same here ;)

Not at all. Simply proposing these saying of Jesus became reality in the Apostles ministries and were reported by Luke in every circumstance save the deadly poison part. Papias claimed to have learned of Justus having an event like this from Philip and his 4 daughters who were some of Luke’s eyewitnesses.

The only people I have heard that thinks the long ending does not belong is John MacArthur, James White and I think Daniel Wallace.

James Snapp, you ask a very good question. For this theory to work, it suggest Jesus didn't actually say these things but were filled in by Luke. Either Jesus said this or he didn't. If he did, this information must have been conveyed to Mark by an eye witness or directly by God. I don't think it is reasonable to claim that Luke told him about things that happened in the early church and then added this back into the mouth of Jesus.

he took the available data and attempted to determine a likely scenario, I don't know if I would consider it "Made up" without any plausability. But I would concede that it's one of a number of theories put forward.

If it is spurious, what bishop or council ordered it to be put in in the overwhelming majority of texts in Aramaic, Greek, Coptic, Vetus Latin, and other ancient languages? Just asking.

Every point you bring up hear has a counter discussion. Iranaeus quotes Mark 16:19, which is our earliest witness of something beyond verse 8, almost every other MSS attests to the Long ending, multiple other early translations do too, though some do not have it. The OVERWHELMING majority contains the long ending. Only the 2 of the 3 manuscripts are properly considered "ancient". the other is a minuscule, given the oddities surrounding Mark 16 in Aleph and B, it appears to be a witness at the very least that the ending was known. There are other places in Mark's gospel where the 'style' seems different and noone questions them. There's plenty of reasons to maintain mark 16:9-20. You may disagree, and that's find, but I'd like to think there's more to just what "suits my theology", the same could be said for those rejecting Mark 16:9-20.

@@Dwayne_Green You didn't answer the question why are the older manuscripts doesn't include the long end ? Why the Washington Codex has a different long end ? If you are going to guess as the Dr does whit Papias and the Timothy reference I can guess too maybe the Church Fathers in the late 2 century didn't like the short end ( remember that Christianity was under scrutiny by people like Celsus ) and decided to create one that would explain the grammar and vocabulary differences that are in my opinion the nail in the coffin for an original long end Anyway I didn't mean to seem disrespectful I'm addressing serious objections to the " reading" of your guest

@@delfimoliveira8883 See my other videos on the Long Ending. There are three parts to this series, this is the first part: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/epddq6Woq6-3c5c.html There's also 3 parts to this series too but the second part is more pertinent to your question: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/j7yRidOet8ywdXk.html If your looking for me to type up a long answer to your question, I won't do it, you can see the rebuttal to your questions in these video series that I've spent MANY hours producing.

@@Dwayne_Green Ok i will I've liked your video on the Textus Receptus it was fairly objective and neutral as all the good textual analisys should be I must say that my critiques were address to your guest arguments not you Greetings