Emypresh:
Take God to Court nah....Since you sabi pass person wey write the Bible. Professor

udatso:
bUt na WA for You oooo. Na God write the Bible?

Medicis:
First Samuel is correct in stating that the high
priest was Ahimelech. On the other hand neither
was Jesus wrong. When we take a closer look at
Christ’s words we notice that He used the
phrase “in the days of Abiathar” (v. 26) which
does not necessarily imply that Abiathar was
high priest at the time David ate the bread. After
David met Ahimelech and ate the bread, King
Saul had Ahimelech killed ( 1 Sam. 22:17–19 ).
Abiathar escaped and went to David (v. 20) and
later took the place of the high priest. So even
though Abiathar was made high priest after David
ate the bread, it is still correct to speak in this
manner. After all, Abiathar was alive when David
did this, and soon following he became the high
priest after his father’s death. Thus, it was during
the time of Abiathar, but not during his tenure in
office.
Abiathar was a high priest during David’s reign as
king, and he is mentioned some 29 times in the
Old Testament in relation to his priestly role.
Those familiar with the Hebrew Bible in the 1st
century (when The Gospel of Mark was written)
would easily connect Abiathar to David, so Mark
2:26 is merely reminding readers of the time
frame of David’s eating the consecrated bread.
The words “the high priest,” coming after
“Abiathar” are just his title, much like we might
say, “When President Obama attended college,
he made many friends.” Obama was not
president while he was in college, but whenever
we mention Obama, we refer to him as President
Obama.

truthman2013:


Nice copy and paste as well as attempt to twist what the verse implies. Even your Obama analogy is illogical.. Its just like saying "in the days of yaradua" when actually Obasanjo was still the president.. So your explanation will be that, because yaradua was in existence then, it is the same thing as saying "in the days of Yaradua".. Absolute poo.. Nice LIE though, but we will pass..

Who else? Especially those listed in the op

Emypresh:
Na God inspire the person wey write am.

Medicis:
Jesus did not say during the tenure of Abiathar the high priest, he used the phrase "in the days of Abiathar". Was Abiathar not alive when David ate the bread?? When Muslims talk about the childhood of prophet muhammad why do they call him prophet. Was he a prophet when he was Child??

Scholar8200:
Besides, Abiathar was the son of an high priest, and succeeded his father in the office: and might be at this time his deputy, who acted for him, or he by has advice; and according to a rule the Jews (l) themselves give,

"the son of an high priest, who is deputed by his father in his stead, , "lo! he is called an high priest".''

So that Abiathar might at this time be called the high priest; and is the rather mentioned, because he was the more eminent and famous man; and whom the Jews call (m) Urim and Thummim, because there was much inquiry made by them; in his and his father's days, and very little after:

BY
John Gill
biblehub.com


Reference:

(l) Siphra, fol. 17. 2. apud Kidder's Demonstration of the Messiah, par. 2. p. 73.

Summary means Jesus spoke using a style familiar to the Jews. That is why they made this accusation:

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
John 5:18

They saw the son as equal to the father.

Hmmn.. Another nice lie. The son of an High Priest is also called an High priest..

Nice lie

truthman2013:


Hmmn.. Another nice lie. The son of an High Priest is also called an High priest..

Nice lie

Emypresh:
Na weed inspire the person wey write am.

truthman2013:

Jesus  wants  to  show  the  Pharisees  that  "Sabbath  was  made  for  humans,  not  humans  for  the  Sabbath"  and  so  reminds  them  of  what  the great  King  David  had  done  when  he  and  his  men  were  hungry,  how they  went  into  the  Temple  "when  Abiathar  was  the  high  priest"  and ate  the  show  bread,  which  was  only  for  the  priests  to  eat. 

Mark 2:23-26 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees
said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?” He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”


One  of  the wellknown  problems  of  the  passage above  is  that  when  one  looks  at  the  Old Testament  passage  that  Jesus  is  citing  (1  Sam.  21:16),  it  turns  out  that David  did  this  not  when  Abiathar  was  the  high  priest,  but,  in  fact, when  Abiathar's  father  Ahimelech  was.

1 Samuel 1-6. Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee? And David said unto Ahimelech the priest,.... . Now therefore what is under thine hand? give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present. And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women. So the priest gave him hallowed bread : for there was no bread there but the showbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.

  In  other  words,  this  is  one  of those  passages  that  have  been  pointed  to  in  order  to  show  that  the Bible  is  not  inerrant  at  all  but  contains  mistakes.

Cc: truthman2012 annunaki, gimakon, parisbookaddict.. No baseless assumption pleAse.


Truthman 

truthman2013:

Jesus  wants  to  show  the  Pharisees  that  "Sabbath  was  made  for  humans,  not  humans  for  the  Sabbath"  and  so  reminds  them  of  what  the great  King  David  had  done  when  he  and  his  men  were  hungry,  how they  went  into  the  Temple  "when  Abiathar  was  the  high  priest"  and ate  the  show  bread,  which  was  only  for  the  priests  to  eat. 

Mark 2:23-26 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees
said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?” He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”


One  of  the wellknown  problems  of  the  passage above  is  that  when  one  looks  at  the  Old Testament  passage  that  Jesus  is  citing  (1  Sam.  21:16),  it  turns  out  that David  did  this  not  when  Abiathar  was  the  high  priest,  but,  in  fact, when  Abiathar's  father  Ahimelech  was.

1 Samuel 1-6. Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee? And David said unto Ahimelech the priest,.... . Now therefore what is under thine hand? give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present. And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women. So the priest gave him hallowed bread : for there was no bread there but the showbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.

  In  other  words,  this  is  one  of those  passages  that  have  been  pointed  to  in  order  to  show  that  the Bible  is  not  inerrant  at  all  but  contains  mistakes.

Cc: truthman2012 annunaki, gimakon, parisbookaddict.. No baseless assumption pleAse.


Truthman 

Medicis:
First Samuel is correct in stating that the high
priest was Ahimelech. On the other hand neither
was Jesus wrong. When we take a closer look at
Christ’s words we notice that He used the
phrase “in the days of Abiathar” (v. 26) which
does not necessarily imply that Abiathar was
high priest at the time David ate the bread. After
David met Ahimelech and ate the bread, King
Saul had Ahimelech killed ( 1 Sam. 22:17–19 ).
Abiathar escaped and went to David (v. 20) and
later took the place of the high priest. So even
though Abiathar was made high priest after David
ate the bread, it is still correct to speak in this
manner. After all, Abiathar was alive when David
did this, and soon following he became the high
priest after his father’s death. Thus, it was during
the time of Abiathar, but not during his tenure in
office.
Abiathar was a high priest during David’s reign as
king, and he is mentioned some 29 times in the
Old Testament in relation to his priestly role.
Those familiar with the Hebrew Bible in the 1st
century (when The Gospel of Mark was written)
would easily connect Abiathar to David, so Mark
2:26 is merely reminding readers of the time
frame of David’s eating the consecrated bread.
The words “the high priest,” coming after
“Abiathar” are just his title, much like we might
say, “When President Obama attended college,
he made many friends.” Obama was not
president while he was in college, but whenever
we mention Obama, we refer to him as President
Obama.

truthman2013:


Nice copy and paste as well as attempt to twist what the verse implies. Even your Obama analogy is illogical.. Its just like saying "in the days of yaradua" when actually Obasanjo was still the president.. So your explanation will be that, because yaradua was in existence then, it is the same thing as saying "in the days of Yaradua".. Absolute poo.. Nice LIE though, but we will pass..

Who else? Especially those listed in the op

dolphinheart:


Sometimes, difficulty in translation might bring up something that might look false. But if the desire of reading the scriptures is not to find fault, one might understand what the passage is saying.
1. Jesus was not trying to tell you who the high priest was at a particular time, he was passing a more important message , using an event that occured during the days of someonelse.
2. There might be many abiathers known to the Jews then, and they used other additions to their names to different them. Therefore jesus would have said "abathiar the high priest " to show which abathiar he was talking about.
3. Why did jesus mention abathiar and not ahimelech. This answer can be deduced from jesus first statement " did you not read?". Therefore it was posible that in the history books available in the temple, abathair was the one who recorded the events as happening in his days. Note, he was the only one who escaped, he was in the best position to write the event and the cause of the event down.

Medicis:
First Samuel is correct in stating that the high
priest was Ahimelech. On the other hand neither
was Jesus wrong. When we take a closer look at
Christ’s words we notice that He used the
phrase “in the days of Abiathar” (v. 26) which
does not necessarily imply that Abiathar was
high priest at the time David ate the bread. After
David met Ahimelech and ate the bread, King
Saul had Ahimelech killed ( 1 Sam. 22:17–19 ).
Abiathar escaped and went to David (v. 20) and
later took the place of the high priest. So even
though Abiathar was made high priest after David
ate the bread, it is still correct to speak in this
manner. After all, Abiathar was alive when David
did this, and soon following he became the high
priest after his father’s death. Thus, it was during
the time of Abiathar, but not during his tenure in
office.
Abiathar was a high priest during David’s reign as
king, and he is mentioned some 29 times in the
Old Testament in relation to his priestly role.
Those familiar with the Hebrew Bible in the 1st
century (when The Gospel of Mark was written)
would easily connect Abiathar to David, so Mark
2:26 is merely reminding readers of the time
frame of David’s eating the consecrated bread.
The words “the high priest,” coming after
“Abiathar” are just his title, much like we might
say, “When President Obama attended college,
he made many friends.” Obama was not
president while he was in college, but whenever
we mention Obama, we refer to him as President
Obama.

Medicis:
Jesus did not say during the tenure of Abiathar the high priest, he used the phrase "in the days of Abiathar". Was Abiathar not alive when David ate the bread?? When Muslims talk about the childhood of prophet muhammad why do they call him prophet. Was he a prophet when he was Child??

dragunov:
Dude, your ability to comprehend a simple discourse is amazingly poor.