(June 23, 2016 at 3:04 pm)alpha male Wrote:(June 22, 2016 at 1:18 am)robvalue Wrote: Mark was the original account (which amusingly did not contain the resurrection; this was later forged onto the end of it).
See, people here this shit and believe it. Yes, Mark 16:9 and later aren't in the earliest manuscripts. Now, go read Mark 16:1-8. Guess what - it includes the resurrection.
Mark 16
1 Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. 2 Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 And they said among themselves, “Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?” 4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away—for it was very large. 5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.
6 But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples—and Peter—that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.”
8 So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
Which, interestingly, suggests that the story started with no witnesses whatsoever to the resurrection. They just took someone's word for it.
