SharonA:..'Period. The end. Not very strong evidence for a resurrected Christ -- just a guy next to an empty tomb (from which the body might have been stolen, for all they knew). Various other manuscripts tag on various endings about sightings and teachings of a risen Christ; the two most common are referred to as "the shorter ending" and "the longer ending". But it's obvious to scholars that the endings came from different writers than the writer of the preceding text. The Gospel of Mark is said to have been written during the Jerusalem war of circa AD 70, and the 3 longer ones in the New Testament came later (with even more fanciful stories and philosophies in 'em). So, yeah, no matter what Guest from Sanity thinks, people did "make up" stuff about Jesus -- more and more as time went on. (Ever read the Gospel of Peter? Now there is a pretty fantastic story!)"

As to Mark not including more on the 'resurrection'...So?? That proves what, again???
All that means is that Mark wrote about what Jesus said.
By the way, Mark was put to death, like the others...because he liked his opinion about what he 'made up', just like the others, even though he omitted, or was more impressed with the other things he wrote???
Perhaps they knew they were writing this, from the perspective they had..Matthew was a tax collector..you will see he deals with the 'kingdom' and political P.O.V. ..Luke was a physician...guess who included more 'healing miracles' than Matthew?..John was the youngest, and focused on the Love and spiritual aspect...so his writing make that deeper emphasis. I think it wise for a deeper understanding of what you are putting forth, to take in the perspectives, objectively, of the writers.....whether you agree with them, or not...wouldn't you say???