tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34380506.post6695274935124543913..comments2007-08-16T09:20:33.826-05:00crevonoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34380506.post-83053822105333281982007-08-16T08:43:00.000-05:002007-08-16T08:43:00.000-05:00Having read <I>The Five Gospels</I>, I have to agree. It very much looks like results of the Jesus Seminar are in line with the opinions of Robert W. Funk. However, I have other issues with the Jesus Seminar and its criteria. Mark Goodacre has a page on his website speaking against Q (http://ntgateway.com/Q/). Being a skeptic in a number of ways, I have to stand with Goodacre on this point: Q remains hypothetical, and it is much more likely that Luke borrowed from both Mark and Matthew than it is that the Q document is a source. The Jesus Seminar, however, seems to take the existence of the Q document as, pardon the pun, gospel.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I appreciate this piece. This is a very good summation and discussion of Lewis' trilemma, and I thank you for writing it.Larryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17148158473313233466noreply@blogger.com