Humanistme:


I don't believe everything in the bible. that is why I asked for the link to other Jewish sources na

Oh okay...I get you...

No qualms...

butterflyl1on:

This is the original Greek text here

http://biblehub.com/text/luke/3-23.htm
The word there is Ἠλὶ* and it means OF HELI and not SON OF....

and no where does it say heli is the father of Mary.

butterflyl1on:

This is the original Greek text here

http://biblehub.com/text/luke/3-23.htm
The word there is Ἠλὶ* and it means OF HELI and not SON OF....

and no where does it say heli is the father of Mary.

butterflyl1on:

This is the original Greek text here

http://biblehub.com/text/luke/3-23.htm
The word there is Ἠλὶ* and it means OF HELI and not SON OF....

and no where does it say heli is the father of Mary.

Humanistme:


and no where does it say heli is the father of Mary.

[img]https://gonnagan.files./2012/03/facepalm.jpg[/img]

I will repost my first response to this question about Josephs father here again. You amaze me indeed with the way you are unable to connect the dots.

Joseph was the son of Jacob and Heli was considered a father in-law from the lineage of Mary. OkCornel already adviced you to always refer to the original before making your blunders.

Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob according to Matthew 1:16, so Luke 3:23 should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.”

b]So the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually the word "son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly have very similar content, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly include such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record.

Based on this, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David

1) Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David

2) Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin

I really do not like repeating myself like this but it is obvious that what you call contradictions are simply you being too lazy to properly study what you criticise.

Humanistme:


of course in your delusions they are not contradictions. oya answer this bible quiz


Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?

(a)Jacob (b)Heli (c) butterflyl1on (d)his parents were gay so he had two dads (e)all of the above

clues to the answer below


Mathew 1:16

16and Jacob the father of s Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.
17 So all the generations from Abraham


Luke 3:23

New International Version (NIV)
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
Luke 3:23 in all English translations 23
the son of Heli,

This is one contradiction nobody have been able to explain fully.

butterflyl1on:


So far all you have posted have been shown not to be contradictions so what MORE contradictions are you still referring to?

So, in Mark chapter 2 we see Jesus walking through a field demonstrating the essence of Shabbat, Jesus recounts what King David did saying in verse 26 "How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him….

Now, we know that Jesus is referring to the actions of King David described in 1 Samuel 21:1-6. The problem here is that David did enter the house of God, but not when Abiathar was the high priest, but, in fact, when Abiathar’s father Ahimelech was the high priest.

My questions are the following; Did Jesus get it wrong by stating Abiathar instead of Ahimelech? Did 1 Samuel give us an incorrect chronology? Or did the author of Mark record the story incorrectly?

Sarassin:


So, in Mark chapter 2 we see Jesus walking through a field demonstrating the essence of Shabbat, Jesus recounts what King David did saying in verse 26 "How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him….

Now, we know that Jesus is referring to the actions of King David described in 1 Samuel 21:1-6. The problem here is that David did enter the house of God, but not when Abiathar was the high priest, but, in fact, when Abiathar’s father Ahimelech was the high priest.

My questions are the following; Did Jesus get it wrong by stating Abiathar instead of Ahimelech? Did 1 Samuel give us an incorrect chronology? Or did the author of Mark record the story incorrectly?

Put the blame on the scribes bro... Jesus or Samuel could have been wrongly quoted. As long as humans are involved in the process...undetected errors are bound to occur no matter the extent of controls or reviews you want to put in place...

is the law of Moses always useful?


Yes. All scripture is... profitable... (2 Timothy 3:16)


No. . . . A former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness... (Hebrews 7:18)

this one causes disgrements between different denominations

OkCornel:


Put the blame on the scribes bro... Jesus or Samuel could have been wrongly quoted. As long as humans are involved in the process...undetected errors are bound to occur no matter the extent of controls or reviews you want to put in place...

but all these mental gymnastics some people have been doing on this thread is not to prove the bible has no errors or contradictions.

you just agreed the bible has contradictions

Proudgorgeousga:


but all these mental gymnastics some people have been doing on this thread is not to prove the bible has no errors or contradictions.

you just agreed the bible has contradictions

Yes, and I also believe you understand my position as to why...

There are contradictions...and there are what people would think as contradictions, this is what the purpose of the thread is for...

Sarassin:


So, in Mark chapter 2 we see Jesus walking through a field demonstrating the essence of Shabbat, Jesus recounts what King David did saying in verse 26 "How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him….

Now, we know that Jesus is referring to the actions of King David described in 1 Samuel 21:1-6. The problem here is that David did enter the house of God, but not when Abiathar was the high priest, but, in fact, when Abiathar’s father Ahimelech was the high priest.

My questions are the following; Did Jesus get it wrong by stating Abiathar instead of Ahimelech? Did 1 Samuel give us an incorrect chronology? Or did the author of Mark record the story incorrectly?

Kindly take a closer look at Christ’s words and you will notice that He used the phrase “in the days of Abiathar” which does not necessarily mean that Abiathar was the high priest at the time David ate the shewbread.

However, after David met Ahimelech and ate the bread, King Saul had Ahimelech killed as declared in 1st Sam. 22:17–19. Abiathar escaped and went to David and later took the place of the high priest.

So even though Abiathar was made the high priest after David ate the bread, it is still very correct for Jesus to speak the way he did. because Abiathar was alive when David did this, and soon following he became the high priest after his father’s death. So it was during the time of Abiathar (In the days of Abiathar) , but not during his tenure in office.

The word to follow is IN THE DAYS OF ABIATHAR otherwise meaning during the time of Abiathar.

Was it in the days / during the time of Abiathar that David ate the shewbread? YES

Was Abiathar made the high priest in the days of David? YES

Both were alive in each others days both when David ate the shewbread and Abiathar became high priest.

Problem Solved!

Proudgorgeousga:
is the law of Moses always useful?


Yes. All scripture is... profitable... (2 Timothy 3:16)


No. . . . A former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness... (Hebrews 7:18)

this one causes disgrements between different denominations

That's because people never understood what happened in Acts 15 in their Bible...if you read it, then you will realize most Christians are practising Judeo-Christianity (Judaism + Christianity) instead of following the teachings of Jesus...

Proudgorgeousga:
is the law of Moses always useful?


Yes. All scripture is... profitable... (2 Timothy 3:16)


No. . . . A former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness... (Hebrews 7:18)

this one causes disgrements between different denominations

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Profitable as a guide for the above. However the old testament is a shadow of what was to come in the New Testament so when the New Testament came we are now able to see clearly what the old testament scriptures were trying to achieve or say and then properly apply it for doctrine, reproof, correction or instruction in righteousness.

Colossians 2:16-17

16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ

Christ has now come so now we see the reality of what the old testament was a shadow of.

butterflyl1on:



Kindly take a closer look at Christ’s words and you will notice that He used the phrase “in the days of Abiathar” which does not necessarily mean that Abiathar was the high priest at the time David ate the shewbread.

However, after David met Ahimelech and ate the bread, King Saul had Ahimelech killed as declared in 1st Sam. 22:17–19. Abiathar escaped and went to David and later took the place of the high priest.

So even though Abiathar was made the high priest after David ate the bread, it is still very correct for Jesus to speak the way he did. because Abiathar was alive when David did this, and soon following he became the high priest after his father’s death. So it was during the time of Abiathar (In the days of Abiathar) , but not during his tenure in office.

The word to follow is IN THE DAYS OF ABIATHAR otherwise meaning during the time of Abiathar.

Was it in the days / during the time of Abiathar that David ate the shewbread? YES

Was Abiathar made the high priest in the days of David? YES

Both were alive in each others days both when David ate the shewbread and Abiathar became high priest.

Problem Solved!

Very good fudging. Perhaps you should take a closer look at what you left out on purpose. Verse 26 is clear and concise “…..he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the High priest….” The statement is incontrovertible Abiathar (according to Jesus) was the office holder at that time Not some unspecified time re-jigged for a harmonisation exercise.

It is clear from the Book of Samuel that when David met Ahimelech, Ahimelech was the office holder. Admirable syllogism on your part, no doubt Abiathar was alive in the days of David, Ahimelech was his father for chrissakes.

Problem solved indeed.

Sarassin:


Very good fudging. Perhaps you should take a closer look at what you left out on purpose. Verse 26 is clear and concise “…..he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the High priest….” The statement is incontrovertible Abiathar (according to Jesus) was the office holder at that time Not some unspecified time re-jigged for a harmonisation exercise.

It is clear from the Book of Samuel that when David met Ahimelech, Ahimelech was the office holder. Admirable syllogism on your part, no doubt Abiathar was alive in the days of David, Ahimelech was his father for chrissakes.

Problem solved indeed.

.

Sarassin:


Very good fudging. Perhaps you should take a closer look at what you left out on purpose. Verse 26 is clear and concise “…..he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the High priest….” The statement is incontrovertible Abiathar (according to Jesus) was the office holder at that time Not some unspecified time re-jigged for a harmonisation exercise.

It is clear from the Book of Samuel that when David met Ahimelech, Ahimelech was the office holder. Admirable syllogism on your part, no doubt Abiathar was alive in the days of David, Ahimelech was his father for chrissakes.

Problem solved indeed.

I did not leave it out. You are the one who did not ponder on the meaning of the phrase "in the days of Abiathar "

Jesus never said "in the days of Abiathar WHEN he was the highpriest" if he had said so then it would clearly need no arguing as he would mean as at the exact time Abiathar was a highpriest.

He however said IN THE DAYS OF ABIATHAR THE HIGH PRIEST. notice that WHEN was missing there?

He was simply referring to the period when Abiathar was alive. Was Abiathar not made highpriest IN HIS DAY? YES he was


In the days of Abiathar simply meant DURING THE TIME OR IN THE LIFETIME OF ABIATHAR.

the reason I believe why Jesus made reference using ABIATHAR instead of Ahimelech was because Abiathar was more popular than Ahimelech so it was apt to use the more popular to stress a memorable point.

Emmanystone:
Well, Folks, here we are, and we will be looking into what Mujtahida and his ilk terms Contractions, outright Lies, Historical untruths and absurdities in the Bible.

Fasten your seat belts folks and grab your Bibles or whatever is it you need to do justice to this topic.

Calling Sir Muttleylaff, Butterflyl1on, Ronpet777, Sarassin, FlipGamBino, Soteriahascome, OkCornel

Guys, pls help me send out invites to capable hands. Blessings.

Note: PLE POST YOUR TEXT OUT AND POINT OUT THE CONTRADICTIONS AND LIES. Don't just quote and make us open our Bibles before commenting.

Anyone who comes in here with insults shd pls be totally ignored.

Thanks.

Nooo. Please remove my moniker from the topic of the thread. It's not necessary. And moreover I don't want to be getting mentions. Do that and I will fire my first salvo

butterflyl1on:


I did not leave it out. You are the one who did not ponder on the meaning of the phrase "in the days of Abiathar "

Jesus never said "in the days of Abiathar WHEN he was the highpriest" if he had said so then it would clearly need no arguing as he would mean as at the exact time Abiathar was a highpriest.

He however said IN THE DAYS OF ABIATHAR THE HIGH PRIEST. notice that WHEN was missing there?

He was simply referring to the period when Abiathar was alive. Was Abiathar not made highpriest IN HIS DAY? YES he was


In the days of Abiathar simply meant DURING THE TIME OR IN THE LIFETIME OF ABIATHAR.

the reason I believe why Jesus made reference using ABIATHAR instead of Ahimelech was because Abiathar was more popular than Ahimelech so it was apt to use the more popular to stress a memorable point.

You left it out because your argument holds more water if the office of the High Priest is not mentioned and I agree. But there really should be no controversy here, Jesus was being very specific by attaching the descriptive office of Abiathar as the High Priest, intimating that the event occurred during his days whilst in office meaning that David ate hallowed bread under the watch of Abiathar not his father.

The book of Samuel claims otherwise.

Even if Abiathar was more popular as you state, it still does not account for the factual error.

It is a clear incontrovertible error. The only question that remains is...whose error was it?

Sarassin:


You left it out because your argument holds more water if the office of the High Priest is not mentioned and I agree. But there really should be no controversy here, Jesus was being very specific by attaching the descriptive office of Abiathar as the High Priest, intimating that the event occurred during his days whilst in office meaning that David ate hallowed bread under the watch of Abiathar not his father.

The book of Samuel claims otherwise.

Even if Abiathar was more popular as you state, it still does not account for the factual error.

It is a clear incontrovertible error. The only question that remains is...whose error was it?

There was no error. The one in error is clearly you.

Explain to me what we mean when we use expressions like "in my day" or "back in the days"?

Jesus was using Abiathar as a memorable attachment to his comment because Abiathar was more popular and easier to remember than Ahimelech because he it was who took with him the golden ephod and other priestly regalia (1 Sam. 22:20 and 23:6, 9). He was of great service to David, especially at the time of the rebellion of Absalom found in (2 Sam. 15:24, 29, 35, 20:25).

In 1 Kings 4:4 Zadok and Abiathar are found acting together as priests under Solomon. In 1 Kings 1:7, 19, 25.

I repeat "in the days" means during the time frame of Abiathar. The highpriest addition was to serve as a memorable reference due to the above.

Emmanystone:

Hahahahahahahahaha. Pls, guy, carry your mundane mind and shift. The laws of Physics or natural laws hardly apply with God.

Can you explain how tasteless, colourless and odourless water can be turned into wine, or how a girl who had never had sex will get pregnant and have a child?

And pls, don't tell me you don't believe these things happened, if that's the case, you'd better not comment.

yes I can ...because they are all bullshits

Emmanystone:

Hahahahahahahahaha. Pls, guy, carry your mundane mind and shift. The laws of Physics or natural laws hardly apply with God.

Can you explain how tasteless, colourless and odourless water can be turned into wine, or how a girl who had never had sex will get pregnant and have a child?

And pls, don't tell me you don't believe these things happened, if that's the case, you'd better not comment.

You know with this line of thought there's absolutely nothing one can prove to be a lie in the Bible no matter how outlandish it seems cos all you'd say is that God works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform.

An ass talking to man- lies
A serpent talking to Eve- lies
God raining down stones from heaven against the children of moab - lies
Herod killing all the firstborns in Jesus' time - lies

It is well accepted by biblical scholars that numbers in the bible are usually exaggerated. As in lies.

But for Christians these are all miracles or the mysterious actions of God. Nobody would believe these things if they were in the illiad and odyssey. They'd call them myths and legends and rightly so for that is what they are. For example Muslims say the Prophet ascended into heaven on a flying horse. Would you as a Christian believe that? You'd probably say it's a lie. But to a Muslim it's the truth. If you ask the Muslim 'why do you believe it's the truth'?
he'd say 'it's written in the Quran'

Catch 22 situation.

Mujtahida:

You know with this line of thought there's absolutely nothing one can prove to be a lie in the Bible no matter how outlandish it seems cos all you'd say is that God works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform.

An ass talking to man- lies
A snake talking to Adam and Eve- lies
God raining down stones from heaven against the children of moab - lies
Herod killing all the firstborns in Jesus' time - lies

It is well accepted by biblical scholars that numbers in the bible are usually exaggerated. As in lies.

But for Christians these are all miracles or the mysterious actions of God. Nobody would believe these things if they were in the illiad and odyssey. They'd call them myths and legends. For example Muslims say the Prophet ascended into heaven on flying horse. Would you as a Christian believe that? You'd say it's a lie. But to a Muslim it's the truth. If you ask the Muslim 'why do you believe it's the truth' he'd say 'it's written in the Quran'

Catch 22 situation.

This is so true

Imagine, Abijah spoke to 1,200,000 soldiers at one time with no amplifier. Even Yahweh never managed to do that lol

butterflyl1on:


There was no error. The one in error is clearly you.

Explain to me what we mean when we use expressions like "in my day" or "back in the days"?

Jesus was using Abiathar as a memorable attachment to his comment because Abiathar was more popular and easier to remember than Ahimelech because he it was who took with him the golden ephod and other priestly regalia (1 Sam. 22:20 and 23:6, 9). He was of great service to David, especially at the time of the rebellion of Absalom found in (2 Sam. 15:24, 29, 35, 20:25).

In 1 Kings 4:4 Zadok and Abiathar are found acting together as priests under Solomon. In 1 Kings 1:7, 19, 25.

I repeat "in the days" means during the time frame of Abiathar. The highpriest addition was to serve as a memorable reference due to the above.

Really? Fine, let’s talk about expressions like “in my day”, if you succeeded your father as King would you refer to an event that took place during your father’s reign as one that took place in your days as King simply because you had been born at that time? or would you refer to that event as one that took place during your father’s reign? Be honest.

You are not even clear on your position, first you say Jesus was right in naming Abiathar and then you vacillate by saying that Jesus employed the use of a “memorable attachment”, in other words Jesus' comments that Abiathar was the High Priest were not rooted in fact? he lied for the sake of expediency? Are you really saying that Jesus played fast and loose with facts?

You seem to be saying that Jesus with utter disregard for priestly chronology simply mentioned Abiathar as the High Priest in charge at the time of events because he was more popular than his father.

butterflyl1on:


It is how epigenetics works. Environmental factors such as trauma, stress what we see and experience have been known to activate epigenetic changes. This is scientifically proven.

Epigenetic changes are biological markers on DNA that modify gene expression without altering the underlying sequence.

In other words, it can change skin colour, body markings but not the physical structure itself.

Please stop embarrassing yourself!

It's better you stick with the "there's nothing my God cannot do" line.

Sarassin:


Really? Fine, let’s talk about expressions like “in my day”, if you succeeded your father as King would you refer to an event that took place during your father’s reign as one that took place in your days as King simply because you had been born at that time? or would you refer to that event as one that took place during your father’s reign? Be honest.

You are not even clear on your position, first you say Jesus was right in naming Abiathar and then you vacillate by saying that Jesus employed the use of a “memorable attachment”, in other words Jesus' comments that Abiathar was the High Priest were not rooted in fact? he lied for the sake of expediency? Are you really saying that Jesus played fast and loose with facts?

You seem to be saying that Jesus with utter disregard for priestly chronology simply mentioned Abiathar as the High Priest in charge at the time of events because he was more popular than his father.

1) Jesus NEVER hinted in his comment that Abiathar had succeeded his father as at the time of David eating the shewbread.

2) Jesus did not lie.

He simply said "in the days of Abiathar the high priest". Permit me rephrase.

He said "in the days of Abiathar who was a highpriest". He was simply describing the Abiathar in question based on his office but not the time he occupied the office.

"in the days" simply meant the following

1) Was Abiathar a high priest in his days? Yes he became one in his days and a very popular one too.

2. Did David eat the shewbread in the days of Abiathar? Yes he did when Abiathar was first a priest before he became a high priest.

In the days meant a time frame or a time bracket within which Abiathar became a highpriest. After all it was almost immediately after David ate the shewbread that abiathars father got killed by Saul and he (Abiathar) became the new highpriest.

You assume I am vaccilating while all I am doing is pointing out to you your error. The comment of Jesus was rooted in fact because he said IN THE DAYS OF ABIATHAR and stopped there. He never added WHEN to his comment.

It's like living in a time when a few other people bear a name like Timothy but out of all the timothies in that time one was popular for being a plumber and you wish to talk about something that happened in that time that somehow touched on Timothy and you say "in the days of Timothy THE PLUMBER " or "in the days of Timothy THE ONE WHO WAS A PLUMBER" for sake of memory.

This was exactly what Jesus did. He said "in the days of Abiathar the highpriest (the one who was a highpriest) and not that David ate the shewbread when Abiathar was the highpriest. He was simply giving a time frame. Simple.

OkCornel:


That's because people never understood what happened in Acts 15 in their Bible...if you read it, then you will realize most Christians are practising Judeo-Christianity (Judaism + Christianity) instead of following the teachings of Jesus...

you cannot separate Judaism from Christianity fully.

Jesus did not come to abolish Judaism (law of Moses) but fulfil it.

if you separate them fully, you are saying Judaism is irrelevant and you abolish it.

Gggg102:


you cannot separate Judaism from Christianity fully.

Jesus did not come to abolish Judaism (law of Moses) but fulfil it.

if you separate them fully, you are saying Judaism is irrelevant and you abolish it.

So if Jesus has fulfilled the Law...are you now obliged to follow the Law He fulfilled?

Can you please read up Acts 15?

Mujtahida:
Nooo. Please remove my moniker from the topic of the thread. It's not necessary.
And moreover I don't want to be getting mentions.
Do that and I will fire my first salvo

I was just actually about going to agree with you that, it isn't necessary opening this thread
but then I took a peek up and immediately saw hopefulLandlord quoting you and couldn't help not noticing in the quote, you parroting that "a snake talked to Adam and Eve"
Get a grip mayne, it wasn't for crying out loud, a snake talking to Adam and Eve nau.
At least, get the fact right

About Muhammed flying on a winged horse.
Wait, let me laugh a bit, before continuing. Bwahahaha!
Trust Muhammed to do a mimic of the chariot of fire appearing, drawn by horses of fire scene and how Elijah got carried by a whirlwind into heaven

For almost everything in the bible, if not already turned upside down or twisted, you can bet your bottom dollar, there is a caricature of it in this other famous book

butterflyl1on:



1) Jesus NEVER hinted in his comment that Abiathar had succeeded his father as at the time of David eating the shewbread.

2) Jesus did not lie.

He simply said "in the days of Abiathar the high priest". Permit me rephrase.

He said "in the days of Abiathar who was a highpriest". He was simply describing the Abiathar in question based on his office but not the time he occupied the office.

"in the days" simply meant the following

1) Was Abiathar a high priest in his days? Yes he became one in his days and a very popular one too.

2. Did David eat the shewbread in the days of Abiathar? Yes he did when Abiathar was first a priest before he became a high priest.

In the days meant a time frame or a time bracket within which Abiathar became a highpriest. After all it was almost immediately after David ate the shewbread that abiathars father got killed by Saul and he (Abiathar) became the new highpriest.

You assume I am vaccilating while all I am doing is pointing out to you your error. The comment of Jesus was rooted in fact because he said IN THE DAYS OF ABIATHAR and stopped there. He never added WHEN to his comment.

It's like living in a time when a few other people bear a name like Timothy but out of all the timothies in that time one was popular for being a plumber and you wish to talk about something that happened in that time that somehow touched on Timothy and you say "in the days of Timothy THE PLUMBER " or "in the days of Timothy THE ONE WHO WAS A PLUMBER" for sake of memory.

This was exactly what Jesus did. He said "in the days of Abiathar the highpriest (the one who was a highpriest) and not that David ate the shewbread when Abiathar was the highpriest. He was simply giving a time frame. Simple.

As I said earlier, great syllogism, this is an awful lot of supposition, vacillation, assumptions, harmonisation and balances of probabilities. If Jesus had said “in the days of Ahimelech the High Priest…” instead of Abiathar, we would not be having this conversation, no-one would query that Ahimelech was in fact in-situ in office as the High Priest and therein lies the problem.

Personally I believe it was an honest error by the author of the Gospel of Mark.

I do not agree with you but thanks for at least addressing the issue.

MuttleyLaff:
I was just actually about going to agreewith you that, it isn't necessary opening this thread
but then I took a peek up and immediately saw hopefulLandlord quoting you and couldn't help not noticing in the quote, you parroting that "a snake talked to Adam and Eve"
Get a grip mayne, it wasn't for crying out loud, a snake talking to Adam and Eve nau.
At least, get the fact right

About Muhammed flying on a winged horse.
Wait, let me laugh a bit, before continuing. Bwahahaha!
Trust Muhammed to do a mimic of the chariot of fire appearing, drawn by horses of fire scene and how Elijah got carried by a whirlwind into heaven

For almost everything in the bible, there is a caricature of it in this other famous book

Thanks for joining your voice with mine that it's needless pinning my moniker to the thread. Infact others have gone ahead of me to make contributions

You right. It's the woman the serpent spoke to. Let me modify accordingly.

Shey you see how ridiculous the Muhammad story sounds to you? Religion is a smorgasbord, we just choose the one we were either born into, or which prevails in our region or which fits our personal views.

Sarassin:


As I said earlier, great syllogism, this is an awful lot of supposition, vacillation, assumptions, harmonisation and balances of probabilities. If Jesus had said “in the days of Ahimelech the High Priest…” instead of Abiathar, we would not be having this conversation, no-one would query that Ahimelech was in fact in-situ in office as the High Priest and therein lies the problem.

Personally I believe it was an honest error by the author of the Gospel of Mark.

I do not agree with you but thanks for at least addressing the issue.

You do not have to agree. But the facts stand out that Jesus NEVER said in the days of Abiathar WHEN he was the highpriest. He was simply describing him based on his office later especially since he was trying to pass a memorable message across and had to use a memorable character AROUND THAT TIME who was well known to the Pharisees (who were also priests) who were the custodians of the law.

Ahimelech could not be used as a reference due to his unpopular nature.

In the days was simply a time frame as I have repeatedly said.