I read the Gospels as a series of related narratives about the life and times of a back country faith healer who advocated revolutionary social and religious change in a time that many considered to be the end of days. I read Paul's letters as a worldly convert's vigorous attempts to give organizational structure and philosophical sophistication to the sect that sprung up after said faith healer's execution.
I voted for the latter.
Faith healer? That's very negative term and doesn't really apply to Jesus.
Revisiting my post, I can see how it would be interpreted as dismissive of the Gospels (which I'm not), but what is it about that part that you particularly object to?
When I see "faith healer" I think "Someone who claims to heal people with faith and tells people not to do anything about their ailments because they will get healed eventually".
Jesus actually did heal people, so that's why I thought of it as negative. It's just my opinion though, much like your preference of the Pauline works.
Poll
