How can you prove that the gospel of Mark is not the "word of god"?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hey, lay off, pal. This Universal Truth is so important that it can only be entrusted to a game of Cosmic Telephone.

Besides, how else do you expect Hell to get stocked?

Funny you should mention that. Most religious stories actually read to me like a being justifying to itself the fact that it's going to be extremely cruel to a nonstop stream of its hapless creations. Like the consciousness rationalising the subconscious.

It's all very easy when you blame the victim, Rob, whether we're talking social ills, personal accidents, or, you know, the Big Fire.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Funny you should mention that. Most religious stories actually read to me like a being justifying to itself the fact that it's going to be extremely cruel to a nonstop stream of its hapless creations. Like the consciousness rationalising the subconscious.

Written by people in a cruel and barbaric time with severe consequences for screwing up.

One would think a perfectly good God wouldn't suffer -- much less promote, such cruelty and barbarity ... yet according to their Holy Book, that's exactly what he does.

Funny, that.

[Arkilogue]

Written by people in a cruel and barbaric time with severe consequences for screwing up.

One would think a perfectly good God wouldn't suffer -- much less promote, such cruelty and barbarity ... yet according to their Holy Book, that's exactly what he does.

Funny, that.

I don't believe everything people tell me.

[downbeatplumb]

So this has been bothering me for a while. I am 100% sure that Matthew, Luke and John's gospels were not "divinely inspired" and they are not the "word of god" because of some of the errors I found in them. However, I can't find any errors in Mark's gospel. No historical errors, no theological errors, nothing. In addition to that, I don't see how it contradicts the old testament in any way.

How can you prove that Mark's gospel is not the word of god? Is there anything in this gospel that scholars don't agree with? Is there anything in the gospel that proves that this book was not divinely inspired?

It appeals to the supernatural and so can be discounted in its entirety just on that alone.

[robvalue]

Right. I made a thread about telling fact from fiction here.

Bullshit magic is a big giveaway that you're reading fiction.

The idea that you start by assuming it's true and ask people to prove you wrong is called the argument from ignorance fallacy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzxMXzdaxtI

[Thumpalumpacus]

One would think a perfectly good God wouldn't suffer -- much less promote, such cruelty and barbarity ... yet according to their Holy Book, that's exactly what he does.

Funny, that.

I don't believe everything people tell me.

Yeah, I was talking about Christians, not you. That's why I used the pronoun "their" in that sentence.

If I was talking about you, my language would make that clear.

[vorlon13]

Don't need to ask atheists to disprove Mark.

Today's 'Christians' specifically rebuke, refuse, refute, repudiate and relinquish Mark 10:11.

If there was the slightest sense Mark 10:11 was 'true', why christers the world over would be burning at the stake divorced and remarried folks left and right. The sky would be filled with the smoke, the ground covered in their ashes.

[robvalue]

Please stop bothering Christians with the Bible

[vorlon13]

Especially the quotes from Jesus Christ recorded inerrantly in their bibles.

[Bucky Ball]

So this has been bothering me for a while. I am 100% sure that Matthew, Luke and John's gospels were not "divinely inspired" and they are not the "word of god" because of some of the errors I found in them. However, I can't find any errors in Mark's gospel. No historical errors, no theological errors, nothing. In addition to that, I don't see how it contradicts the old testament in any way.

How can you prove that Mark's gospel is not the word of god? Is there anything in this gospel that scholars don't agree with? Is there anything in the gospel that proves that this book was not divinely inspired?

Too many theological errors to count, (in terms of conflict with basic ancient Hebrew thinking).
The concept of the "Messianic Secret".
No resurrection in the original Mark
"Inspiration" was not originally the criteria by which a gospel (there were hundreds) were selected. You *do* know how the 4 were selected, right (and why) ?
Do you even know when and why "inspiration" was or became a norm ? Timothy said "All scripture was inspired" .... yet there was no canon at that point ???? ("Scripture" means "that which is written" .... so every thing ("holy writing" was inspired, according to Timothy.
There was no "passion". Never once in all of history was the Sanhedrin called into session on Passover weekend. The entire story of the crucifixion was invented. Galilean peasants were not brought before Roman aristocrats, in the Pax Romana. Trouble-makers were summarily executed by "standing order". In Acts, Peter has to explain to the Jews what (he thought) they *did*. They had no clue.
The false concept of "fulfilled prophesy" contradicts the OT every time it's invoked.
It obviously "knows" about the destruction of the temple, (literary device ... it tries to make it look like Jesus predicted it) ... it was not written when they claim it was written.
There may be a tiny kernel of historic truth in the Jesus business ... most all of it was invented.

Edit : BTW, the very first line has an error, (and an error *so* egregious it makes one wonder if the writers/editors even knew any Jews).
The common appellation in Hebrew culture called many men a "son of God" ... righteous men, military men, politicians, popular guys ... all were "sons of God".
So there is and never was any "son" (singular) of God. The notion that a Jew would hold in equal esteem ANY other being as equivalent in the heavenly court to Yahweh Sabaoth is so utterly ignorant and preposterous, it is unthinkable.
The (Hebrew) heavenly court was filled of many "divine beings", but NO JEW ever, (including Jesus ... if he was real) would have claimed equality or even actual "son-ship" with Yahweh.
Which brings us to another problem. The divinity of Jesus is different in each of the gospels. It's too long to go into here, but in Mark the divinity is earned. In Mark, Jesus is raised up (just as in Paul he is said to be "exalted" ... NOT "resurrected") to divine status. Divine status to a Hebrew of the time, did not mean he was a god. It meant, among other things, that Yahweh had "exalted" them ... "raised them up", (as he had other Apocalyptic heroes, such as the seven sons of Hannah.