3. Crossan talks about the need for us to discuss the historical Jesus because of the fact that Christians base their faith on an act of faith on the historical Jesus as the human figure of God. Crossan
discusses how out of place Jesus was with the period of that time and that he was considered as much of an outsider as John the Baptist and that he was at odds with the politico-religious groups
and leaders and after John was put to death for similar reasons Christ�s fate was probably well expected. However, no one expected his teachings to take hold as well as they did. It is also needed
because the four gospels are merely the canonical gospels that have been approved by the Nicean counsel and that there are many other gospel accounts out there. 5 book of them are used by Catholics and
are known as the apocrypha. The other purpose according to Crossan is there might be multiple Jesuses that are talked about. Which I think is a flat out joke and since he's not able to source it give
it much little credibility. I'm pretty sure he's standing out on his own for that one as most historians feel there was simply ONE Jesus, however, without the miracles and other faithish aspects to
it. Crossan talks about the fact that Jesus was a peasant and worked the streets of the villages instead of the farms. He went into towns and taught them new social rules and asked them to teach
others the Kingdom of God He was building a social program as Crossan puts it. In which he was going to rebuild society on religious and egalitarianism, "with free healing brought directly to
the peasant homes and free sharing of whatever they had in return." Basically it was a system of honor, and compassion with no boundary lines or classifications which was extremely at odds with society.
Especially between Jew and Gentile. Crossan then discusses his comparison to those of the Cynics of that age and that basically he was a Jewish Cynic who was confronting the current way of life, the
current politico-religion rule, and the mind set of the entire economy and population especially with the Romans. Crossan even goes goes to compare them to the hippies of the 70's. Crossan then talks
about the differences in what's happened from then on in the Christian faith which I feel has nothing to do with a "historical Jesus" it is merely people either correctly or incorrectly reading
and interpreting their scriptures.3 He talks about Jesus as setting a precedence for family and talks about Jesus� statements of the family being against each other yet if they are for Christ then they are family. He is also seen as a psychological healer for it is improbably according to Crossan that he was able to heal the leper yet he probably healed the illness and not the disease which is like saying he healed the mentality of the person but not the bacteria. He was also an exorcist that expelled demons Crossan feels that he was also able to put people in trances and use psychological powers to get them to feel certain ways. Basically he sounds like the kind of guy in the Jesus movement which is people who gather around and cast lot�s as to what was historically Jesus and what was not. Whichever gets the most votes is true and the other is cast out of context. Crossan does give some evidence for some of his claims but in his others he just gives mere thought and acts prideful in claiming them in fact. It is more so that if he wants to call in doubt biblical and other historical accounts of Christ�s life then why is it bad to cast his theories into doubt�
4. Nietzsche feels that Christ came to earth as the Son of God and the Son of Man, he taught humankind how to truly live and how to truly treat others and how we should be towards each other. He showed us how to act, love, etc. He feels that Christ was the only true Christian. I feel that there are Christians and I'm one of them that attempts to be Christian or as defining Christ like. However, I feel that no one comes close to be completely Christ like. So therefore I can see how he might say that. However, I do disagree with Nietzsche in the fact that Christ didn't die to forgive the world, I feel He did, Christ repeatedly said this in the New Testament. Nietzsche feels Paul was full of hatred towards Christ and that he is an extremely bad example of Christianity and that he nailed Christ to the cross. He states that the resurrection was merely a hallucination and Paul learned nothing of his life. This is extremely odd. Saul was full of hatred towards Christ and Christianity prior to God blinding Him. After this Saul changed his name to Paul and began teaching Christ�s teachings, not just that he was resurrected but all of his teachings!!!!!!! He showed how Christ�s examples could be useful to all. And also Paul wasn't the only one who claimed of sight to the resurrection, there were plenty of others who witnessed it in documented history. He talks about the problem that Jesus tells us to do certain things yet we do not follow his commands for instance cutting off our hands if it causes us to sin for example.