This is a site for those interested in scholarly work on the question of the historical Jesus:

http://virtualreligion.net/forum/index.html

"scholarly" - what a laugh. "Jesus Seminar" thoroughly liberal and an insanely biased outfit. Only laymen rubes think they actually represent the "scholarly" side on the New Testament debates.

For example, they think that spurious Gnostic forgeries like "the Gospel of Thomas" are more reliable and original than the canonical gospels - pure kookery.


Petr

Are they the group who published a Bible which they claimed to have contained what they determined were the actual words of Jesus?

Are they the group who published a Bible which they claimed to have contained what they determined were the actual words of Jesus?

I don't believe so. Such a work would be invariably erroneous and admittedly speculation at best. This group isn't about agenda pushing as much as posing questions by the skeptical historian.

Nevertheless, here's the link to a list of publications:
http://virtualreligion.net/forum/publish.html#5G
(Note: not all the links therein work.)

"scholarly" - what a laugh. "Jesus Seminar" thoroughly liberal and an insanely biased outfit. Only laymen rubes think they actually represent the "scholarly" side on the New Testament debates.

For example, they think that spurious Gnostic forgeries like "the Gospel of Thomas" are more reliable and original than the canonical gospels - pure kookery.


Petr

Have you honestly read the canonical Gospels and found all the information about Jesus to be consistent? Accounts ranging on everything from his place of birth (if given) to the day (of the week) of his death are wholly irreconcilable. Each Gospel represents a disparate Jesus.

- "Each Gospel represents a disparate Jesus."

Nonsense, they just give the stories an air of authentic separate eyewitness. If all stories would look alike, unbelievers would just say that gospel writers were uncritically copying each other.


- "Accounts ranging on everything from his place of birth (if given) to the day (of the week) of his death are wholly irreconcilable."

They are easily reconcilable with some background knowledge anda little attempt. Unbelievers naturally do not bother to even try.


Birth narratives harmonization:

http://www.tektonics.org/af/birthnarr.html


The Day of Jesus Christ's last supper and crucifixion:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/passovertime.html#time


Petr

- "Each Gospel represents a disparate Jesus."

Nonsense, they just give the stories an air of authentic separate eyewitness. If all stories would look alike, unbelievers would just say that gospel writers were uncritically copying each other.


- "Accounts ranging on everything from his place of birth (if given) to the day (of the week) of his death are wholly irreconcilable."

They are easily reconcilable with some background knowledge anda little attempt. Unbelievers naturally do not bother to even try.


Birth narratives harmonization:

http://www.tektonics.org/af/birthnarr.html


The Day of Jesus Christ's last supper and crucifixion:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/passovertime.html#time


Petr


Actually, I came upon these conclusions while attempting further study of my faith.

The so-called Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) portray Jesus similarly, giving a narrative account of Jesus' years of ministry, as well as birth and childhood stories in the latter two. In contrast, John is a soteriological work, in which Jesus gives long discourses rather than teaching in parables, to name just one example.

Here's a link on parallels in the Synoptic Gospels:
http://virtualreligion.net/primer/

You may find it interesting, you may hate it.

No hard feelings. ;)

- "In contrast, John is a soteriological work, in which Jesus gives long discourses rather than teaching in parables, to name just one example."


May I say a big "SO WHAT?"

The gospel of John is like an "advanced studies" course after synoptic gospels - it deals with greater depth on spiritual issues that Mark, Matthew and Luke did not cover, relying on the most trusted disciple of Christ for the "inside information".

This gospel does not even pretend to be a comprehensive account on Jesus' life:

21:24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
21:25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.


Petr