it began, but to refute arguments that it is a made-up religion, rather than some ‘true’ religion worshipping a ‘real’ God. It goes into detail refuting three “Objections to Christianity and the resurrection of Jesus”: 1. No one saw Jesus resurrected from the dead; they were hallucinating; 2. There are other ways to explain the empty tomb story without believing in a resurrection; and 3. The New Testament documents can’t be trusted. As much of the refutation comes from the Bible itself, the book becomes more helpful for a Christian coming to terms with their own doubts, rather than ‘proof’ for a non-Christian. After all, every religion has, as part of its ‘scripture’, an origin story.

I did find this book useful in confirming some personal beliefs, as well as increasing my Biblical literacy and providing some early non-Biblical sources. With due caution to the circular reasoning, circumstantial evidence, and some weak arguments this book is worth reading to explore the questions raised.
( )

The book itself is well written and researched. However, looking through a critical thinking lense and putting aside my own beliefs, it seems a lot of the evidence is circumstantial or verified not by facts but the word of others with the same beliefs, a vaccum if you will. For the believer, this book is going to confirm everything you already believe and give you more confidence in telling others your beliefs and why, which is the purpose of the book. For the skeptic or non-believer, I don't think the book gives enough scientific, cultural basis, or resources to refute the "other side" of the hypothesis. The title, to me, is misleading, as it doesnt really cover how Christianity started, but rather it is an evangelical tool to help believers spread the word. As a believer, I want to like this book more, but the critical side of me has so many more questions raised than answered. The Bible does have many inconsistencies, and not just because of the time frame in which it was written over, but also the number of translations that have changed words to suit those that translated it means you can't truly use it as a source. Using the Bible to prove the Bible is just a circle argument. ( )

This book as an interesting premise; however, it is by no means an academic or scholarly work. The entire focus is on proving the Resurrection of Jesus, and while it marshals an impressive amount of circumstantial evidence, there is little to no direct evidence (as might be expected), so it is unlikely to convince skeptics; although it might comfort believers. No where does it cover anything about the origins of Christianity outside of the resurrection narrative, so if that is what you are looking for, this is not the book for you. The book is divided into three (3) parts, with each part organized differently. Part One proposes that the resurrection has been denied with the claim that all witnesses were experiencing some form of mass hallucination … and makes the unsupported point that this is the principle means by which the resurrection story is denied. I count myself as fairly knowledgeable in christian apologetics, and I have never found this to be true, not have I encountered this anecdotally; however, there is still some good information here (such as a convenient table of all the biblical post resurrection sightings of Jesus) as well as provides a few basic reasons for the early resistance to the message of christianity … and then it undermines its own credibility with poor scholarship such as the insistence of inserting a creedal statement into 1 Corinthians that was adopted no more than 9 years after the crucifixion with no supporting citations. That is not to say anything in this part is complete wrong, just that what is there is not really a strong supporting argument if you are trying to convince a non-believer, so the best use here would be as a supplement to private or personal reflections by believers.

Part Two focuses on the Empty Tomb … with the basic claim that resurrection deniers attempt to explain how the early believers could have found the tomb of Jesus empty. There are 10 more specific claims here, each with a response. And while I don’t have the credentials needed to verify how accurate this information is, it seems reasonable in many cases and does have some supporting citations (from people that I have not previously encountered in my own studies). For example, there is an interesting connection on why Joseph of Arimathea was the one who had to claim the body of Jesus that was connected to his belonging to the Sanhedrin that was pretty investing and not something that I had heard before (will still need to do some follow-on research to verify though). Additional there was an interesting discussion about why the tomb had to be new in order not to run afoul of custom and law; however, the discussion of why we are so certain of the tomb’s location doesn’t appear to follow any consensus and fails to mention any of the competing claims, giving the a impression of certainty here. Additionally he talks about the James ossuary as if it has been determined to be authentic, while that is actually still contested. This might be inferred by the fact that Oded Golan was eventually acquitted of personally forging the ossuary, but the courts made no ruling on the items actual authenticity.

Part Three attempts to defend the New Testament as a whole; doing so with a combination of strawman arguments and historical inferences (the later being a list of extra biblical documents that mention Jesus by name). An immediate problem here is the inclusion of Thallus, who, while a favorite of Christian apologists because of its early date (52AD), really only confirms that solar eclipse around the time of the crucifixion and it was Africanus writing nearly 200 years after the fact that made the connection to Jesus. So the best external reference we have is actually Josephus as part of his histories, who mentions Jesus primality in passing as the founder of a Jewish sect that was [believed to have been] executed on a cross by the sect members. In short, all of these arguments have potential, but they are all circumstantial and fairly weak on their own. ( )