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

[Reltzik]

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?

For myself, I start with each of every single book in existence (hypothetically, I don't own quite that many books) and I say to myself, "I doubt this book is a divinely-inspired message from a deity. Harry Potter? Not divinely inspired. Euclid's Elements? Not divinely inspired. On and on. I kinda have to, because Hobbes's Leviathan and Payne's Common Sense are both on that list and they very much contradict each other. Most books there will contradict and be contradicted by some other book. It's safe to say most of them aren't divinely inspired. So I start with that as the default position for any book: Not divinely inspired. Then I see if there's any evidence that they ARE divinely inspired.

In other words, I don't start with the assumption that Mark is inspired and then see if I can prove it isn't. I start with the assumption that it (like everything else) isn't, and see if it can be proved that it is.

But hey, if you're looking for errors in Mark, try Mark 14 43-48

Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.

Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.” Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him. The men seized Jesus and arrested him. Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

“Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.”

So Judas betrays Jesus with a kiss. Specifically, Judas's kiss lets the Sanhedrin know which man they are hunting. It's both a critical betrayal and enough to net Judas a big payoff.

But why would they need a signal at all?

It's completely pointless. Here in this very quote, Jesus says that he was with them teaching in the temple. He was publicly visible from many sermons, in public and members of the Sanhedrin could easily have caught a glimpse of him then. Or, you know, when he was flipping over tables in the temple and whipping the moneychangers through the street. You'd think he'd have trouble doing that without anyone seeing him.

But if the Sanhedrin didn't need help identifying him, then what Judas did isn't actually a betrayal. And if it isn't a betrayal, then Mark is wrong to say that it is.

.....

.....

..... also, why would errors prove something was not divinely inspired? Surely an omnipotent god could inspire errors if it chose to. For that matter, an omnipotent god could insert every sign of non-inspiration it wished to. This approach is completely ass-backwards. Since any inspired text could be made to look like any other text, there can't actually be proof that it wasn't inspired, because there's no way to prove that some text that doesn't look inspired actually wasn't. The only way to prove anything (and even that's stretching the word "prove" a lot) is to look for something that could ONLY be inspired.

*****

EDIT: Aaaaaand I need to learn to read datestamps before replying to the OP.