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?
Poll
