Welcome to Gaia! ::

"Written by his contemporatires, The Lost Gospel Q brings us closer to the historical figure of Jesus then ever before. A sacred handbook for his followers, it is a window into the world of ancient Christianity.
Based on sayings in Jesus' own language, it was eventually incorperated into the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Then it disappeared. Lost for 2000 years, no copy of this Gospel has ever been found. But for the past 150 years, historians have been rediscovering the fragments."

From the back of The Lost Gospel Q: The original sayings of Jesus. Introduction by Thomas Moore, and Edited by Marcus Borg.

"The Q document or Q (from the German Quelle, "source") is a postulated lost textual source for the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke. It is a theoretical collection of Jesus' sayings, written in Greek. Although many scholars believe that "Q" was a real document, no actual document or fragment has been found."

From Wikipedia

What do you think of the Gospel Q?
Do you think that Matthew and Luke used Q as a source?
It is already speculated that Matthew and Luke used Mark. Do you believe that?

Here are some nifty little graphs from wiki.

Note: The Gospel Q does not contain Jesus' birth. There is no virgin mary in the gospel Q. It begins with Jesus' baptism in the Jordan.

There are no alterations in Q. It is mainly the scripture that is exactly the same from Matthew and Luke.

Also I don't believe in John that much. It is too different from the other three. Did you know that one of the theories is that John was written in response to Thomas?

Sad that you take St. John's gospel as a discredit. I was not referring to Q as being the one to add or detract. I was referring to modern scholars who use this as a new way to add their own ideas to Scripture, in interpretation and translation. Q has been abused by scholars from even when I was in College studying texts a while ago.

I heard of St. Johns Gospel being a replay to the Gospel of St. Thomas. Truth be told its not much of an issue whether it is or not. I will uphold the Gospel of St. John though, for the reason it was placed into Canon by the Early Church Fathers. I wil also uphold the reasons for not placing the Gospel of St. Thomas in the Canon, yet I d find it to be a good read, but not of Canonical text. Mind you I am a lover of the Proto-Evangelion, so I am neither biased in regard top outside Canonical text nor a Sola Scriptura professor.

They just explain how the hebrew words used mean more than one thing and they explain the other things they mean.

That would be kind of interesting to read. I love reading those "missing books" of the bible. I just recently read one called "The Gospel of Judas" It was missing huge chunks out of the paprys in which was translated from, but it was still an interesting point of view.

Yes, I did research into the book before I read it, but it was still interesting to read.

I don't have cable so I never saw the show. I don't like it when false things are taken to be true either, but knowledge never hurt any one. There is nothing wrong with reading that book, no one has to accept it as truth.