In his book Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, Dominic Crossan critically and radically challenged the traditional view of Jesus of Nazareth. Crossan subjected the four Gospels to critical evaluation and he used the method of historical criticism to attempt to discover whether or not the main claims of the Gospel are based on fact. In the final analysis, Crossan challenged and refuted many biblical accounts of Jesus Christ in the Gospel. For example, he exposed the many inconsistencies in the biblical account of the birth of Jesus Christ, and then showed that the accounts are fallacious and not based on historical fact (Crossan, 1-25). In this book, Crossan also asserted that Jesus Christ was a critic of the tradition he inherited and would most likely criticize the way Christianity has interpreted him over the past two millennia. But what impact would Crossan's interpretation of the Bible have on the traditional view of Jesus Christ? Would Crossan's interpretation of the Bible weaken Christians' faith in Jesus Christ, or would it strengthen Christians' faith in Jesus Christ? Would Christianity hold if Crossan's interpretation of the Bible was correct? These are the questions this article answers. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Although Crossan's interpretation of the Gospels undoubtedly questions and refutes certain Christian dogmas that form the basis of the Christian faith in Jesus Christ, the interpretation would not, however, significantly change the traditional image of Christians of Jesus Christ, or weaken their faith in Jesus. We would still be Christians even if Crossan was right. There are a number of reasons why Crossan's interpretations of the Gospels would not materially affect a Christian's faith in Jesus Christ or alter Christianity in any substantial way. To begin with, it is important to note that most of Crossan's rebuttals to the Gospels focus on the historical aspect of the Gospel, whether or not the Gospel constitutes a historical account of what actually happened in the life of Jesus Christ. And in his investigations, Crossan concluded that most of what we are told about Jesus Christ is not a historical account of what happened, but rather a biased account of what the authors of the Gospels wanted us to hear and believe (Crossan, Prologue xiii-x1v). Crossan goes on to assert that the Christian faith is simply a belief in the historical Jesus as the manifestation of God (Crossan, 244). But even though Christians would be surprised to know that what they have always believed is not based on historical fact, it would not substantially affect their traditional image of Jesus Christ or their faith in Jesus, because faith does not is not simply based on historical facts. Rather, faith is a deep spiritual experience that is not based on historical data. Sheliermacher shares this view when he states that faith is a “feeling” (Alvarez, n.d.). What Alvarez essentially means in this quote is that faith is more than dogmas and is a deep personal experience. Faith in Jesus Christ is therefore a spiritual experience, and although historical facts constitute a certain basis of our faith, once one has a spiritual experience of Jesus Christ, a change in historical data or dogmas would not substantially affect his faith. Therefore, even with the interpretations of.