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)

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #30]
Your 2000 years of bible experts forget to inquire about the mechanics of The Resurrection also.
And neither did they ask why we have zero witnesses for the actual resurrection.

Luke was as bad in honest history telling and as excellent in propaganda publishing as Dr. Joseph Goebbels.

If Robert Prize and Hermann Deterring are right in their works, that Paul never existed I wouldnt be surprised if Luke had invented Paul.

Or not, since Pauls alleged letters were written before acts. But it was worth the thought.

[1213]

You are asking him to provide an "oldest" scroll, but claiming the ending was lost... That's rich!

I say only that it is possible reason for missing end in some old scripture.

[1213]

After reading that whole gospel through almost continuously, I have noticed that the style and 'feeling' of the addition is different. I have no doubts about the end verses being an addition.
There have been additions and adjustments through the body of this gospel as well, even the very first verse has been fiddled with, for instance 'Son of God' was not shown in earliest manuscripts.
In Mark Jesus was clearly a Son of man. I've often wondered why the whole gospel was not 'adjusted' more completely, maybe the editors were frightened of spiritual wrath, or whatever?

Son of God and son of man are concepts that can be used on basis of what is said in the scriptures, even if the word would not be used in the oldest scriptures, because the meanings are there anyway. That is why I think single words don't really usually make any big difference. By what is said in whole Bible, Jesus can be called son of God and also son of man, even if Mark would not use that word.

I think it is good that Bible is not adjusted to fit to opinions of those who don't understand it well. Otherwise it would have been ruined. Unfortunately many modern translations seems to be made so that people try to adjust it to fit into modern view and poor understanding. I think that is a danger for the message.

[1213]

I don't need to show a picture of anything...

You don't have to witness against yourself.

But if so, they would not contradict, would they?

And they don't contradict each other.

And your argument for dating cannot be serious. If John is the earliest, the earliest John fragment dates to the 2nd c. You suppose that Mark is later than that?

Earliest found is not necessary the earliest version of the text. Also, I think those dates can be wrong.

And what is the point of this strange idea? To have Mark leave the resurrection appearances out because everyone knew it?

I don't believe the original Mark left that out. It is just missing in some of the copies of the original text.

[oldbadger]

An evolved religion, for sure. I am pretty sure he added in a lot of extra material from outside - the stuff he shares with Matthew but not Mark and I think the unfashionable "Q" document theory may be right. So Some of the additions may be borrowed, rather than invented. The 'miraculous draft of fish is (so the evidence suggests to me) a 'Floating Story' that was not picked up from another gospel or even a religious document but a tale that was going the rounds. Matthew using it as a metaphor might even show what it was originally - a poetic simile. But Luke used it at the calling of disciples and Johns after the resurrection and the only thing that I don't understand is how 2,000 years of Bible experts have failed to notice that.

I imagine the 'woman taken in adultery' must have also been a 'floating story' since some put it in Luke, others in John, in the early Bibles at least. And I suspect now that the origins of the Son of Nain and raising of Lazarus might be a Floating Story, too - a bald claim "Jesus raised a young man from the dead" and let the others invent their narratives.

But I'd guess that the more famous parables are his invention. He was a pretty good storyteller.

Yes, and of course I think that some of Q was genuine.

As far as the amazing fish catch goes I have seen that happen after baiting the water before netting.
Maybe all those baskets of food waste were originally linked to those catches, but somehow split apart during oral tradion.

[oldbadger]

Son of God and son of man are concepts that can be used on basis of what is said in the scriptures, even if the word would not be used in the oldest scriptures, because the meanings are there anyway. That is why I think single words don't really usually make any big difference. By what is said in whole Bible, Jesus can be called son of God and also son of man, even if Mark would not use that word.

I think it is good that Bible is not adjusted to fit to opinions of those who don't understand it well. Otherwise it would have been ruined. Unfortunately many modern translations seems to be made so that people try to adjust it to fit into modern view and poor understanding. I think that is a danger for the message.

I'm quite sure that the story of Jesus was adjusted many times, and more original reports such as G-Mark were heavily edited.

Of course all Jewish men were sons of God, their father, but Mark shows that Jesus was a man beyond any doubt. Editing couldn't hide that.

[1213]

...Mark shows that Jesus was a man beyond any doubt. Editing couldn't hide that.

The whole NT tells Jesus was a man. Also Paul says so.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Tim. 2:5

I think that is very clear matter in the Bible.

[oldbadger]

...Mark shows that Jesus was a man beyond any doubt. Editing couldn't hide that.

The whole NT tells Jesus was a man. Also Paul says so.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Tim. 2:5

I think that is very clear matter in the Bible.

Excellent!.
No probs there then.

[TRANSPONDER]

An evolved religion, for sure. I am pretty sure he added in a lot of extra material from outside - the stuff he shares with Matthew but not Mark and I think the unfashionable "Q" document theory may be right. So Some of the additions may be borrowed, rather than invented. The 'miraculous draft of fish is (so the evidence suggests to me) a 'Floating Story' that was not picked up from another gospel or even a religious document but a tale that was going the rounds. Matthew using it as a metaphor might even show what it was originally - a poetic simile. But Luke used it at the calling of disciples and Johns after the resurrection and the only thing that I don't understand is how 2,000 years of Bible experts have failed to notice that.

I imagine the 'woman taken in adultery' must have also been a 'floating story' since some put it in Luke, others in John, in the early Bibles at least. And I suspect now that the origins of the Son of Nain and raising of Lazarus might be a Floating Story, too - a bald claim "Jesus raised a young man from the dead" and let the others invent their narratives.

But I'd guess that the more famous parables are his invention. He was a pretty good storyteller.

Yes, and of course I think that some of Q was genuine.

As far as the amazing fish catch goes I have seen that happen after baiting the water before netting.
Maybe all those baskets of food waste were originally linked to those catches, but somehow split apart during oral tradion.

I doubt that any of Q was genuine - not from what i have reconstructed. Mainly it was a lot of teachings and sayings turned by Matthew into a sermon. But with some events,l ike the temptations, John's question and maybe the centurion's servant.

The point about the miracle fish is not whether one can catch a haul of fish after hours of no luck, but appearing in totally different places. In the calling of disciples in Luke but after the resurrection in John. Matthew may show how the thing originally looked; as a metaphor.

Matthew 13.47 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet that was cast into the sea and gathered some of every kind, 48 which, when it was full, they drew to shore; and they sat down and gathered the good into vessels, but threw the bad away

[oldbadger]

I doubt that any of Q was genuine - not from what i have reconstructed. Mainly it was a lot of teachings and sayings turned by Matthew into a sermon. But with some events,l ike the temptations, John's question and maybe the centurion's servant.

The point about the miracle fish is not whether one can catch a haul of fish after hours of no luck, but appearing in totally different places. In the calling of disciples in Luke but after the resurrection in John. Matthew may show how the thing originally looked; as a metaphor.

Matthew 13.47 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet that was cast into the sea and gathered some of every kind, 48 which, when it was full, they drew to shore; and they sat down and gathered the good into vessels, but threw the bad away

Some of Q could be genuine, is my guess.

The fish catches? Since I've seen catches happen like that I have no problem with them at all, and the scene in Matthew 13:47 is realistic, reminds me of a turner painting of just such activity.

But it's the conversion of such scenes from the actual activity in to something spiritual/religious which is bogus.