Jesus quoted David and Abiathar the Priest as regards consecrated bread!

Mark 2:23-27
One Sabbath Jesus was passing through the grainfields, and His disciples began to pick the heads of grain as they walked along. So the Pharisees said to Him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?” Jesus replied, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need?

During the high priesthood of Abiathar, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which was lawful only for the priests. And he gave some to his companions as well.” Then Jesus declared, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Therefore, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

But Jesus made a mistake as he should have mentioned Ahimelek the Priest who is the father of Abiathar! And more so, David didn't just enter the house of God and started eating! He requested for ordinary bread and when that wasn't available he opted for consecrated bread!

1 Samuel 21:1-6
David went to Nob, to Ahimelek the priest. Ahimelek trembled when he met him, and asked, “Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?”
David answered Ahimelek the priest, “The king sent me on a mission and said to me, ‘No one is to know anything about the mission I am sending you on.’ As for my men, I have told them to meet me at a certain place. Now then, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever you can find.”

But the priest answered David, “I don’t have any ordinary bread on hand; however, there is some consecrated bread here—provided the men have kept themselves from women.”

David replied, “Indeed women have been kept from us, as usual whenever I set out. The men’s bodies are holy even on missions that are not holy. How much more so today!” So the priest gave him the consecrated bread, since there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence that had been removed from before the Lord and replaced by hot bread on the day it was taken away.

Jesus was portrayed to have made a mistake mentioning Abiathar the Priest instead of Ahimelek the Priest who happens to be the father of the former!

The circumstances surrounding the incident involving David and Ahimelech in the Old Testament and the disciples of Jesus in the New Testament are different:

- **David and Ahimelech**:
- In the Old Testament account in 1 Samuel 21, David approached Ahimelech the priest at Nob while fleeing from King Saul. David requested bread from Ahimelech, who provided him with the consecrated bread from the tabernacle to eat, even though it was intended only for the priests.

- **Disciples of Jesus**:
- In the New Testament, specifically in the Gospel of Mark 2:23-28, the disciples of Jesus were walking through grainfields on the Sabbath. They began to pick some heads of grain to eat, rubbing them in their hands. The Pharisees questioned Jesus about this act, as it was considered work on the Sabbath according to their interpretation of the law.

- **No Request for Bread**:
- Unlike the situation with David and Ahimelech where David specifically requested bread, in the case of the disciples, they did not request the grain from the fields. They simply picked the heads of grain to eat as they walked along. The Pharisees saw this as a violation of the Sabbath law.

The two incidents involve different actions and contexts, with David's request for bread from Ahimelech and the disciples' actions in the grainfields being distinct situations that reflect the responses of individuals in need or hunger in their respective circumstances.

Even though you clearly have no interest in learning truth, I will oblige in answering this for the sake of shinning light in the dark.

This apparent dilemma of Avimelech vs. Avyatar can be easily answered or cleared and if you had bothered to google it, you would not have posted this to your shame.

Explanation #1: both Avimelech and Avyatar co-served as priests. The author of Shmuel picked Ahimelech the priest. Christ picked Avyatar, the high priest. It's quite common to see father and son co-ministering as high priests. Or even brothers ministering as priests. See other biblical examples below. Notice: one functioned as priest; the other as high priest.

Explanation #2: same person, with 2 names. Not uncommon in bible to have 2 different names (as we do today with first name and middle name and surname). See other bible examples below.

Other instances such is noted: Eli vs. his 2 sons were co-priests. Certain kings co-reigned as co-regent with their son before complete handover. For example: Solomon was actually crowned king acted as king whilst David was still alive, and still king of Israel. In Luke 3:2, John 18:13, you see both Annas and his son-in-law serving as high priests.

Consider Solomon's other name is Jedidiah. King Uzziah was also called Azariah. How about Yeshua ("Jesusu)? IS HE not known by many other names such as: Immanuel? Peter the apostle, was also Simon. Saul the apostle was also Paul, is he not?

It's also (sadly) telling to note that you went with "Jesus made mistake", rather than ascribing the error to possible transcription changes over time. It shows that your intent is less than noble, but 'malicious'.

SeraphEl:
Even though you clearly have no interest in learning truth, I will oblige in answering this for the sake of shinning light in the dark.

This apparent dilemma of Avimelech vs. Avyatar can be easily answered or cleared and if you had bothered to google it, you would not have posted this to your shame.

Explanation #1: both Avimelech and Avyatar co-served as priests. The author of Shmuel picked Ahimelech the priest. Christ picked Avyatar, the high priest. It's quite common to see father and son co-ministering as high priests. Or even brothers ministering as priests. See other biblical examples below. Notice: one functioned as priest; the other as high priest.

Abiathar became a priest during the time of King David. He was the son of Ahimelech, who was the high priest at Nob. After Saul's massacre of the priests of Nob, Abiathar escaped and joined David. Abiathar then served as a priest alongside Zadok during David's reign.

Abiathar's father, Ahimelech, was the high priest at the time of the incident with David at Nob where David received the consecrated bread. Abiathar later succeeded his father as a priest and served alongside Zadok during the reign of King David. They both continued to serve as priests during the reign of King Solomon as well.

So, Abiathar was not a co-priest with his father, Ahimelech, but he did succeed him as a priest and served alongside Zadok during the reigns of David and Solomon.

Explanation #2: same person, with 2 names. Not uncommon in bible to have 2 different names (as we do today with first name and middle name and surname). See other bible examples below.

Other instances such is noted: Eli vs. his 2 sons were co-priests. Certain kings co-reigned as co-regent with their son before complete handover. For example: Solomon was actually crowned king acted as king whilst David was still alive, and still king of Israel. In Luke 3:2, John 18:13, you see both Annas and his son-in-law serving as high priests.

Consider Solomon's other name is Jedidiah. King Uzziah was also called Azariah. How about Yeshua ("Jesusu)? IS HE not known by many other names such as: Immanuel? Peter the apostle, was also Simon. Saul the apostle was also Paul, is he not?

It's also (sadly) telling to note that you went with "Jesus made mistake", rather than ascribing the error to possible transcription changes over time. It shows that your intent is less than noble, but 'malicious'.

I think the explanation above suffices! David did related with the father as regards the consecrated bread. Jesus mentioned the son! It is a mistake! Even google can't correct this!

It is also (sadly) telling to note that you went with "Jesus made mistake", rather than ascribing the error to possible transcription changes over time. It shows that your intent is less than noble, but 'malicious'.

The explanation above says it all. You make no sense. Your explanations is of 2 different people with same name; who served as priests at different times. But what do I expect since you are demonically inspired.

You confuse 2 different people with same name who served at different times. In those days, as it is today, many people went by same name. And same people went by many names.

Simple. End of story. Stop seeking for contradictions where there is none. If you had bothered to actually google and search various explanations OR just Thought ANALYTICALLY, you would have not posted this embarrassing reply.

AbuTwins:


Abiathar became a priest during the time of King David. He was the son of Ahimelech, who was the high priest at Nob. After Saul's massacre of the priests of Nob, Abiathar escaped and joined David. Abiathar then served as a priest alongside Zadok during David's reign.

Abiathar's father, Ahimelech, was the high priest at the time of the incident with David at Nob where David received the consecrated bread. Abiathar later succeeded his father as a priest and served alongside Zadok during the reign of King David. They both continued to serve as priests during the reign of King Solomon as well.

So, Abiathar was not a co-priest with his father, Ahimelech, but he did succeed him as a priest and served alongside Zadok during the reigns of David and Solomon.

I think the explanation above suffices! David did related with the father as regards the consecrated bread. Jesus mentioned the son! It is a mistake! Even google can't correct this!

SeraphEl:
It is also (sadly) telling to note that you went with "Jesus made mistake", rather than ascribing the error to possible transcription changes over time. It shows that your intent is less than noble, but 'malicious'.

Actually i don't believe the real Jesus did or say many things ascribed to him in the Bible! And yes, Jesus was portrayed to have made that mistake allegedly by Mark!

The explanation above says it all. You make no sense. Your explanations is of 2 different people with same name; who served as priests at different times. But what do I expect since you are demonically inspired.

The truth is demonic to Christians without brains!

You confuse 2 different people with same name who served at different times. In those days, as it is today, many people went by same name. And same people went by many names.

You mean Abraham goes as Ishmael or Isaac? Jacob/Israel would bear Joseph or Benjamin or vice versa?

Simple. End of story. Stop seeking for contradictions where there is none. If you had bothered to actually google and search various explanations OR just Thought ANALYTICALLY, you would have not posted this embarrassing reply.

Google is of no help bro!
This is a big blunder!

Too much errors!
Contradictions In The Biblical Trials Of Jesus
https://www.nairaland.com/8092750/contradictions-biblical-trials-jesus

Contradictions about Judas's death and Field of Blood!
https://www.nairaland.com/8092648/contradictions-judass-death-field-blood

Another Copyist Mathematical Error In The Bible!
https://www.nairaland.com/8087891/another-copyist-mathematical-error-bible

There are explanations to each and every one of those "contradictions" if you actually google them and search them out.

You really are a chicken trying to play in lion's pen. I have read bible many times over. I have heard all the contradictions. There are logical reasonable explanations to ALL OF THEM.

There is no contradiction in Judah's death. Just put the 2 accounts together. He felt remorse, he hung himself, after being hung for awhile, his body decomposed and burst open and stomach contents spilled.

I have explained the last 2.

But you have no real interest in learning truth. Like I said, you work in futility, child of devil. The work of the kingdom shall move ahead in full force. And the hordes of hail shall not prevail.

You won't convince me otherwise; and you will not deceive those who KNOW their YHVH and their bible.

AbuTwins:


Actually i don't believe the real Jesus did or say many things ascribed to him in the Bible! And yes, Jesus was portrayed to have made that mistake allegedly by Mark!

The truth is demonic to Christians without brains!

You mean Abraham goes as Ishmael or Isaac? Jacob/Israel would bear Joseph or Benjamin or vice versa?


Google is of no help bro!
This is a big blunder!

Too much errors!
Contradictions In The Biblical Trials Of Jesus
https://www.nairaland.com/8092750/contradictions-biblical-trials-jesus

Contradictions about Judas's death and Field of Blood!
https://www.nairaland.com/8092648/contradictions-judass-death-field-blood

Another Copyist Mathematical Error In The Bible!
https://www.nairaland.com/8087891/another-copyist-mathematical-error-bible

Abutwins, give it a rest. Invest your time in other things. The Scriptures of YHVH Almighty, God Almighty, the one and only true God, the Creator of the heavens, the earth, the seas and everything in them, are too pure, too true, for anyone to malign or question their veracity or authenticity. They are only confusing to those his Spirit doesn't want them to understand.

I have noticed your numerous threads and haven't bothered to read them. You know why? It is because experiential knowledge can't be washed away. What one has seen, felt and tasted and confirmed to be pure, true, worthy and powerful cannot be washed away from one's spirit or soul. No quantity of water will ever be enough.

So, abutwins, you are only wasting your time.

SeraphEl:
There are explanations to each and every one of those "contradictions" if you actually google them and search them out.

You really are a chicken trying to play in lion's pen. I have read bible many times over. I have heard all the contradictions. There are logical reasonable explanations to ALL OF THEM.

There is no contradiction in Judah's death. Just put the 2 accounts together. He felt remorse, he hung himself, after being hung for awhile, his body decomposed and burst open and stomach contents spilled.

I have explained the last 2.

But you have no real interest in learning truth. Like I said, you work in futility, child of devil. The work of the kingdom shall move ahead in full force. And the hordes of hail shall not prevail.

You won't convince me otherwise; and you will not deceive those who KNOW their YHVH and their bible.

You are funny!
If you hang yourself and fall will you land on your stomach, head or leg logically?

Any physics student will answer that you'll fall on your legs! Na legs suppose break not intestine bursting!

It doesn't make sense!

elated177:
Abutwins, give it a rest. Invest your time in other things. The Scriptures of YHVH Almighty, God Almighty, the one and only true God, the Creator of the heavens, the earth, the seas and everything in them, are too pure, too true, for anyone to malign or question their veracity or authenticity. They are only confusing to those his Spirit doesn't want them to understand.

I have noticed your numerous threads and haven't bothered to read them. You know why? It is because experiential knowledge can't be washed away. What one has seen, felt and tasted and confirmed to be pure, true, worthy and powerful cannot be washed away from one's spirit or soul. No quantity of water will ever be enough.

So, abutwins, you are only wasting your time.

Yeah! Whoever is doomed is doomed! The unfortunate dog that'll get lost will never heed the whistle of the hunter!

I am not wasting my time as you're not the only one viewing my posts!

AbuTwins:
■ Jesus quoted David and Abiathar the Priest as regards consecrated bread! But Jesus made a mistake as he should have mentioned Ahimelek the Priest who is the father of Abiathar!
■ And more so, David didn't just enter the house of God and started eating! He requested for ordinary bread and when that wasn't available he opted for consecrated bread!
■ Jesus was portrayed to have made a mistake mentioning Abiathar the Priest instead of Ahimelek the Priest who happens to be the father of the former!

1. Jesus Christ stated that the High Priest at the time the event took place was Abiathar, not Ahimelek.

25 Jesus answered, “You have read what David did when he and the people with him were hungry and needed food.
26 It was during the time of Abiathar the high priest. David went into God’s house and ate the bread that was offered to God. And the Law of Moses says that only priests can eat that bread. David also gave some of the bread to the people with him.” - Mark 2 vs 25 - 26

Why should Jesus Christ not have mentioned the High Priest at the time? Why do you choose to rule that out as a mistake on Jesus's part?

King Saul is recorded in the book of Samuel to have executed Ahimelech, and if you read the passage below, you would note that Saul never addresses Ahimelech, or any of the priests with him, as High priest but merely as priests. Even Doeg, the Edomite, mentioned him as being a priest, not a High Priest.

11 Then King Saul ordered some men to bring the priest to him. Saul told them to bring Ahimelech son of Ahitub and all his relatives who were priests at Nob. So all of them came to the king.
12 Saul said to Ahimelech, “Listen now, son of Ahitub.” Ahimelech answered, “Yes, sir.”
13 Saul said to him, “Why did you and Jesse’s son make secret plans against me? You gave David bread and a sword. You prayed to God for him. And right now, David is waiting to attack me.”
14 Ahimelech answered, “David is very faithful to you. Not one of your other officers is as faithful as David. He is your own son-in-law and the captain of your bodyguards. Your own family respects David.
15 That was not the first time I prayed to God for David. Not at all! Don’t blame me or any of my relatives. We are your servants. I know nothing about what is happening.”
16 But the king said, “Ahimelech, you and all your relatives must die.”
17 Then the king told the guards at his side, “Go and kill the priests of the Lord because they are on David’s side too. They knew he was running away, but they didn’t tell me.” The king’s officers refused to hurt the priests of the Lord.
18 So the king gave the order to Doeg. Saul said, “Doeg, you go kill the priests.” So Doeg the Edomite went and killed the priests. That day he killed 85 men who were priests.
19 Nob was the city of the priests. Doeg killed all the people of Nob. He used his sword and killed men, women, children and small babies. He even killed their cattle, donkeys, and sheep.
20 But Abiathar son of Ahimelech escaped. He ran away and joined David.
21 Abiathar told David that Saul had killed the Lord’s priests.
22 Then David told Abiathar, “I saw Doeg the Edomite at Nob that day. I knew he would tell Saul! I am responsible for the death of your father’s family.
23 Stay with me. Don’t be afraid, because the man who tried to kill you is the same man who wants to kill me. I will protect you if you stay with me.” - 1 Samuel 22 vs 11 - 23

Saul did not regard Ahimelech as the High priest neither did Doeb.

2. The story clearly says that David went into the House of God— not a bakery or kitchen where there were options — and ate bread that was consecrated for God. Where do you get this notion that there are different kinds of bread available to eat in the house of God?

3. Why should Christ's mention of the High Priest be considered an error?

AbuTwins:
■ Abiathar became a priest during the time of King David. He was the son of Ahimelech, who was the high priest at Nob. After Saul's massacre of the priests of Nob, Abiathar escaped and joined David. Abiathar then served as a priest alongside Zadok during David's reign.
■ Abiathar's father, Ahimelech, was the high priest at the time of the incident with David at Nob where David received the consecrated bread. Abiathar later succeeded his father as a priest and served alongside Zadok during the reign of King David. They both continued to serve as priests during the reign of King Solomon as well.
■ So, Abiathar was not a co-priest with his father, Ahimelech, but he did succeed him as a priest and served alongside Zadok during the reigns of David and Solomon. I think the explanation above suffices! David did related with the father as regards the consecrated bread. Jesus mentioned the son! It is a mistake! Even google can't correct this!

1. There is no truth to this claim here. Ahimelech, son of Ahitub, was never addressed as one who had the honor of the High Priest either by Doeb or by Saul in 1 Samuel 22. Rather, what is stated in 1 Samuel 23 is that Abiathar had the ephod with him when he escaped to join David hinting at him being the High Priest at that very time since the garment belonged only to the High Priest - Exodus 28.

15 David ruled over all Israel, and he made good and fair decisions for all of his people.
16 Joab son of Zeruiah was the captain over the army. Jehoshaphat son of Ahilud was the historian.
17 Zadok son of Ahitub and Ahimelech son of Abiathar were priests. Seraiah was secretary.
18 Benaiah son of Jehoiada was in charge of the Kerethites and Pelethites, and David’s sons were priests. - 2 Samuel 8 vs 15- 18

Abiathar, son of Ahimelech, is not recorded to have served as a priest during David's reign. Abimelech, son of Abiathar is recorded to have served as a priest instead alongside Zadok, son of Ahitub, who may have been Abiathar, son of Ahimelech's uncle.

2. There is no scriptural backing for this claim. As mentioned earlier, the one who is recorded to have had the ephod was Abiathar, son of Ahimelech.

3. Wrong! Your so-called explanations contravene details contained in Scripture regarding the very same. Yes, Abimelech and Abiathar were more likely priests at the time in question with Abiathar, the son, as the High Priest. Again, Abiathar had the ephod with him; the ephod belonged to the high priest.

Kobojunkie:
1. There is no truth to this claim here. Rather, what is stated in 1 Samuel 23 is that Abiathar had the ephod with him when he escaped to join David hinting at him being the High Priest at that very time since the garment belonged to the High Priest - Exodus 28.
Abiathar is not recorded to have served as a priest during David's reign. Abimelech, son of Abiathar is recorded to have served as a priest instead. :-

2. There is no scriptural backing for this claim. As mentioned earlier, the one who is recorded to have had the ephod was Abiathar, son of Ahimelech.

3. Wrong! Your so-called explanations contravene details contained in Scripture regarding the very same. Yes, Abimelech and Abiathar were more likely priests at the time in question with Abiathar, the son, as the High Priest. Again, Abiathar had the ephod with him; the ephod belonged to the high priest.

I know say you must talk for this one.

Kobojunkie:
1. There is no truth to this claim here. Rather, what is stated in 1 Samuel 23 is that Abiathar had the ephod with him when he escaped to join David hinting at him being the High Priest at that very time since the garment belonged to the High Priest - Exodus 28.
Abiathar is not recorded to have served as a priest during David's reign. Abimelech, son of Abiathar is recorded to have served as a priest instead.

Ahimelech (the son of Ahitub) is the father of Abiathar! Where did you see your own Abimelech? What you quoted in 2 Samuel 8:17 is another scribal error of the many errors in the Bible!

2. There is no scriptural backing for this claim. As mentioned earlier, the one who is recorded to have had the ephod was Abiathar, son of Ahimelech.

Once again this is false! Ahimelech is the father of Abiathar! Once again it is Ahimelech not Abimelech!

3. Wrong! Your so-called explanations contravene details contained in Scripture regarding the very same. Yes, Abimelech and Abiathar were more likely priests at the time in question with Abiathar, the son, as the High Priest. Again, Abiathar had the ephod with him; the ephod belonged to the high priest.

You are still largely confused by the Biblical errors!

The relationship between Ahimelech, Ahitub, and Abiathar is mentioned in the following verses in the Bible:

1 Samuel 22:9-20: This passage describes the events surrounding King Saul's massacre of the priests in Nob, including the mention of Ahimelech, the son of Ahitub.
1 Samuel 23:6, 9-11: These verses refer to Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech, who escaped Saul's massacre and later joined David.
1 Samuel 30:7: This verse also mentions Abiathar, son of Ahimelech.
1 Samuel 2:26: This verse introduces Ahitub as the father of Ahimelech and one of the priests serving in Shiloh.

By examining these verses together, it becomes clear that Ahimelech is the son of Ahitub, and Abiathar is the son of Ahimelech, establishing their familial relationship in the biblical narrative.

Kobojunkie:
1. Jesus Christ stated that the High Priest at the time the event took place was Abiathar, not Ahimelek.

There was no case of Consecrated bread with Abiathar anywhere in the Bible! Jesus replied, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? What we read is about Ahimelech and David (not Abiathar and David) as regards consecrated bread! This wss a mistake!

Why should Jesus Christ not have mentioned the High Priest at the time? Why do you choose to rule that out as a mistake on Jesus's part?

The mistake is in the name Abiathar! Jesus mentioned Abiathar instead of Ahimelech!

King Saul is recorded in the book of Samuel to have executed Ahimelech, and if you read the passage below, you would note that Saul never addresses Ahimelech, or any of the priests with him, as High priest but merely as priests. Even Doeg, the Edomite, mentioned him as being a priest, not a High Priest.
Saul did not regard Ahimelech as the High priest neither did Doeb.

Yes, there was no high priest among them all! He was the only one Saul was addressing which shows he is highly regarded! All of them were killed but his son survived. Hence he can latter be the priest to continue his father's line. David too knew Ahimelech was highly regarded hence he came to him for bread!

2. The story clearly says that David went into the House of God— not a bakery or kitchen where there were options — and ate bread that was consecrated for God. Where do you get this notion that there are different kinds of bread available to eat in the house of God?

No! He went to meet Ahimelech! He did not just took bread like Jesus's disciples took grains of corn! As for the different types of bread, it is clearly stated in the verses in the OP. David requested for five loafs of bread!

1 Samuel 21:1-6
David went to Nob, to Ahimelek the priest. Ahimelek trembled when he met him, and asked, “Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?”
David answered Ahimelek the priest, “The king sent me on a mission and said to me, ‘No one is to know anything about the mission I am sending you on.’ As for my men, I have told them to meet me at a certain place. Now then, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever you can find.”

But the priest answered David, “I don’t have any ordinary bread on hand; however, there is some consecrated bread here—provided the men have kept themselves from women.”

3. Why should Christ's mention of the High Priest be considered an error?

Because he mentioned Abiathar who had no bread dealings with David anywhere in the Bible! That's a mistake. only Ahimelech had consecrated bread dealings with David!

AbuTwins:
Ahimelech (the son of Ahitub) is the father of Abiathar! Where did you see your own Abimelech? What you quoted in 2 Samuel 8:17 is another scribal error of the many errors in the Bible!
Once again this is false! Ahimelech is the father of Abiathar! Once again it is Ahimelech not Abimelech!
You are still largely confused by the Biblical errors!
The relationship between Ahimelech, Ahitub, and Abiathar is mentioned in the following verses in the Bible:....
By examining these verses together, it becomes clear that Ahimelech is the son of Ahitub, and Abiathar is the son of Ahimelech, establishing their familial relationship in the biblical narrative.

My Abimelech typo which is clearly not reflected in any of the references used seems to have thrown you off as I can't seem to make heads or tails of what you. Here again, is my previous post without the Abimelech typos.

---

AbuTwins:
■ Abiathar became a priest during the time of King David. He was the son of Ahimelech, who was the high priest at Nob. After Saul's massacre of the priests of Nob, Abiathar escaped and joined David. Abiathar then served as a priest alongside Zadok during David's reign.
■ Abiathar's father, Ahimelech, was the high priest at the time of the incident with David at Nob where David received the consecrated bread. Abiathar later succeeded his father as a priest and served alongside Zadok during the reign of King David. They both continued to serve as priests during the reign of King Solomon as well.
■ So, Abiathar was not a co-priest with his father, Ahimelech, but he did succeed him as a priest and served alongside Zadok during the reigns of David and Solomon. I think the explanation above suffices! David did related with the father as regards the consecrated bread. Jesus mentioned the son! It is a mistake! Even google can't correct this!

1. There is no truth to this claim here. Rather, what is stated in 1 Samuel 23 is that Abiathar had the ephod with him when he escaped to join David hinting at him being the High Priest at that very time since the garment belonged to the High Priest - Exodus 28.

15 David ruled over all Israel, and he made good and fair decisions for all of his people.
16 Joab son of Zeruiah was the captain over the army. Jehoshaphat son of Ahilud was the historian.
17 Zadok son of Ahitub and Ahimelech son of Abiathar were priests. Seraiah was secretary.
18 Benaiah son of Jehoiada was in charge of the Kerethites and Pelethites, and David’s sons were priests. - 2 Samuel 8 vs 15- 18

Abiathar is not recorded to have served as a priest during David's reign. Abimelech Ahimelech, son of Abiathar, is recorded to have served as a priest instead.

2. There is no scriptural backing for this claim. As mentioned earlier, the one who is recorded to have had the ephod was Abiathar, son of Ahimelech.

3. Wrong! Your so-called explanations contravene details contained in Scripture regarding the very same. Yes, Abimelech Ahimelech and Abiathar were more likely priests at the time in question with Abiathar, the son, as the High Priest. Again, Abiathar had the ephod with him; the ephod belonged to the high priest.

AbuTwins:
■ There was no case of Consecrated bread with Abiathar anywhere in the Bible! Jesus replied, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? What we read is about Ahimelech and David (not Abiathar and David) as regards consecrated bread! This wss a mistake! The mistake is in the name Abiathar! Jesus mentioned Abiathar instead of Ahimelech!
■ Yes, there was no high priest among them all! He was the only one Saul was addressing which shows he is highly regarded! All of them were killed but his son survived. Hence he can latter be the priest to continue his father's line. David too knew Ahimelech was highly regarded hence he came to him for bread!
■ No! He went to meet Ahimelech! He did not just took bread like Jesus's disciples took grains of corn! As for the different types of bread, it is clearly stated in the verses in the OP. David requested for five loafs of bread! But the priest answered David, “I don’t have any ordinary bread on hand; however, there is some consecrated bread here—provided the men have kept themselves from women.”
Because he mentioned Abiathar who had no bread dealings with David anywhere in the Bible! That's a mistake. only Ahimelech had consecrated bread dealings with David!

None of this makes sense enough to warrant a response, so I will let you continue with your rambling!

Kobojunkie:
None of this makes sense enough to warrant a response, so I will let you continue with your rambling!

K, then o!

Kobojunkie:
My Abimelech typo which is clearly not reflected in any of the references used seems to have thrown you off as I can't seem to make heads or tails of what you. Here again, is my previous post without the Abimelech typos.

---

1. There is no truth to this claim here. Rather, what is stated in 1 Samuel 23 is that Abiathar had the ephod with him when he escaped to join David hinting at him being the High Priest at that very time since the garment belonged to the High Priest - Exodus 28.

He had the ephod with him because all his priestly family has been murdered. The father of Abiathar is Ahimelech!

1 Samuel 22:11-12
Then the king sent for the priest Ahimelech son of Ahitub and all the men of his family, who were the priests at Nob, and they all came to the king. Saul said, “Listen now, son of Ahitub.”“Yes, my lord,” he answered.

Abiathar is not recorded to have served as a priest during David's reign. Abimelech Ahimelech, son of Abiathar, is recorded to have served as a priest instead.

Show us where Abiathar and David had any dealings about consecrated bread as Jesus said in Mark!

2. There is no scriptural backing for this claim. As mentioned earlier, the one who is recorded to have had the ephod was Abiathar, son of Ahimelech.

Just because you are ignorant of a matter does not mean there's no biblical evidence for it.

In the books of 1 Samuel and 1 Kings.

1. **Ahimelech as the High Priest**:
- In 1 Samuel 21, David goes to Nob and meets Ahimelech the priest. Ahimelech provides David with consecrated bread and the sword of Goliath. This incident establishes Ahimelech as the high priest at that time. This was clearly stated before.

2. **Abiathar as the Son of Ahimelech and Successor as High Priest**:
- Following the massacre of the priests of Nob by King Saul, Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech, escapes and joins David (1 Samuel 22:20-23).
- Abiathar becomes a priest serving with David, as seen in various accounts in 1 Samuel and later books.
- Abiathar later serves as a priest alongside Zadok during the reign of King David and into the reign of King Solomon.

3. **Zadok and Abiathar as Priests during King Solomon's Reign**:
- During the transition of power from King David to King Solomon, Abiathar sides with Adonijah, another son of David, in his attempt to seize the throne (1 Kings 1).
- Solomon, after becoming king, removes Abiathar from his position as high priest and banishes him to Anathoth, making Zadok the sole high priest (1 Kings 2:26-27).
- This event fulfills the prophecy given to Eli the high priest, which stated that his descendants would not continue as high priests (1 Samuel 2:27-36).

Therefore, the evidence from the Biblical accounts in 1 Samuel and 1 Kings supports the statement that Ahimelech was the high priest at the time of the incident with David at Nob, and his son Abiathar succeeded him as a priest, serving alongside Zadok during the reign of King David and later into the reign of King Solomon.

3. Wrong! Your so-called explanations contravene details contained in Scripture regarding the very same. Yes, Abimelech Ahimelech and Abiathar were more likely priests at the time in question with Abiathar, the son, as the High Priest. Again, Abiathar had the ephod with him; the ephod belonged to the high priest.

The Ephod was mentioned only after he ran away when other Priests were about to be killed! He simply ran away with it and avoided death!

AbuTwins:
He had the ephod with him because all his priestly family has been murdered. The father of Abiathar is Ahimelech!

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

His family was killed but somehow he though to take the ephod of all things that was not some sort of family property he could keep for himself as he fled for his life. Which kain yeye claim be that?

Kobojunkie:
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

His family was killed but somehow he though to take the ephod of all things that was not some sort of family property he could keep for himself as he fled for his life. Which kain yeye claim be that?

His father was a priest that commune with the king! So he's a descendant of the house of Elli the priest!

So what should an average priest take when trying to escape?

AbuTwins:
■ His father was a priest that commune with the king! So he's a descendant of the house of Elli the priest! So what should an average priest take when trying to escape?

The king summoned the priest and his family because they harbored a fugitive, and Saul intended to kill them all from the start. And here you already instead chose to conclude the man communed with the king.... 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Kobojunkie:
The king summoned the priest and his family because they harbored a fugitive, and Saul intended to kill them all from the start. And here you already instead chose to conclude the man communed with the king.... 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

The actual question you need to answer is why David came to Ahimelech for bread and not any other priest!

Why did Jesus mention Abiathar when there was no mention of Abiathar with bread and David in the Bible?

AbuTwins:
∆ The actual question you need to answer is why David came to Ahimelech for bread and not any other priest!
∆ Why did Jesus mention Abiathar when there was no mention of Abiathar with bread and David in the Bible?

That is a dumb question to ask.

2. Another dumb question to ask since Jesus Christ was less concerned about the actual priest but rather interested in the fact that David ate holy bread which was meant for God.

FxMasterz

Answer this OP and get a 🏆 or remain a blind, ignorant fellow forever


Emusan, show ur face for this thread

AbuTwins:


Actually i don't believe the real Jesus did or say many things ascribed to him in the Bible!

I don't believe the real Jesus ever existed either
Lemme choose to believe the account of a caveman pinned by a demon 600 years after Jesus life

Aemmyjah:
FxMasterz

Answer this OP and get a 🏆 or remain a blind, ignorant fellow forever

You don't have the answers shey? Or your cult has dubiously inserted Ahimelech into the verse as they always do?

The Answer
Mark was a young man, son to the sister of Barnabas. He wasn't there when Jesus made that speech. He was not part of the 12, neither was he part of the 120 nor the 500. He would go for a very small boy in the days of Jesus.

When Mark wrote the Book of Mark, he was reporting what he has heard from the disciples of Jesus and those who knew Him. Not what Jesus said directly to his ears. The error was Mark's error. Not Jesus'.

Mark was sincerely reporting a speech he heard that Jesus gave. The speech is corroborated by Mathew and Luke. This proves that indeed, Jesus gave the speech. However, both Mathew and Luke didn't mention the name of the priest or high priest involved in the story. Jesus probably didn't mention the name of the high priest.

Mark, in his zeal to provide fuller details to his reader, errornously mentioned Abiathar instead of Ahimelech. We can excuse Mark's error because Mark was not a Bible scholar in his days. The scrolls were not readily made available to everyone at the time. A few copies of the Scriptures existed for use solely in the temple and the pharisaical schools. Mark's opportunity to verify the information before inserting that detail was limited. Also, he thought he was right, hence he wanted his reader to know the exact priest involved in the story. He wrote it in all sincerity. That's the Hallmark of the Bible. Sincere rendition of accounts to the best of the writer's knowledge.

The Bible Copiers and Translators were also sincere. They put it there just as exactly as Mark wrote it, even though they knew that Mark was wrong. No attempt by anyone to correct Mark's mistakes. Why? Because that would be falsehood. Presenting what Mark didn't say as what Mark said is falsehood. Presenting what Mark said exactly as he had said it in spite of the aspersions it may cast on the Bible is a high level of integrity. That's what God blesses. He blesses Integrity and Sincerity especially when it is done in spite of the damage it could cause to oneself. That's in the same league as "He that voweth to his own hurt and fulfilleth it." Psalm 15:4. This is the sincerity and integrity lacking in Islam and in the JW cult which we condemn.

Rather than disparaging the Bible, this scripture in Mark further gives credence to the fact that the Writers, Copiers and Translators of the Bible did all they could in all sincerity. The Bible is credible. It can be trusted because everyone wrote exactly what happened to the best of his knowledge.

Now, the crux is that Jesus really gave that speech. Mark's errors notwithstanding, the message is true - THE SON OF MAN IS LORD OF THE SABBATH. That's the focus of the verse. Not Ahimelech or Abiathar.

FxMasterz:


You don't have the answers shey? Or your cult has dubiously inserted Ahimelech into the the verse as they always do.

The Answer
Mark was a young man, son to the sister of Barnabas. He wasn't there when Jesus made that speech. He was not part of the 12, neither was he part of the 120 nor the 500. He would go for a very small boy in the days of Jesus.

When Mark wrote the book of Mark, he was reporting what he has heard from the disciples of Jesus and those who knew Him. Not what Jesus said directly. The error was Mark's error. Not Jesus'.

Mark was sincerely reporting speech he heard that Jesus gave. The speech is corroborated by Mathew and Luke. This proves that indeed, Jesus gave the speech. However, both Mathew and Luke didn't mention the name of the priest or high priest involved in the story. Jesus probably didn't mention the name of the high priest.

Mark, in his zeal to provide fuller details to his reader, errornously me ruined Abiathar instead of Ahimelech. We can excuse Mark's error because Mark was not a biblical scholar in his days. The scrolls were not readily made available to everyone at the time. A few copies of the scriptures existed for use solely in the temple and the pharisaical schools. Mark's opportunity to verify the information before insetting that detail was limited. Also, he thought he was right, hence he wanted his reader to know the exact priest involved in the story. He wrote it in all sincerity. That's the Hallmark of the Bible. Sincere rendition of accounts to the best of the writer's knowledge.

The Bible Copiers and Translators were also sincere. They put it there just as exactly as Mark wrote it, even though they knew that Mark was wrong. No attempt by anyone to correct Mark's mistakes. Why? Because that would be falsehood. Presenting what Mark didn't say as what Mark said is falsehood. Presenting what Mark said exactly as he had said it in spite of the aspersions it may cast on the Bible is a high level of integrity. That's what God blesses. He blesses Integrity and Sincerity especially when it is done in spite of the damage it could cause to oneself. That's in the same league as "He that voweth to his own hurt and fulfilleth it." Psalm 15:4. This is the sincerity and integrity lacking in the Islam and in the JW cult which we condemn.

Rather than disparaging the Bible, this scripture in Mark further gives credence to the fact that the Writers, Copiers and Translators of the Bible did all they could in all sincerity. The Bible is credible. It can be trusted because everyone wrote exactly what happened to the best of his knowledge.

Now, the crux is that Jesus really gave that speech. Mark's errors notwithstanding, the message is true - THE SON OF MAN IS LORD OF THE SABBATH. That's the focus of the verse. Not Ahimelech or Abiathar.

You're completely wrong... 2 over 10


Next, Emusan. Come here my boy and answer OP

Aemmyjah:


I don't believe the real Jesus ever existed either
Lemme choose to believe the account of a caveman pinned by a demon 600 years after Jesus life

Thank God i didn't say Jesus never existed as we believed he did existed.
And as for the cave man who existed 600 years after Jesus his matter sure pass Jesus!

As Rome didn't enter am!

Jehovah witness people too dey lie!
Where did you see Demon pin down anyone?
Na Jesus Satan tempt and carry to the great height!

Kobojunkie:
That is a dumb question to ask.

2. Another dumb question to ask since Jesus Christ was less concerned about the actual priest but rather interested in the fact that David ate holy bread which was meant for God.

So why did Jesus mentioned Abiathar if he is not concerned with him?
Anyways, it is a blunder!

And David didn't just enter the house of God to take bread! He requested for it. Jesus disciples didn't make any requests. They were just taking the crops!

Really dumb mistake you'll agree with me!

FxMasterz:


You don't have the answers shey? Or your cult has dubiously inserted Ahimelech into the verse as they always do?

The Answer
Mark was a young man, son to the sister of Barnabas. He wasn't there when Jesus made that speech. He was not part of the 12, neither was he part of the 120 nor the 500. He would go for a very small boy in the days of Jesus.

When Mark wrote the Book of Mark, he was reporting what he has heard from the disciples of Jesus and those who knew Him. Not what Jesus said directly to his ears. The error was Mark's error. Not Jesus'.

Mark was sincerely reporting a speech he heard that Jesus gave. The speech is corroborated by Mathew and Luke. This proves that indeed, Jesus gave the speech. However, both Mathew and Luke didn't mention the name of the priest or high priest involved in the story. Jesus probably didn't mention the name of the high priest.

Mark, in his zeal to provide fuller details to his reader, errornously mentioned Abiathar instead of Ahimelech. We can excuse Mark's error because Mark was not a Bible scholar in his days. The scrolls were not readily made available to everyone at the time. A few copies of the Scriptures existed for use solely in the temple and the pharisaical schools. Mark's opportunity to verify the information before inserting that detail was limited. Also, he thought he was right, hence he wanted his reader to know the exact priest involved in the story. He wrote it in all sincerity. That's the Hallmark of the Bible. Sincere rendition of accounts to the best of the writer's knowledge.

The Bible Copiers and Translators were also sincere. They put it there just as exactly as Mark wrote it, even though they knew that Mark was wrong. No attempt by anyone to correct Mark's mistakes. Why? Because that would be falsehood. Presenting what Mark didn't say as what Mark said is falsehood. Presenting what Mark said exactly as he had said it in spite of the aspersions it may cast on the Bible is a high level of integrity. That's what God blesses. He blesses Integrity and Sincerity especially when it is done in spite of the damage it could cause to oneself. That's in the same league as "He that voweth to his own hurt and fulfilleth it." Psalm 15:4. This is the sincerity and integrity lacking in Islam and in the JW cult which we condemn.

Rather than disparaging the Bible, this scripture in Mark further gives credence to the fact that the Writers, Copiers and Translators of the Bible did all they could in all sincerity. The Bible is credible. It can be trusted because everyone wrote exactly what happened to the best of his knowledge.

Now, the crux is that Jesus really gave that speech. Mark's errors notwithstanding, the message is true - THE SON OF MAN IS LORD OF THE SABBATH. That's the focus of the verse. Not Ahimelech or Abiathar.

See coping and capping!

At least he had the guts to agree Mark lied about Jesus!
Unlike Kobojunkie who would argue from now till eternity on falsehood!

But the Book of Mark came earlier than Matthew and Luke.
I would say they both had time to edit that part out!
John came last and his book is the most "Jesus Goding"!

AbuTwins:


Thank God i didn't say Jesus never existed as we believed he did existed.
And as for the cave man who existed 600 years after Jesus his matter sure pass Jesus!

As Rome didn't enter am!

Jehovah witness people too dey lie!
Where did you see Demon pin down anyone?
Na Jesus Satan tempt and carry to the great height!

It was a demon that pinned that illiterate 💯
People in Bible times saw an angel and were filled with awe
Aisha husband was just confused like hell and was speaking satanic verses

Aemmyjah:



It was a demon that pinned that illiterate 💯
People in Bible times saw an angel and were filled with awe
Aisha husband was just confused like hell and was speaking satanic verses

You are ignorant! And you talk from ignorance!
How many people in the Bible saw angels in their true forms?

Read the hadith below, the narrator is a foremost companion of the Prophet and the 2nd Caliph after him:

Umar ibn al-Khattab reported: We were sitting with the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, one day, a man appeared with very white clothes and very black hair. There were no signs of travel on him and we did not recognize him. He sat in front of the Prophet, rested his knees by his knees, and placed his hands on his thighs. The man said, “O Muhammad, tell me about Islam.” The Prophet said, “Islam is to testify there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, to establish prayer, to give charity, to fast the month of Ramadan, and to perform pilgrimage to the House if a way is possible.” The man said, “You have spoken truthfully.” We were surprised that he asked him and said he was truthful. He said, “Tell me about faith.” The Prophet said, “Faith is to believe in Allah, His angels, His Books, His Messengers, the Last Day, and to believe in providence, its good and its harm.” The man said, “You have spoken truthfully. Tell me about excellence.” The Prophet said, “Excellence is to worship Allah as if you see Him, for if you do not see Him, He surely sees you.” The man said, “Tell me about the final hour.” The Prophet said, “The one asked does not know more than the one asking.” The man said, “Tell me about its signs.” The Prophet said, “The slave-girl will give birth to her mistress and you will see barefoot, naked, and dependent shepherds compete in the construction of tall buildings.” Then, the man returned and I remained. The Prophet said to me, “O Umar, do you know who he was?” I said, “Allah and His Messenger know best.” The Prophet said, “Verily, he was Gabriel who came to teach you your religion.”

Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 8

Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Muslim