(August 27, 2016 at 8:43 am)Lincoln05 Wrote: 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?

We don't have to prove "not".

(August 27, 2016 at 9:02 am)RozKek Wrote: How can you prove that it is the word of god?

Easy enough the gospel is a set of instructions. follow the instructions... find God. Find God the gospel has been vetted. Even if you are inepthe and can not follow the directions. know others have

---

(October 10, 2018 at 3:29 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(August 27, 2016 at 8:43 am)Lincoln05 Wrote: 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?

We don't have to prove "not".

tell it to the judge sport.

Nah, we just have to tell a shithead like you.

I did a wee Google for 'errors in the Gospel of Mark' and got 5 660 000 hits. If 1/10 of 1% of those are on target, there are at least 5660 web pages addressing such errors.

Gawd, this stuff is easy.

Boru

(August 27, 2016 at 8:43 am)Lincoln05 Wrote: However, I can't find any errors in Mark's gospel. No historical errors, no theological errors, nothing.

All that proves is that the author of gMark was a careful writer.  It doesn't support even one supernatural claim; it's just a story until supported with solid, testable empirical evidence.

Quote:no theological errors

Then why did later redactors invent four or five (that we have found) separate endings for that particular pile of shit?

(October 11, 2018 at 2:19 pm)Drich Wrote:

(August 27, 2016 at 9:02 am)RozKek Wrote: How can you prove that it is the word of god?

Easy enough the gospel is a set of instructions. follow the instructions... find God. Find God the gospel has been vetted. Even if you are inepthe and can not follow the directions. know others have

---

(October 10, 2018 at 3:29 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: We don't have to prove "not".

tell it to the judge sport.

The gospels are not a "set of instructions".
(That crap is the fundy drivel they teach in Sunday School to 3rd Graders.)

The gospels are proclamations of belief by the followers, formulated for proclamation in liturgical events, (almost no one was literate at the time, and almost no one had a copy, and no one sat around "reading" anything). There were hundreds of gospels. Some of them were batshit crazy ... (well all of them were, actually).
The Gospel of Thomas : "(114) Simon Peter said to them, "Mary should leave us, for females are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "See, I am going to attract her to make her male so that she too might become a living spirit that resembles you males. For every female (element) that makes itself male will enter the kingdom of heaven." LMAO

Of the worlds best known scholars of the NT, not one calls the gospels "a set of instructions", not that Drich cares about scholarship.



Your "hermeneutic" of insult and derision is not exactly what Christians preach. (You certainly don't claim to be one, I hope).
There is a book you should read. You can get it on Amazon : "How Not To Share Your Faith"

Quote:Your "hermeneutic" of insult and derision is not exactly what Christians preach.

But its what they practice!

(August 27, 2016 at 8:43 am)Lincoln05 Wrote: 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?

So I went to reread gospel of Mark. Huge error right off the bat. It seems to say God is real. He is not.

(October 11, 2018 at 3:19 pm)Astreja Wrote:

(August 27, 2016 at 8:43 am)Lincoln05 Wrote: However, I can't find any errors in Mark's gospel. No historical errors, no theological errors, nothing.

All that proves is that the author of gMark was a careful writer.  It doesn't support even one supernatural claim; it's just a story until supported with solid, testable empirical evidence.

Actually, it proves that Lincoln just didn't look very hard.

Boru