Jesus never existed pdf download

It will pique the interests of academics and lay audience alike by answering these questions: -Why is the resurrection a necessary but not sufficient condition for the rise of Christianity? Hint: it was not Saint Paul, as many suppose. At the end of the book, readers will ask the same question about Jesus that Jesus asked of the apostles, "Who do you say that I am? Did he rise from the dead, and if not why do Christians believe that he did? Did he have a plan and, if so, what was it?

Did he accomplish his purpose or did the plan fail? If it failed, what were the consequences? Steuart Campbell, once a Christian, takes a rationalist look at the problem of Christian origins and shows that no previous writer has completely solved the riddle of Jesus. Here he shows us a new hypothesis, one that explains Jesus' curious behaviour.

Here is Jesus in historical context, the leader of an obscure Jewish sect which believed that it was fulfilling a divine plan revealed in the Scriptures.

This plan required the Messiah to die and rise again to become the king of Israel, throwing the Romans out of Judaea and even replacing the Emperor as ruler of the known world. Read how Jesus expected to accomplish this. The author displays immense knowledge of the Bible and the history of the Jews and he explains many mysteries.

He builds on the work of many other authors and constructs what is surely the true explanation for the origin of Christianity. This should be the last word on the historical Jesus. It is certainly an excellent review of the many attempts to solve the mystery. The Russian author disregarded issues related to Jesus's divinity, focusing strictly on his words and teachings, for a remarkably modern meditation on spirituality.

Author : rev Andrew Cameron Publisher: N. A Category: Page: N. Author : Wesley J. To ignore the classical tradition is to assume uncritically that contemporary plausibility structures are beyond question, while to forsake plausibility is to embrace the irrationalism of the theological ghetto-dweller.

This book argues that maintaining this tension in our time can be achieved only with a modest interpretation of Jesus Christ, one that repudiates the hermeneutical absolutism associated with affirming that Jesus Christ is uniquely, exhaustively, unsurpassably significant for revelation and salvation. Humphreys, an admirable scholar of Mithraism, makes an excellent case that the Jesus of the Christian religion never existed, nor could he have existed. And a warning up front: this book is not Humphreys' full scholarly tome of the same title.

It is unavailable on amazon but you can get it at Humphreys' website. Still, this book is excellent for starters, if you are like me and have only just discovered Humphreys' work. It is a pity he has chosen to take a totally anti-Semitic stance in the course of his work, so I warn you of that as well. As of today, 8 June , this review has 12 out of 13 votes.

Know what that means? A troll has inspired me to pause here and make a few remarks. What I have read of Humphreys' work satisfies me that he IS a scholar of Mithraism worthy of consideration. What he writes is in agreement with the field, and I say that your publication is what matters, not a degree which can be purchased but then are also given away for free sometimes , not a following Charles Manson had a huge following.

It is what one publishes that matters. Humphreys has clearly studied the work of the likes of archaeologist Dr. Constantino Politis, a Mithraic expert who specializes in early Christians. Humphreys' approach is deceptively simple because I have seen that the world cannot grasp its complexity. He argues and proves that Christianity is neo-Mithraism, thus rendering a historical Jesus highly improbable. He also has a stunning way of demonstrating the errors of the New Testament, mostly using the New Testament itself.

Humphreys uses that very fact to posit that the entire thing is the literary invention of some meddling goofballs. This serious historical field of study is nothing new. Christianity-as-Mithraism is a neglected historical field all its own. That fact of incompetence is only reinforced by the New Testament authors' lack of knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Since I happen to be a part of the post-mid twentieth century scholarly community that worked the field, I can tell you Humphreys is worth reading. He is a scholar as far as I am concerned, and lays out a well-worded argument while acknowledging his intellectual forbears. Sadly, this little book of his is an "interview", with virtually zero references or sources included beyond Humphreys' interview dialogue. Humphreys is part of the movement that argues there was no such personage as Jesus.

As Bertrand Russell pointed out, if there was a Jesus, we know nothing factual about him. Here it's Christianity as a Roman-friendly new Mithraic sensibility. With Humphreys the absolutist view that Jesus never existed is a bit overdone, since every other fellow in ancient Judea was named Yehoshua, and every other Yehoshua was a rabbi!

What stuns and hurts me is we Jews never enter into this fray. We could easily refute the pagan Gospels in minutes with solid facts.

Instead, we let Humphreys do it and his shortcoming is his unabashed anti-Semitism. The inherent unlikelihood of person P existing can be defeated only by strong external corroborating evidence now. The Basic Rules of Evidence This brings up the question what makes evidence good, reliable.

Ehrman is too impressed with the amount of evidence for Jesus e. Think about a court of law or empirical research in general: What are the kinds of evidence accepted here?

Barring that, a reliable testimony in his or her own words would have worked too. Only E count in a court of law or in empirical research as good, reliable evidence. NE1 Hearsay NE2 Unreliable witnesses vague, ambiguous, clearly biased testimony NE3 Hypothetical, non-existent sources are therefore ruled out as good, reliable evidence here. We only have the bad, unreliable kind NE Ehrman pretty much says so himself see e.

Yet he insists on treating the New Testament as a historical document and these extra-biblical writers as confirming evidence see esp. He even treats purely hypothetical sources as independent, corroborating evidence! Here's what I think they say. Histories 1. Dover ; Evans ; Lateiner ; Brodie ; ; MacDonald ; ; ; cf. Carrier ch. To treat the New Testament as giving us reliable historical information, as Ehrman does, is to be guilty of a simple category mistake.

Not straightforwardly, anyway. His take is more sophisticated: The trick is to get behind the author and his agenda, digging out the real nuggets of historical information by a special set of authenticity-criteria. But: If the text itself breaks the basic rules of evidence cf. E , how can introducing more rules help? To think that you can, like Ehrman clearly does e.

Take his appeal to the criterion of multiple attestation. Sure, if one or more independent sources provide good, reliable evidence then the fact one of these sources also talks about person P proves, or makes it much more likely, he actually existed. This is the case with many other sages or kings with clearly fictionalized or mythological material glued to them: Like Alexander the Great, say. Or Socrates. Or Augustus. Or Darius.