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)

[AgnosticBoy]

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

My answer is no. The resurrection not being mentioned in the original ending for Mark 16 does not automatically mean that it was false or made up. Sure, the ending of Mark 16 in later manuscripts may have been made up in the sense that someone added the details about Jesus's resurrection, but in my view, making it up in one instance, does not mean that all other mention of it in other sources were also made up. I have 2 lines of evidence to support my point.

1. First, Mark 16 does allude to Jesus being resurrected or coming back to life.
The original ending of Mark 16 (vss 1-8) not only tells us that the tomb was empty, but also that Jesus "has risen" (vs. 6). The combination of an empty tomb, which involves a physical body gone missing, and a risen Jesus, suggests that that missing physical body came back to life.


2. Second, the belief that Jesus resurrected existed beyond the Gospels.
The apostle Paul documents the belief of a risen Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, and this predates Mark's Gospel or any Gospel's mention of a resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Even Paul says that he saw Jesus, and even if it wasn't a physical Jesus, but it would still mean that Jesus is living after death in some form.

[POI]

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

My answer is no. The resurrection not being mentioned in the original ending for Mark 16 does not automatically mean that it was false or made up. Sure, the ending of Mark 16 in later manuscripts may have been made up in the sense that someone added the details about Jesus's resurrection, but in my view, making it up in one instance, does not mean that all other mention of it in other sources were also made up. I have 2 lines of evidence to support my point.

1. First, Mark 16 does allude to Jesus being resurrected or coming back to life.
The original ending of Mark 16 (vss 1-8) not only tells us that the tomb was empty, but also that Jesus "has risen" (vs. 6). The combination of an empty tomb, which involves a physical body gone missing, and a risen Jesus, suggests that that missing physical body came back to life.


2. Second, the belief that Jesus resurrected existed beyond the Gospels.
The apostle Paul documents the belief of a risen Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, and this predates Mark's Gospel or any Gospel's mention of a resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Even Paul says that he saw Jesus, and even if it wasn't a physical Jesus, but it would still mean that Jesus is living after death in some form.

If you re-read the response of mine, which you quoted, you would read that the Gospel accounts smell of corruption, (Luke in particular). Mark 16 is just the tip of the iceberg. As asked in the other thread, you need to address the video, which does a pretty good job in explaining much more in detail, with receipts. No need for me to re-invent the wheel. In essence, the Gospels are just not trustworthy. The video in the other thread demonstrates why.

Paul is a separate issue entirely.

[The Nice Centurion]

Question for debate here smells like strawman.

[1213]

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.

[TRANSPONDER]

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

My answer is no. The resurrection not being mentioned in the original ending for Mark 16 does not automatically mean that it was false or made up. Sure, the ending of Mark 16 in later manuscripts may have been made up in the sense that someone added the details about Jesus's resurrection, but in my view, making it up in one instance, does not mean that all other mention of it in other sources were also made up. I have 2 lines of evidence to support my point.

1. First, Mark 16 does allude to Jesus being resurrected or coming back to life.
The original ending of Mark 16 (vss 1-8) not only tells us that the tomb was empty, but also that Jesus "has risen" (vs. 6). The combination of an empty tomb, which involves a physical body gone missing, and a risen Jesus, suggests that that missing physical body came back to life.


2. Second, the belief that Jesus resurrected existed beyond the Gospels.
The apostle Paul documents the belief of a risen Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, and this predates Mark's Gospel or any Gospel's mention of a resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Even Paul says that he saw Jesus, and even if it wasn't a physical Jesus, but it would still mean that Jesus is living after death in some form.

If you re-read the response of mine, which you quoted, you would read that the Gospel accounts smell of corruption, (Luke in particular). Mark 16 is just the tip of the iceberg. As asked in the other thread, you need to address the video, which does a pretty good job in explaining much more in detail, with receipts. No need for me to re-invent the wheel. In essence, the Gospels are just not trustworthy. The video in the other thread demonstrates why.

Paul is a separate issue entirely.

Scintillating, my dear POI. The question or apologetic is one that deserves a response, and it is this. As you pointed to, the three accounts of the resurrection contradict so much that it suggests (or so i argue) that they were made up in isolation. Despite some common elements, they are mutually destructive to credibility for anyone not determined to believe they are true and thus, there was no original story they could all work on, as is the different case with the crucifixion, which I take as being a common story. The resurrection accounts are not. The women at the tomb is, sorta. John has only Mary Magdalene - and no angel. And that is likely to be the original account. As a general rule, the story gets added to, not cut back. Like Luke adding a passel of ladies traipsing along after the Marys. Supposing as a given that the subsequent stories were made up individually, that must mean there wasn't one originally, which explains why Mark doesn't have one. Mary at the empty tomb and no angelic message, as in John. That is all we had. So I see the evidence indicating.

Which is no more than a doubtful story produced early on (and it could be very early) and in the bare -bones Johannine version it is simply a woman going for no given reason (1) to find the tomb empty. That isn't really enough to show that a resurrection had happened (her assumption in John is of course that someone took Jesus' bod. away) which is why extra elements had to be added: an angel explaining everything in the synoptic version and a divergent appearance of Jesus after the disciples had run to the tomb, not before, as in Matthew, and not until that appearance to Simon in Luke.

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.

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.

(1) the synoptics struggle a bit devising the reason the women went to the tomb at all.

[JehovahsWitness]

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)

No because Mark records the angelic message

MARK 16:6, 7

"Do not be stunned.+ You are looking for Jesus the Naz·a·reneʹ who was executed on the stake. He was raised up.+ He is not here. Look, here is the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galʹi·lee.+ You will see him there, just as he told you.’”

[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?

[AgnosticBoy]

If you re-read the response of mine, which you quoted, you would read that the Gospel accounts smell of corruption, (Luke in particular). Mark 16 is just the tip of the iceberg. As asked in the other thread, you need to address the video, which does a pretty good job in explaining much more in detail, with receipts. No need for me to re-invent the wheel. In essence, the Gospels are just not trustworthy. The video in the other thread demonstrates why.

Paul is a separate issue entirely.

Um, no. I'm not going to respond to the kitchen sink approach which involves throwing a whole bunch of different things at me, and hoping that one sticks. You made it a point to bring up Mark chapter 16 and how the resurrection was not in the original ending of that chapter.

If you or anyone else thinks that I'm engaging in strawman tactics here, then please explain why did you bring up the ending of Mark 16 and the resurrection not being in the earliest manuscripts for that passage.

[POI]

If you re-read the response of mine, which you quoted, you would read that the Gospel accounts smell of corruption, (Luke in particular). Mark 16 is just the tip of the iceberg. As asked in the other thread, you need to address the video, which does a pretty good job in explaining much more in detail, with receipts. No need for me to re-invent the wheel. In essence, the Gospels are just not trustworthy. The video in the other thread demonstrates why.

Paul is a separate issue entirely.

Um, no. I'm not going to respond to the kitchen sink approach which involves throwing a whole bunch of different things at me, and hoping that one sticks. You made it a point to bring up Mark chapter 16 and how the resurrection was not in the original ending of that chapter.

If you or anyone else thinks that I'm engaging in strawman tactics here, then please explain why did you bring up the ending of Mark 16 and the resurrection not being in the earliest manuscripts for that passage.

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? 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.

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.

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?