I guess if people care more about the characters in a book than real people, then it’s a divine one.

(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?

A simple Internet search shows two errors:

Quote:1. Wrong Prophet
The very first error in the Gospel of “Mark” appears in Chapter One and is as follows:
It began as the prophet Isaiah had written: God said, ‘I will send my messenger ahead of you to clear the way for you’.  (Mark 1:2)
If you read the book of Isaiah, you will find that he did not say this and in fact, the above passage was mistakenly sourced from the book of Malachi (3:1). Such an error betrays “Mark’s” ignorance with regards to the very scriptures upon which his religion had been built. This error seems to suggest that he was neither a divinely inspired Jew nor was he recording the account given by one.
2. Wrong Priest
Further evidence that the author of “Mark” was neither an associate of a Palestinian Jew nor inspired by an all-knowing God, can be demonstrated by the second scriptural error of this Gospel.
Have you never read what David did that time when he needed something to eat? He and his men were hungry, so he went into the house of God and ate the bread offered to God (the Shew-bread). This happened when Abiathar was the High Priest.  (Mark 2:25-26)
The crux of the message contained within this verse was that the Sabbath need not be observed which is in direct contradiction to “God’s word” in the Old Testament (Exodus 16:23-30). The rule of the Sabbath day as a rest day was so important to the tribal deity of the Hebrews that he commanded Moses to tell his people that anyone caught breaking this rule was to be put to death (Exodus 31:14).
The second and most damning problem with this passage is that Abiathar was not the High Priest at the time David ate the bread, as the author of this Gospel alleged, Abiathar’s father, Ahimelech was (1Samuel 21:1-6). This clumsy error by the author of Mark was later corrected by the author of “Matthew” (Matthew 12:1-8), who deleted the reference to Abiathar as High Priest, which was one of the details that betrayed “Mark’s” ignorance of the Hebrew Scriptures, although “Matthew” wasn’t much better in this regard.

Two factual errors in the Gospel of Mark

Not withstanding the false translations to make room for trinity doctrine and the made stuff by Paul, the Gospels are all God paraphrasing things differently to Jesus to address each disciple and thereby, there is no room for misinterpretation.

The gospels are definitely over all not just revealed by God but directly his words, not inspired into hearts of fallible to interpret, because its beyond their ability.

The Torah is Amazing. The Psalms stunningly beautiful. The revelations of the family of Moses/Aaron/David which is one family, they are intact over all, with some minor and some major exceptions and contradictions which the Quran correct.

The translations are not good so you have to research words in their original meaning and how context can change for example the word God is actually plural exalted ones, in some places it means God by plural majesty but in other places, it's best translated literally as exalted ones.

Worship also doesn't always mean that, but some places mean to exalt, to revere, and so you can't prove Jesus claimed divinity by these words alone.

There is no proof for trinity in the Gospels, but rather, Shiite Spiritual position of the chosen ones, is what is emphasized, and it can be seen in summary when Jesus says "I am the morning star from the house of David" implying there is always a morning star, and in this case, it must be from the house of David.

And a lot of the gospels is about going back to the route understanding of "kings" in the Torah, and it meant something spiritual and beyond our appreciation.

And the holy spirit and image of God and God's words brought to life, that theme in the Torah was being lost, and so he was emphasizing his station in that respect.

And he predicted a future one God will send, just as Moses did, and he emphasized he too would be instance of the holy spirit, and when he talked about Elijah coming back, it was literal, and the proof of that is John was like Elijah, and when Jesus leaves them to come back as the promised King of children of Israel who will rule the world (along side the Mahdi I believe), there needs to be a guide, a morning star from the chosen household, and so Elijah was back, but hidden, and remained hidden from public.


And as for him not literally dying and it appearing to them, it just means, yes it appeared like he died and was crucified, the fact, he came out the grave showed, however, that if God pleased he would not be killable.


And IT WAS AFTER THAT, that Jesus was brought to heaven. And so death means leaving this world for good, but Jesus did he ever die or did appear like he did, because they nailed him and put him in the grave?


He didn't die he came back. But never did he actually die, it just appeared like he did.


And that is what I get from the gospels.  Sure he was killed in some sense of the word, but if he is coming back out the grave, I call that unkillable human who shows he wasn't truly killed.

Quote:The translations are not good so you have to research words in their original meaning and how context can change for example the word God is actually plural exalted ones, in some places it means God by plural majesty but in other places, it's best translated literally as exalted ones.

And you know this because of your superior knowledge of ancient Greek?  Or did some moron with a towel on his head tell you that?

(October 15, 2018 at 1:08 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:The translations are not good so you have to research words in their original meaning and how context can change for example the word God is actually plural exalted ones, in some places it means God by plural majesty but in other places, it's best translated literally as exalted ones.

And you know this because of your superior knowledge of ancient Greek?  Or did some moron with a towel on his head tell you that?

Jehova witnesses and their app was useful, I saw inconsistency in translations of these words, and so realized it must be by context.

I looked up root meaning and I looked up where these words are used through out.

This is my conclusion as a result of that study.

(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?

The troll smell is strong on this one. 

There is no such thing as a magic baby with super powers and human beings don't survive the death story like the Jesus mythology would imply. 

None of the writers of the NT wrote them during the alleged time the bible claims the magic man existed. But it wouldn't matter to me if they did. The God of the bible is as real as Allah and Vishnu and Apollo. 

FYI the Jews stole the Yahweh character from the prior polytheistic Canaanites in which Yahweh was a lesser deity as part of the divine family under the head God "El".

(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?

Can you remind me which one Mark is again? What's the summary of his version of events? That should jog my memory.

Quote:Jehova witnesses and their app was useful,

Oh FFS.  No wonder you're insane.

(October 15, 2018 at 1:48 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Jehova witnesses and their app was useful,

Oh FFS.  No wonder you're insane.

Their app gives you access to tons of translations through out time as well as current. It also helps you research original words and their meanings and their derivatives.

(October 11, 2018 at 4:17 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: The gospels are not a "set of instructions".
(That crap is the fundy drivel they teach in Sunday School to 3rd Graders.)

they are more than instructions. there are examples back stories and instructions. one set of instructions can be found in luke 11. the 1/2 of the chapter teaches us how to pray the second 1/2 teachs how to obtain the Holy Spirit and why God would willingly give such a gift.

Quote: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). 

That is not true for ever sabbath, and other holy-days, in the temple the scriptures where read, and like wise on the first day of the week Christian scriptures/letters were read.

Quote:There were hundreds of gospels. Some of them were batshit crazy ... (well all of them were, actually).
The Gospel of Thomas :

you mean the gnostic gospel... look up who the gnostics where.. and also note it was a different thomas.

Quote:"(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

what's funny is if you knew anything of thomas the biggest thing that would have pointed to a different thomas, was 1) Jesus' thomas could not read or write. 2) Jesus' thomas went on to India to spread the word there. the gospel of thomas was originally found in three different parts of egypt. (where the gnostics like to plunder about)

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

because like you can see but are blind. I just showed you two very important lessons no Christian could ever hope to live in this world or the next without. Who among you or your scholars would argue that in just Luke 11 you are taught how to pray and how to obtain the Holy SPirit.. Taught as in a set of instructions.

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

I certainly hope so if "christian preach" is absent of prayer and the Holy Spirit!

Quote: (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"

In this world in this life there are no Christian sport... or did your 'christian preachers' fail to grasp that as well? Seems to me they are bunch of blind guides if none of them has ever used the gospel to pray, obtain a measure of the Holy Spirit or understand that 'salvation' is not apart of this life but of the next. In fact not once is salvation mentioned past tense unless the thief on the cross is mentioned because We have yet to be judged. Which means we are not Christian until we are judged. We in the bible are simply referred to as the followers of Christ. As a follower we are not saved till we stand before Jesus and are judged.

Seems to me you and your 'preachers' have all fallen to a tradition that barely knows and or understand who the God of the bible actually is. but at least you have words like hermeneutics, exegesis and dispensationalism to appaude yourselves in how dedicated to the study of patting yourself on the back, when it comes to studying God's word.
= blind guide.