This discussion is about Mark 16:9-20.
My view is that Mark 16:9-20 was part of the Gospel of Mark when the Gospel of Mark was initially used by the church. The available evidence, both internal and external, is not strong enough to prove that Mark 16:9-20 is not an integral part of the Gospel of Mark.
Does anyone here have an opposing view, plus the time to discuss this topic? If so I would enjoy hearing from you.
Yours in Christ,
This thread was started to give the fresh conversation a new start. (Please see Snapp's reasoning here.)
If you are interested in discussing the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 further with Snapp, please do so in this thread.