I think Metzger's commentary does a pretty good job explaining why most Evangelical scholars do not accept the longer ending. I know that won't satisfy you, but I don't really want to pursue this here. If the verses are original- that is a best case scenario. If they are not, then the worst case scenario- the church knew the canonical Gospels and Acts were inspired and none of the gnostic writings ere by 140 at the latest. That's a good worst case scenario.
Greetings. I couldn't find the sermon to which you alluded. Regarding Mark 16:9-20, and the idea that it is a patchwork based on the parallel-accounts in Mt, Lk, Jn, and Acts, please see my comments in the three-part response to Dr. John MacArthur's sermon about the end of Mark. If you search YouTube for "Fitting End Mark 16:9-20," his sermon and my response ("A Fitting End to Some False Claims...") should be easily located. You might want to reconsider the genuineness of those 12 verses.
I think Metzger's commentary does a pretty good job explaining why most Evangelical scholars do not accept the longer ending. I know that won't satisfy you, but I don't really want to pursue this here. If the verses are original- that is a best case scenario. If they are not, then the worst case scenario- the church knew the canonical Gospels and Acts were inspired and none of the gnostic writings ere by 140 at the latest. That's a good worst case scenario.
nagibson1 5 months ago
Greetings. I couldn't find the sermon to which you alluded. Regarding Mark 16:9-20, and the idea that it is a patchwork based on the parallel-accounts in Mt, Lk, Jn, and Acts, please see my comments in the three-part response to Dr. John MacArthur's sermon about the end of Mark. If you search YouTube for "Fitting End Mark 16:9-20," his sermon and my response ("A Fitting End to Some False Claims...") should be easily located. You might want to reconsider the genuineness of those 12 verses.
JamesSnapp 5 months ago