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

[vulcanlogician]

I tend to agree with Khemikal's "magic book" musings. It's one thing to claim God exists. It's quite another to claim that one book (compiled more or less arbitrarily according to which theologians' views held prominence in the late Roman Empire) adequately and accurately describes the one true God. I've read TONS of religious texts. I see the Christian's texts as no different than any other. There is usually some sort of profound truth buried in them (which is how these texts attract adherents) but this is always counterbalanced my some sort of fable/myth/storytelling.

People believe in the Bible for one reason and one reason only. Tradition. They were either told to from childhood, or later became part of a religion in which participants all "agreed" that this one arbitrary text accurately describes God.

---

I mean Joseph "whats-his-face" (Mormon guy) had enough sense to say his shit was delivered on golden tablets.

[Minimalist]

People believe in the Bible for one reason and one reason only.

Yeah, but....some of them are just stupid, too.  You can't forget that.

[robvalue]

I tend to agree with Khemikal's "magic book" musings. It's one thing to claim God exists. It's quite another to claim that one book (compiled more or less arbitrarily according to which theologians' views held prominence in the late Roman Empire) adequately and accurately describes the one true God. I've read TONS of religious texts. I see the Christian's texts as no different than any other. There is usually some sort of profound truth buried in them (which is how these texts attract adherents) but this is always counterbalanced my some sort of fable/myth/storytelling.

People believe in the Bible for one reason and one reason only. Tradition. They were either told to from childhood, or later became part of a religion in which participants all "agreed" that this one arbitrary text accurately describes God.

---

I mean Joseph "whats-his-face" (Mormon guy) had enough sense to say his shit was delivered on golden tablets.

It's like they have special goggles on which can identify the "real" bullshit text. I think the same goggles let them see all the angels, demons, acts of god and all the other crazy shit that is apparently going on all the time. I didn’t get the goggles, but I’d love to borrow them for five minutes.

I feel that by assigning a text to this god, they are implying (without meaning to) that god requires the help of people to communicate, or else just enjoys screwing around and confusing people. In the latter case, he whispers in the ears of a few, and then sits back to watch what happens to their attempts to record this over time. This version of events makes more sense as it can explain all religions in one go. They’re all from the same trickster. He just spouts slightly different nonsense to different people at various points in time.

[The Grand Nudger]

What else you gonna do with eternity?

[Schwa]

[I_am_not_mafia]

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?

Because it violates the known laws of Physics.

[Gwaithmir]

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?

Because it violates the known laws of Physics.

You're wasting your time. Lincoln05 hasn't returned to this website for over two years.

[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.

[Jackalope]

Banned, obviously.

P.S. not really.

[Gwaithmir]

Exactly what is "the word of God" supposed to look like? How are we supposed to distinguish a divine book from an ordinary one?