Sheshonq

Not to the question at hand - which as usual, you don't understand (but when has that ever stopped you from giving your uninformed opinion? )

The question was whether or not any of the differences in the text might impact doctrinal issues. The omitted text in Mark has major doctrinal implications.

Sheshonq

Utterly stupid response.

We don't have the rotting corpse of Pericles, either. Nor do we have his tomb. What does that prove? Did Pericles rise from the dead as well?

No one would bother debating it, if Christians kept to themselves and weren't trying to ruin education or our legal system. Debating this is a response to Christians who try and forcibly inflict their beliefs on the unwilling public.

Sheshonq

D. accidental mistakes - either of copyist or author

Sheshbazzar

Again the <edit> positing of false dichotomies, as though they represent a single choice that is all, and only what is available, or are the sum and total of all, and are the only possibilities.
As NinJay has stated above, and it needs to be empathised "There are many different possibilities along the continuum from "Absolute truth" to "total lie".
Its not a matter for simply choosing from any A, B, or C type of list, as the sum total contains all of the above to varying degrees, plus dozens of other unlisted "possibilities", as well as other as yet unknown, perhaps unknowable, and as yet unrecognised contributing factors.
Biased and dogmatic assertions from any quarter, do nothing to contribute substantially to knowledge.

WWJD4aKlondikeBar

More OT - You disputed my "majority" claim without providing any reasoning beyond one author's uncited arguments. I'm honestly interested in learning about this angle, but I wonder if you're touting old opinions. The popular 68-69 estimate was reached in 2005 when we were finally able to read that papyrus I linked above.

arnoldo

The non-omitted text in Mark has major doctrinal implications as well. Note Mark 13:2
Of course this is only prophecy written after the fact, right?

GenesisNemesis

How do you know the "fact" really did happen?

Toto

Please stop posting sarcistic comments as if you can refute an argument by rolling your eyes. Of course these were written after the fact. We have no evidence of these texts until well after that time, and no reason to believe that they were written before the Jewish War.

Ben C Smith

Take that!

Ben.

Johnny Skeptic

If a God exists, and is able to predict the future, it is obvious that he is not the God of the Bible since the Bible contains 100% disputable prophecies. I wish to distinguish disputable prophecies from false prophecies. A false prophecy is a prophecy that does not come true. A disputable prophecy does not necessarily have to be a false prophecy. Even if all Bible prophecies are true prophecies, they have needlessly failed to convince the vast majority of the people in the world that they are true prophecies. If Jesus had accurately predicted what the names of the Roman emperors would be for the next 200 years, and their dates of birth and death, those would have been indisputable prophecies if we were to define indisputable prophecies as prophecies that could not have been made by humans, and would therefore plausibly have been made by a God. Since the New Testament says that Jesus made some predictions, Christians cannot intelligently argue that if Jesus had predicted what I said, that that would have unfairly interfered with people’s free will. If Jesus had predicted what I said, surely more people would have become Christians. That is a reasonable assumption since historically, many people have accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon much less convincing evidence than that. In addition, Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce attracted a lot of followers based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that.

In my opinion, no prophecies at all would be much better than 100% disputable prophecies. That is because the Bible says that God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), and yet Bible prophecies have needlessly caused lots of confusion.

If a God is able to predict the future, and wanted to use prophecy to influence people, anyone who has just a modest amount of common sense knows that he would always make indisputable prophecies in order to avoid convincing billions of people to believe that he does not exist. Making 100% disputable prophecies could not possibly benefit God or anyone else, with the exception of a God who wanted to cause doubt and confusion.