Was the resurrection made up just because Mark 16 doesn't mention it?

[AgnosticBoy]

POI argued in another thread that the resurrection is not mentioned in the earliest manuscripts for Mark 16, and it seems that he is using that to invalidate the resurrection or to say that it was made up.

Mark is supposed to end at 16:8. The earliest copiies demonstrate this. Someone comes in later and adds more.

Maybe we can start here and see where this goes? The ultimate claim is that Jesus rose from the grave and returned to say 'hi' to some of his followers. Outside of the Gospel'(s) say-so, do we have any corroboration of such an event? Before we answer, let us reflect... "Mark" makes the claim that the tomb was found empty (Mark 16:8). This is where the story line presumably ends.

But wait, later writings then suggest Jesus did come back to say 'hi', (in Mark 16:9-20). Then there is "Luke/Matthew", which show signs of direct borrowing/copying from one-another. Then comes "John", which adds even more 'supernatural-ness' to the storyline.

For Debate...
Does the absence of a resurrection in the original ending of Mark indicate that the resurrection story was made up? (my answer is in post #2)

[POI]

But John doesn't. My take is that there originally wasn't one, but the original of the synoptic version added an angel to tell people what the empty tomb was supposed to prove.

Comments?

Yea, I think a group of people wanted to start a religion.

[TRANSPONDER]

But John doesn't. My take is that there originally wasn't one, but the original of the synoptic version added an angel to tell people what the empty tomb was supposed to prove.

Comments?

Still waiting for a comment. John has only Mary Magdalene finding the tomb empty. There is no angel explaining anything. Mark has that but nothing after that. There is no appearance of risen Jesus. That's why an angel was plonked there to explain everything. But not in John. Mary has no idea where Jesus is. Mark has nothing of the subsequent disciples checking the tomb, the angels appearing after that (not before) and Jesus then appearing, not while the marys (John has only one) running from the tomb and smack into a plainly concocted and inserted Jesus who just repeats what the angel had said anyway and lets the redundant message to go to Galilee stand when he could just as well have gone with the women to tell the disciples what he turns up that evening to say anyway.

Clearly this appearance is what Matthew couldn't resist inventing though it is utterly daft. Mark more reflects the original synoptic version, though Luke gives it all a different twist since he knows from Paul that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem and had the 1 Corinthians "visions" of Jesus so he adapts the synoptic version to fit that. But the kicker is that John shows there was no angel explaining anything and the freer logion (two versions of the cobbled up appearance of Jesus) is evidently a later addition.

There is the business of the empty tomb and Mary Magdalene going there (though in John she does say 'we'so arguably the 'Other'Mary (mother of Jesus) is there too. That is common to all four if not even the explanatory angel is, but there is even a bother there. Why did they go to the tomb? From memory (which like my eyes is not what it was) John gives not reason, No dammit... Yes in Luke they had been preparing spices the obtaining and stirring up is a problem on the Sabbath and in Mark they bring spices to anoint Jesus which is still a problem as the shops were closed on the Sabbath. Matthew's inspiration fails him as he says they just went to look at the tomb. So they just have the Marys plonked there because the story needed them to see the tomb was empty so...if a spirit resurrection (which is what Paul is plainly describing in I Cor. ) The empty tomb is equally well accounted for as a scraped up 'Proof' that the resurrection had been solid body. Because that as the original wouldn't do, the synoptic original had an angel parked there to explain everything. John has no such thing. Mark has nothing more and I assert and stand by the argument that is all there ever was and is why the appearances (being separately invented) generally mutually destruct.

I have watched with a wry amusement how excuses and invented scenarios are made up (which not a scrap of it in the Bible) to try to 'weave the accounts together' as a former opponent (and later good PM mate (1) though we still fought like mad on the forum) put it, just as the effort is made to make Judas hanging and bursting open the same thing. But to anyone not determined to believe them and damn the internal evidence, they contradict pretty totally. Though there are common elements like angels and the disciples, orbiting around his empty tomb, but why would there not be?

This is long enough but of course the universally overlooked and ignore element of one significant element (e.g tomb guard) that is simply passed over and assumed it was known to all the others but only Matthew mentioned it. The nativities should scupper that tacit claim allowed to go on for 2,000 years of Bible scholarship and even skeptic Bible criticism, and I assert that one significant thing that only one mentions when they should all have known (like the tomb-guard or indeed Antipas' involvement in the trial, or the penitent thief or for that matter the memorable parables found only in Luke or the raising of Lazarus only in John) should be regarded as invention. The excuse that 'they didn't bother to mention it'should not be given a free pass and the "Experts" should have called on that tosh long ago.

(1) though he was still as mad as a box of frogs..."Freeze - dried Eucalyptus leaves for the Koalas on the Ark" indeed.

[AgnosticBoy]

Does the absence of a resurrection in the original ending of Mark indicate that the resurrection story was made up?

I don't think so, and how do we even know what is the original?

Biggest reason for me to think resurrection story was not made up is that, if it would have ended to this "And going out quickly, they fled from the tomb. And trembling and ecstasy took hold of them. And they told no one, not a thing, for they were afraid", we would not have the Bible at all.

Well this is where POI has a valid point. We have to go by the manuscript evidence. According to the scholars I've read, and even according to what various translations of the Bible say (including modern day English translations) in their footnotes, Mark 16:9-20 was not included in the earliest manuscripts. It's possible that the original Mark or Autographa may've had that ending while it was omitted in the first few copies, but that is unlikely. Christian copyists would not have deliberately omitted that type of detail after seeing it since it was central to Christianity.

That still leaves the question of why the original writer (Mark?) would have left out details about the post-resurrection appearances, but one conclusion I don't subscribe to is that the resurrection was made up just because it was left out. I explained my reasons in post #2.

[AgnosticBoy]

Which leads onto the account in Paul. I think Luke had read I Corinthians and knew that the resurrected Jesus appears first to Simon, so he wangles that claim into his gospel, having got the reader out of the way, following Cleopas to Emmaeus so Luke doesn't have to describe it. But he does have Jesus turning up in the evening, which of course Matthew doesn't have, never mind Mark.

This is another reason why the point about the original ending for Mark 16 doesn't invalidate the resurrection. Eventhough the details are not included in Mark, but they are included by Luke, John, and Matthew, Acts chapter 1, and by Paul. POI keeps pointing out that Matthew, Luke, and John copied from Mark, as if they did so entirely, but the fact that the post-resurrection appearances weren't included in Mark during the first century (1) shows that Matthew, Luke, and John got that information elsewhere.

1. From the Biblical Archaeological Society - "In A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger writes: “Clement of Alexandria and Origen [early third century] show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them.”1

So (as some here may remember ) I see Paul equating those I Cor appearances - which differ pretty much entirely from the gospels - with his own last sighting of Jesus which is a vision in his head. Thus I argue that this resurrected Jesus was not on resurrection night but later on over a period of months or even years, first with Simon/Cephas getting an idea in his head that Jesus (his spirit, maybe) had gone to heaven and would no doubt return "Until my task is done" as the resurrected Gandalf says. Then (after that - so Simon was the first) to the twelve (or as Luke says, the eleven, or in John the ten as Thomas was absent) then 500 at once. This is clearly not resurrection night (though Luke tries to have Jesus giving a scriptural lecture in Acts, but really that isn't to 500. These are all belief -visions in the imagination with no more substance than bamboo in election - forms, and is NO support for the concocted Resurrection - tales.

Jesus's appearance to Paul could be considered a vision since he only saw a "light", but the details about Jesus's appearances to others involved seeing Jesus in bodily form. In my view, it doesn't even matter when it occurred, but what matters is that it occurred at all and that there were many witnesses to that event. If a dead man comes back to life years later, that's just as remarkable as coming back to life 3 days later. We shouldn't lose sight of that.

[AgnosticBoy]

Um, yes. Mark 16:8 is merely where the corruption begins. Oh wait, the original author of "Mark" failed to leave out the most important part of the story?

He didn't leave it out, but rather he didn't go into as much details as the other writers. Mark does mention an empty tomb and Jesus "rising" in the part of chapter 16 that is not in dispute. That's enough details to reasonably infer from that he expected Jesus to return back to life, and that the body is missing because it is alive again. He doesn't have to spell it out in minute detail to reach that conclusion.

The document smells of corruption, because later procurers, who were responsible for collecting the documents, realized earlier (copies of the copies) did not have the 'later' ending, while the (copies of the copies of the copies) did. So quick, concoct a make-ship story to taste And since the author(s) of the story is/are unknown, how do we know the later copies, which were found, were not the same individuals who added such later parts to the story? The footnote at the bottom of Mark 16 is just the very beginning.

That only leads me to question the ending of Mark 16, and not the resurrection. If Mark was our only source for the resurrection, then I'd agree with you. Mark is not the only source, and besides that, I see that he does allude to the resurrection even if it's not as detailed as the other accounts.

So no, you do not need to try and refute all the points in the video. Only to instead already recognize that the story changes ALOT. And by ALOT, the video means events changed to the point of impossibility. Beyond a mere differing perspective... And if the stories were written from a differing perspective, some of it would not still be a direct copy of "Mark", word-for-word. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either "Luke's" Gospel was to basically copy "Mark's", or it was to be written from 'Luke's" own perspective. But even IF it was a little of both, you still have to content with the contradictory 'facts' which illogically rule the story out regardless. Thus, it is not trustworthy by the most basic of standards.

I believe Luke relied on Mark and other sources. I've seen enough back-and-forth regarding the contradictions of the NT, and I see that some of the contradictions, or the conclusions about what they mean towards the validity of the gospels (ex. the gospels are unreliable) are overblown conclusions. I also see a lot of double standards when skeptics treat the Bible like a special case by applying a higher level of skepticism to it.

And please lookup what a strawman actually means, and you will see that it was you, in creating this topic, which did so My entire response, in the other thread, was all cohesively and directly linked. Breaking it up is a direct tactic to try and reduce the credibility of my claim, which is that the Gospels are corrupt. The proof, at Mark 16:8, is only the tip of the iceberg. Just think if we even found earlier copies of Mark, what may be omitted or different?

Honestly, I didn't see much cohesiveness as in how one leads to the other, and that's okay some times. I broke down your view because I thought that Mark 16 was a point that you were using to reach your conclusions, and the other points were just additional reasons. You did bring it up to me as a point of its own in this post here.

Either way, do you agree then that Mark not mentioning the resurrection does not invalidate Jesus's resurrection?

[POI]

Who wrote Mark and when? And more importantly, what was their source(s)? Those little chestnuts will likely never be answered. Faith anyone?

He didn't leave it out, but rather he didn't go into as much details as the other writers. Mark does mention an empty tomb and Jesus "rising" in the part of chapter 16 that is not in dispute. That's enough details to reasonably infer from that he expected Jesus to return back to life, and that the body is missing because it is alive again. He doesn't have to spell it out in minute detail to reach that conclusion.

Of course the original author left it out. (9-20) was not in the ending of the earlier manuscripts, which were also already merely copies of copies. Who knows what else might have already been corrupted, from the earlier unfound copies. Someone else came in, later, to add more to the *same* book which was presumably written by one person's account. This is only the first sign or hint of corruption. Was the intent of "Mark" to be the works of more than one author? We do not know who wrote what, and when? Nor, can we verify their source(s). Already, we are off to a shaky start for such a LARGE claim.

That only leads me to question the ending of Mark 16, and not the resurrection. If Mark was our only source for the resurrection, then I'd agree with you. Mark is not the only source, and besides that, I see that he does allude to the resurrection even if it's not as detailed as the other accounts.

The (4) Gospels are all corrupted in one way or another. (See the already cited video for details). 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0

I believe Luke relied on Mark and other sources. I've seen enough back-and-forth regarding the contradictions of the NT, and I see that some of the contradictions, or the conclusions about what they mean towards the validity of the gospels (ex. the gospels are unreliable) are overblown conclusions. I also see a lot of double standards when skeptics treat the Bible like a special case by applying a higher level of skepticism to it.

You do not know who wrote what, and exactly where they received their source information. None of these folks were deposed and verified either. Sorry if you think this is over-reaching. But we are not talking about any ordinary claim here. This is only the largest claim in human history, if true.

And I do not agree about the higher level of skepticism for contradictions. My level of skepticism is the same for ANY supernatural or extra-ordinary claim; whether it be claimed UFO sightings, magic, other said religious characters and their claimed adventures, mediums, psychics, haunted houses, ghosts, etc etc etc... Any claim which is said to defy physics and other known principles.

We have no verified first-hand and deposed eyewitnesses to the 40-day resurrection tour. Only second-hand accounts, at BEST. Not good enough, sorry!

Honestly, I didn't see much cohesiveness as in how one leads to the other, and that's okay some times.

Post 21.

I broke down your view because I thought that Mark 16 was a point that you were using to reach your conclusions, and the other points were just additional reasons. You did bring it up to me as a point of its own in this post here.

If you read the title of your topic, it does not align with my point.

Either way, do you agree then that Mark not mentioning the resurrection does not invalidate Jesus's resurrection?

I never said it did in the first place. Mark 16 was just the first piece of the puzzle. Mark being corrupted, along with Luke being corrupted, leads one to more-so doubt such a supernatural claim. Since basically all the Gospels are corrupted, and we have no other first-hand accounts or sources, along with no relics, it's likely to be taken upon faith alone.

[TRANSPONDER]

Which leads onto the account in Paul. I think Luke had read I Corinthians and knew that the resurrected Jesus appears first to Simon, so he wangles that claim into his gospel, having got the reader out of the way, following Cleopas to Emmaeus so Luke doesn't have to describe it. But he does have Jesus turning up in the evening, which of course Matthew doesn't have, never mind Mark.

This is another reason why the point about the original ending for Mark 16 doesn't invalidate the resurrection. Eventhough the details are not included in Mark, but they are included by Luke, John, and Matthew, Acts chapter 1, and by Paul. POI keeps pointing out that Matthew, Luke, and John copied from Mark, as if they did so entirely, but the fact that the post-resurrection appearances weren't included in Mark during the first century (1) shows that Matthew, Luke, and John got that information elsewhere.

1. From the Biblical Archaeological Society - "In A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger writes: “Clement of Alexandria and Origen [early third century] show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them.”1

So (as some here may remember ) I see Paul equating those I Cor appearances - which differ pretty much entirely from the gospels - with his own last sighting of Jesus which is a vision in his head. Thus I argue that this resurrected Jesus was not on resurrection night but later on over a period of months or even years, first with Simon/Cephas getting an idea in his head that Jesus (his spirit, maybe) had gone to heaven and would no doubt return "Until my task is done" as the resurrected Gandalf says. Then (after that - so Simon was the first) to the twelve (or as Luke says, the eleven, or in John the ten as Thomas was absent) then 500 at once. This is clearly not resurrection night (though Luke tries to have Jesus giving a scriptural lecture in Acts, but really that isn't to 500. These are all belief -visions in the imagination with no more substance than bamboo in election - forms, and is NO support for the concocted Resurrection - tales.

Jesus's appearance to Paul could be considered a vision since he only saw a "light", but the details about Jesus's appearances to others involved seeing Jesus in bodily form. In my view, it doesn't even matter when it occurred, but what matters is that it occurred at all and that there were many witnesses to that event. If a dead man comes back to life years later, that's just as remarkable as coming back to life 3 days later. We shouldn't lose sight of that.

Jesus' appearance to Paul must be considered a vision or at most not on resurrection night be cause he says he saw it last of all, even after James (whom I thought was one of the 12, anyway). I reject the account in Acts. Paul does not mention a conversion on the way to Damascus (prob 36 AD) and Luke (surely author of Acts) in writing his biographical novelette, guesses it happened between Saul storming off to catch Christians and his arriving converted in Damascus. Luke knows this can't be resurrection night - and nor are the other appearances in I. Cor - but has light and a disembodied voice. Paul doesn't write that so Luke made it up as a guess or good story, anyway, and I say we should not quote it as evidence of anything other than Luke's inventive story - telling.

I deduce from the contradictions and omissions that there must have been an original, very basic, story, which included common Christian beliefs, which doesn't mean they had to be true, but at least they didn't contradict. There was a synoptic version which was Not Mark as it now is, as he has his own additions, and Mark and Matthew didn't even use that, but a version with the 2nd feeding of loaves and fishes and other Decapolis material not found in Luke. Luke used the synoptic original without that Mark/Matthew material, but of course he added the "Q" material, mainly sermon, which also Matthew used, but they use it in different, ways showing it to be material added in. They also added material of their own, shown by significant things that the other two leave out. Once has to accept that omitting significant matters like the declaration at Nazareth means that Luke invented it and the like additions.

John of course uses the basics which, it may be noted, has nothing of Galilee between the healing at a distance (In Capernaum in the synoptics but in Cana in John, and no honest and unbiased person will pull the old apologetic trick that Jesus did the same thing twice. No, the story could not originally have said where, so each put it in different places) and the feeding of t,000 in Bethsaida. This is because the Galilee material is invented Christian propaganda, put in Jesus' mouth, much of it damning the Jews and approving Gentiles, evidenced by no Jew, let alone a teacher of the Law, letting Jesus get away with David and the shewbread and no debate on healing on the Sabbath. This is Christian propaganda directed at Gentiles, emphasising loyalty to the club, beyond even family. It was never 'Original' in the story.

The only mention I have seen as as apologetic for this is a hint that Matthew,Mark and Luke did 'Galilee material' and John did 'Jerusalem' material, which is merely dismissing the problem and explains nothing. In short, friends, I explain these problems, where generally they are ignored or excused, and like the Big Lie of Christianity being 'Good' (ably exposed by Tracie Harriss in her mustwatch vid 'Religious family values) they have been allowed to get away with covering it up.

John diverged from the synoptics all through and cannot be based on a similar gospel but the original story an - to get to the Resurrection - only the empty tomb and the resurrection claim. That and no more. The claim is not evidence for the claim, so 'resurrection' is not common support for the claim, but the claim itself. The women finding the tomb open and empty is all the evidence that was needed and Mark (minus the angelic explanation which John doesn't have) is the women find the tomb open and empty and that is all there was in the original gospel.

That's the message of the omissions, additions and contradictions, and it explains most of the problems. Bible scholarship up to now has (for some reason) simply ignored them. Which is a bit of a reason I do not have an enthusiasm for Bible Experts. They may be able to read it and learn it by heart in Hebrew or Greek, but to me, they don't comprehend it and don't even try. At least I never hear such matters debated in apologetics.

Take one matter that has been debated (by amateurs so far as I have seen). The nativities with the contradictions noted and 'explained' by the believers, usually by fiddling the evidence and making stuff up. The final debunk of the '2nd census' excuse was done on my other board by finding that Josephus has Varus extending his term to plug the missing governorship,leaving Quirinus governor only after Herod had died and Archelaus deposed. Why couldn't the Experts have worked that out or even looked at the problem?

If that is a valid argument for the nativities being invented, the same applies to the resurrection -accounts, as the contradictions are as bad

I of course fully expect dismissal and denial, but I'm sure this works, and sooner or later will be taken on board or thought up by others. There are hints that the 'Barabbas' problem is being picked up, though they haven't put it together yet. But they will.

[boatsnguitars]

POI argued in another thread that the resurrection is not mentioned in the earliest manuscripts for Mark 16, and it seems that he is using that to invalidate the resurrection or to say that it was made up.

Mark is supposed to end at 16:8. The earliest copiies demonstrate this. Someone comes in later and adds more.

Maybe we can start here and see where this goes? The ultimate claim is that Jesus rose from the grave and returned to say 'hi' to some of his followers. Outside of the Gospel'(s) say-so, do we have any corroboration of such an event? Before we answer, let us reflect... "Mark" makes the claim that the tomb was found empty (Mark 16:8). This is where the story line presumably ends.

But wait, later writings then suggest Jesus did come back to say 'hi', (in Mark 16:9-20). Then there is "Luke/Matthew", which show signs of direct borrowing/copying from one-another. Then comes "John", which adds even more 'supernatural-ness' to the storyline.

For Debate...
Does the absence of a resurrection in the original ending of Mark indicate that the resurrection story was made up? (my answer is in post #2)

If one were to read the NT books in order they were written, one would surely see the gradual development of the entire myth. I think it is obvious Mark's ending, and Paul's "vision" led people to imagine/develop a resurrection. This would not be surprising in any way, if one understand how humans create myth, urban legends, etc.

It is far too obvious, just by seeing how quickly people develop incredible (literally unbelieviable) stories around events and people. Look at QAnon, and the whole Trump phenomenon, or look at all the TikTok videos that become urban legends as if real. There are so many people willing to invent crazy things: like Biden lost the election, died, and is now being played by an actor (who recently died), and that he is control of the "White Hats", but Trump is really in charge of the real military and government - but all the economic problems are still Biden's fault...

This kind of insanity has developed only in the last few years, so it's completely understandable how a community in ancient Jerusalem, through oral tradition, developed an equally crazy tale over a generation or two.

After all: people don't come back from the dead after 3 days when rigor mortis sets in.

[TRANSPONDER]

Good point. Yes. the gospels display an evolution of Jesus from a man -messiah pushed around like a shopping -trolley by The Spirit to John's skin thin human within which the pulsating glow of the Glory of God can be almost seen. The Gospels evolved Jesus.

[1213]

...We have to go by the manuscript evidence...

Yes, but how we know what is the oldest? I think the problem here is, we don't know what is the original. The one that people think is the oldest, may not be the one that the later copied. The later could be copies from older text that does not exist anymore.

... it was omitted in the first few copies, but that is unlikely. ....

In my opinion it would be more unlikely that it was not in the original message.

....That still leaves the question of why the original writer (Mark?) would have left out details about the post-resurrection appearances, ...

Could it be that the part of the text was destroyed? Christians were persecuted at the beginning and that means, all writings were probably hided, or destroyed. That is why it would be no miracle, if there is parts missing.