Mummy Mask Deconstructed to Reveal Oldest Gospel Text?

very interesting bump

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: chr0naut
But there's no reason to assume that those verses were originally on there so it wouldn't be like ripping the end off of a newspaper. It would be like looking at copies of the same newspaper and seeing that the older copy does not have the extra sentences like the newer copies.

Again, could the absence of the end of the text in the older copy be taken to imply that the event never happened?

Still nope.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: chr0naut
But there's no reason to assume that those verses were originally on there so it wouldn't be like ripping the end off of a newspaper. It would be like looking at copies of the same newspaper and seeing that the older copy does not have the extra sentences like the newer copies.

Again, could the absence of the end of the text in the older copy be taken to imply that the event never happened?

Still nope.

Who are you asking?

Wasn't the assertion that it could imply that the later parts of Mark were actually written later?

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: chr0naut
But there's no reason to assume that those verses were originally on there so it wouldn't be like ripping the end off of a newspaper. It would be like looking at copies of the same newspaper and seeing that the older copy does not have the extra sentences like the newer copies.

Again, could the absence of the end of the text in the older copy be taken to imply that the event never happened?

Still nope.

Who are you asking?

Wasn't the assertion that it could imply that the later parts of Mark were actually written later?

Harte

The initial inference by Astynax, was that the resurrection did not happen because the post resurrection details are missing from the end of the oldest copies of Mark.

I do believe that the later verses are a later addition, most likely written in Latin, according to some stylistic clues and that the rest of Mark was originally written in Greek (i.e: different writers, from different cultural backgrounds).

Their absence, however, does not cast doubt on the resurrection itself.

a reply to: chr0naut

Sure, the absence of the earlier writings doesn't prove it didn't happen but that is true for any statement even forgeries. "Sure, it may be a later forgery but that doesn't mean it didn't happen". It's just not a good argument.