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

[Cato]

Well, let's say that the claimee says "It is the only gospel without any errors. It is also seen by scholars as the most authentic gospel".

The scholars would then be just as ignorant of Jewish law as the author of Mark if that were the case, and presumably God if it were divinely inspired. Women had no right to divorce. The Sanhedrin trial was to have taken place at night and during Passover, both prohibited. So much for the accuracy claim.

[GrandizerII]

Same answer. The claimee is held to provide the evidence. Once evidence is provided we can argue. What evidence do you provide?

Well, let's say that the claimee says "It is the only gospel without any errors. It is also seen by scholars as the most authentic gospel".

I agree with the others, but putting aside the matter of burden of proof:

What scholars? And what do you mean by "most authentic"? Because that is not the same as divinely inspired. The Iliad and Odyssey may be considered authentic writings of Homer, but it doesn't mean they are divinely inspired.

And what do you mean by "no errors"? Do the Harry Potter books contain any errors? And so waht anyway? How does "no errors" compute to divinely inspired?

[KevinM1]

OP needs to learn about burden of proof. It's up to the person claiming that Mark contains no errors and is, in fact, the word of god to sufficiently prove it. It's not up to an atheist to disprove it.

So, where's your proof? Show your work.

[robvalue]

Let me rephrase the question: If a person said, "The gospel of Mark is the only book in the new testament that was divinely inspired. No other books in the NT are words of god", then how would you prove him/her wrong?

I would first ask what on Earth that even means, and what criteria one would use to distinguish a book which is "divinely inspired" from one which isn't. If they can't provide such a criteria, they are talking garbage.

It's not up to me to disprove people's claims. It's up to them to back up their positive claims. If they say it's "divinely inspired", they need to say what that means, then provide evidence. And it must be a falsifiable proposition, or else it is useless. See my video below.

Also, why should I care? Even if God co-authored it, so what? It's still a bunch of stupid stories of no relevance to me.

https://youtu.be/JRdP5GpCeuE

[Minimalist]

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's your fairy tale.  You "prove" that its true.  You might start by finding some evidence that it is true.  When you find some, please come back and share.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Let me rephrase the question: If a person said, "The gospel of Mark is the only book in the new testament that was divinely inspired. No other books in the NT are words of god", then how would you prove him/her wrong?

That's an Un-evidenced assertion. 

There is nothing to disprove. 

The end.

[robvalue]

That too.

The fact that it's a load of horse shit should probably be enough.

Also, it's not an eye witness account and it contains forged endings. What more do you want?

[Bucky Ball]

I need a proof that is specifically directed towards Mark's gospel. I believe that every book in the New Testament is faulty, except for gospel of Mark. So I need proof against the gospel of Mark.

That's not a scriptural or academic issue. It's a psychological issue. As soon as you cook up an excuse for not buying into Mark, you'll set up another reason to keep believing. 
The set of words "Word of God" is meaningless. Timothy said "All scripture is god breathed" ... too bad when he said that there was no canon yet. 
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologet...htm#errors
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologet...ospels.htm
We do not in any way know what was the original Mark or have ANY original in the NT. 

[Cyberman]

Ok, suppose the claimee says something like "Without any doubt, I believe that Jesus was real and god-sent and the gospel of Mark is all I have". So how would you disprove this book to a Jesus believer?

The proper reply to the claimant would be something along the lines of "I know you believe that. But if Mark's gospel is all you have - and it's only tradtion that attributes it to a Mark as the author - and if you have no way of demonstrating that it is anything more than a man-made fairytale, then you're out of gas". You can prove that Darth Vader was real and Force-sent by exactly the same criteria, as long as you insist on the other person disproving it.

[AFTT47]

Suppose I tell you that Star Trek is real. A time traveler revealed the future to Gene Roddenberry and he created Star Trek to depict it. You might say that it can't be real because it's riddled with continuity errors. But what if I find some episodes that have no errors of any kind? Would that prove that those episodes actually depict real future events?

That's the same logic you're using with Mark.