Mark Does NOT Say This!

Don't forget to help us create more videos! We need your support:

[fizz]

One of the things that drives me crazy is when people push the idea that the church hated science and saw it as blaspheme.

[_nosneb]

1 Corinthians was written even earlier, and within the letter, Paul specifically states that Jesus rose from the dead, so...

[micahzeringue]

People say things with so much confidence.

[vynscenth]

Christianity constantly attacked because of its truthfulness.

[GreatTrollger]

I believe that Mark 16:9-20 is true, since Syriac Diatessaron (2nd century) includes it. Still great video! Glad you still rebuke idiots like this, I would have quit long ago

[gambalombo]

Literally like 1% of all manuscripts lack the long ending for Mark...

[evancombs]

One thing that bothers me is when people say there was polytheism in ancient Israel as a way of trying to prove the old testament is not historically accurate. If you actually read the Old Testament you will see there was often polytheism in ancient Israel, and that it upsets God.

[WeakestAvenger]

It's crazy how many time I've heard that Mark doesn't have the resurrection. The angel literally tells the women, "He has risen!"

If you end Mark at 16:8, what it doesn't have is resurrection APPEARANCES. But you definitely still have the resurrection.

[loudnuffu]

If that interviewee in the ballcap is referring to the chapters often in dispute, Mark 16: 9-20... even before that, an angel declares Christ's resurrection, "Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: He is risen; He is not here: behold, the place where they laid Him." (Mark 16:6)

[HisLivingStone]

Nice! I would also add, and you've made this point before IP, that the earliest account of Jesus Resurrecting is not even the Gospels. We have Paul's Letters, a number of which were written earlier, we have the Creed of 1 Corinthians 15, which dates to at most 5 years AFTER Jesus died, and we have the preaching of Peter in Acts 2.

[SammyIchtay]

All praise and glory be on to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ of Nazareth who resurrected from the tomb ☦️

[funtimefoxy]

My pet peeve with these misconceptions is when people try to paint Jesus like some sort of hippie, spouting nothing but peace and love. Really grinds my gears.

[camdencoughran]

Hi IP! I’ve been a fan for a long time and am currently a pastor. I just thought it was cool how you mentioned N. Clayton Croy as you source because when I was in university he was my professor for my Matthew and Mark exegesis class.

[red]

It's pretty clear to me that the original ending of Mark is not just the women running away in fear, it's just such a strange and abrupt "ending"

[stevenred]

I do honestly LOVE the original abrupt ending in Mark: the ladies hiding make an agreement NEVER TO TELL ANYBODY! 2 millennia later, literally everyone knows and has known for centuries!

[gts]

The original ending of Mark includes verses 9-20. It’s only absent from two corrupt alexandrian manuscripts Aleph and B. All other manuscripts contain the verses. The controversy is over nothing.

[abigailporter]

Maybe people should also remember and bear in mind 'The guards report' in matthew 28 v11-15 too when they start start denying the resurrection!!

[phloriaernas]

My gosh why people tell lies so confidently. It confuses the public!

[nibs]

Irenaeus quotes the "longer" ending of Mark in Against Heresies. His treatise was written before the "oldest" texts of Mark with the shorter ending. That begs the question of which manuscripts are in fact the best. Oldest does not guarantee best. To assume so is an argument from silence. Irenaeus' quote seems to be non-manuscript evidence to suggest that the "longer" ending was already considered original by AD 180.

[БорисИванов-тт]

Considering that Jesus's resurrection is the main pilar in the Christian faith since the beginning, how can someone truly believe that this part was missing from one of the main and most important gospels !?