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 used the method of historical criticism in an attempt to discover whether or not the main claims of the Gospels are based on actual facts. Ultimately, Crossan challenged and refuted many biblical accounts of Jesus Christ in the Gospel. For example, he exposed numerous inconsistencies in the biblical account of the birth of Jesus Christ, and went on to demonstrate that the accounts are spurious and not based on historical fact (Crossan, 1-25). In this book, Crossan also stated 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 impacts 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 make Christians' faith in Jesus Christ stronger? Would Christianity hold up if Crossan's interpretation of the Bible were correct? These are the questions this article answers. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayAlthough Crossan's interpretation of the Gospels undoubtedly challenges and refutes certain Christian dogmas that form the basis of the Christian faith in Jesus Christ, the interpretation would not, however, fundamentally change Christians' traditional image of Jesus Christ, or weaken their faith in Jesus. We would still be Christians even if Crossan were right. There are a number of reasons why Crossan's interpretations of the Gospels do not substantially affect the 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 concern the historical aspect of the Gospel, regardless of 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 distorted account of what the Gospel writers wanted us to hear and believe (Crossan , Prologue xiii-x1v). Crossan goes on to argue that Christian faith is simply a belief in the historical Jesus as a manifestation of God (Crossan, 244). But while Christians would be surprised to learn that what they have always believed is not based on historical fact, this would not substantially affect their traditional image of Jesus Christ or their faith in Jesus because the faith is not simply based on historical fact. Rather, faith is a profound spiritual experience that is not based on historical data. Sheliermacher agrees with 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 dogma and is a profound personal experience. Faith in Jesus Christ, therefore, is a spiritual experience, and although historical facts serve as the basis of our faith, once one has a spiritual experience of Jesus Christ, a change in historical data or dogma would not substantially affect one's faith. Even with Crossan's interpretations, therefore, Christians would have the traditional image of Jesus Christ as the son of God. This fact is further corroborated by Clifford in his vision of religion as an evolving phenomenon ''Religion as a system.