If you must chose who will you chose

There were other sources.  I did not have time to re seek for them.  I remembered this which summed things up and posted it specifically because of this...
"Only after reading deep into this book does one find the carefully worded disclaimer that "Lost Gospel" does not even really exist."

 I expect people to do their own research. 

Edited by Caringheart - 27 August 2014 at 9:44pm

Caringheart wrote: There were other sources.  I did not have time to re seek for them.  I remembered this which summed things up and posted it specifically because of this... "Only after reading deep into this book does one find the carefully worded disclaimer that "Lost Gospel" does not even really exist."  I expect people to do their own research.

Thank you for showing just how biased you are and how you lack any objectivity in this matter. 

Now since you seem to think that the opinions of some random "Real Estate Appraiser" from Las Vegas has any value, then let me quote some of the replies to his review of the book by Martin Borg and Thomas Moore:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3NI2DXXIMYPZT/ref=cm_aya_cmt/186-8993694-2579839?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1569751897#wasThisHelpful

"I fear Mr. Scoggins has misread. The Q document is, in fact, real; and no part of it exists in Mark, as it consists of those parts of Matthew and Luke that do not appear in Mark (which is the first written gospel). And many scholars who are delighted to have Q as a reference would be horrified to hear that you think they believe that 70% of what Jesus is reported to have said, He did not. Nothing is further from the truth; as Q provides a record of Jesus words unobfuscated by the events surrounding them. The authors of Matthew and Luke then utilize Q and other sources to flesh out the ministry of Jesus. I think if Mr. Scoggins would open up his eyes (mind) he would more fully head the words of 1 Peter 3:15 "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,". Knowledge is a good thing, and being able to explain what you believe is a valuable tool; it actually BUILDS faith."

"Don't hold your breath for Mr. Scroggins to open his eyes (mind) about this book or about the very careful and scholarly research done to establish the probable existence of the Q Gospel. Biblical literalists cannot accept any variation from their rigid belief structure. It frightens them and such fear has caused the extreme and reactionary cancer on American (and soon, the world) politics and society that is evangelical christianity. Evangelical christianity is the Whore of Babylon, the Harlot of the Apocalpyse. It is the final and last gasp of a religion that has fallen into material and spiritual decadence."

"My guess is Mr. Scoggins has not read the book. Probably the concept of a Q gospel is so heretical as to cause him to begin a campaign against it. Mr. Grello is right, by the way."

"It's pretty clear that Scoggins didn't read the book, because he gets perhaps the key bit of documentary evidence exactly backwards: "[Q] is the imagined set of teachings found in the Gospel of Mark, which are not found in the other synoptic Gospels (Matthew and Luke)." Uh, wrong. Q is the hypothesized source for the sayings that Matthew and Luke share essentially verbatim, but that don't appear in Mark (which the authors of Matthew and Luke also copied essentially verbatim into their own manuscripts).

I suppose that we shouldn't expect sensible commentary from someone who still believes that you can "fall[] off the edge of the earth." Let me assure you, Mr. Scoggins, that regardless of what it says in your Bible, the earth isn't flat; it's an oblate spheroid. "

Caringheart wrote: It is not about the opinion of the reviewer, for which I post... it is about the disclaimer which is in the book itself. asalaam.

If a person actually bothers to read the book, which Mr. Scoggins (and you) obviously have not done (what are you afraid of? ), the so-called "disclaimer" would be meaningless.  The title of the book is "The Lost Gospel Q: The Original Sayings of Jesus", so it is not some well-guarded secret that the Q Gospel no longer exists.   Apparently, Mr. Scoggins thought it was.  

Like many ancient documents, it has been lost, but it can be pieced together by looking at later documents which relied on it, such as the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.  As the book states:

"Rather than a single rare find, the discovery of the Lost Gospel Q has been the result of over one hundred and fifty years of detective work by historians and theologians.  They did not disinter it from archaeological layers of earth, but found it buried within the literary layers of the New Testament itself." 

Caringheart wrote: islamispeace wrote: Like many ancient documents, it has been lost, but it can be pieced together by looking at later documents which relied on it, such as the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.  As the book states: "Rather than a single rare find, the discovery of the Lost Gospel Q has been the result of over one hundred and fifty years of detective work by historians and theologians.  They did not disinter it from archaeological layers of earth, but found it buried within the literary layers of the New Testament itself."  There is no proof of any lost gospel Q, not even evidence, as science would require... it is a theory made up by simply recognizing that the different gospels, written by different authors, in different places, all tell the same story. "What is so laughable to me is that it is so hard for people to accept that the reason the Gospels have so much in common, the reason they are so much in agreement, is that the disciples were spreading the Word of God throughout the land, and these stories got passed on by word of mouth... so of course you will find the commonalities with the authors that wrote them down... they were all seeking to record the same story... which was the same everywhere it was told.  What greater confirmation of Yshwe does anyone need?" asalaam.

There goes the amnesia again!  Please, stop making me laugh so much!  To repeat what I wrote earlier:

"And as for your ridiculous claim about the "commonalities" in the Gospels, you conveniently ignored that the Gospels also have differences and contradictions.  Each author also edited some stories or chose to complete expunge a story.  An example of the latter is how Luke expunged the story of the Canaanite woman and Jesus.  As a Gentile writing a gospel for Gentile readers, he obviously felt uncomfortable with the racist undertones of that story. 

Now, as for the "commonalities", it is due to the fact that each gospel used the previous gospel as a source, but the common source was the Q Gospel."