butterflyl1on:


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.

OkCornel:


Exactly, He could have also said in the times of Abiathar the High Priest just to clarify which Abiathar He was referring to...

Who knows, there could also have been Abiathar the General or Abiathar the sorcerer...

butterflyl1on:


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.

OkCornel:


Exactly, He could have also said in the times of Abiathar the High Priest just to clarify which Abiathar He was referring to...

Who knows, there could also have been Abiathar the General or Abiathar the sorcerer...

Sarassin:


I agree, the facts stand out. Jesus quoted "in the days of Abiathar the High Priest ..." a clear and simple statement. That statement read on its own does not give the inference that it is a referral to Ahimelech the father. No one who is unaware of the related scripture in the Book of Samuel can draw such a conclusion. Look at the contortions even you have had to go through to arrive at your position. It is a clear error.

Sarassin:

And how many Abiathar's who were High Priests at the time of King David, in whose temple David ate Holy bread do you suppose existed or were recorded?

butterflyl1on:


Read his comment again. He never said there were other abiathars who were highpriests. I already gave this example in one of my comments when I made reference to a plumber.

He said, there could have been others bearing the name Abiathar in that time so he needed to make the clear distinction and I added to that by saying he said it also for sake of import due to the popularity of Abiathar.

Sarassin:


And I replied that there was no need for any distinctions as you claim. Jesus had already set the context, the event took place in the House of God with King David whilst Abiathar was High Priest.

butterflyl1on:


I did not go through any contortions. ...

In the days of Samuel they knew of Ahimelech because it was his time but fast forward to the days of Christ, the unpopular nature of ahimelech in that time did not make him a good point of reference when Jesus wanted to talk about the Sabbath.

He was dealing with priests when he made this comment and he had to use a notable figure to assert his claim so he used Abiathar who was a highpriest Within the time frame of this occurrence .

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 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.[/b]They'd call them myths and legends and rightly so for that is what they are. For example [b]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.

Sarassin:


Ok, fine. Since you say that due to the unpopular nature of Ahimelech it would have made a bad reference, and that Jesus had to use a notable figure? Using the statement of Jesus in the Book of Mark show us how you have arrived at that conclusion. Demonstrate how you arrived at the conclusion that Jesus felt the need to use a "notable figure"

butterflyl1on:


Not while he was highpriest. Within the period he became highpriest. You cannot win this one so stop trying to twist the scripture. I asked you to explain in your own words the phrase "in the days".

I am still waiting.

Sarassin:


There is nothing to "win" here and there is nothing to explain. Jesus' words are quite clear and there's no need to split was a homogeneous statement by Jesus just for the sake of apologetics. If you believe that Jesus' statement in the Book of Mark was truly referring to Ahimelech then fine, I respect your position and I leave it at that.

Afobear:
yes I can ...because they are all bullshits

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

Emmanystone:

You gave me the go ahead to open this thread so that you can present the contradictions, absurdities, historical untruths and lies in my Bible, so far you have failed woefully, as you have shifted grounds in bringing in Hellenism and Islam into the discussion.

The purpose of this thread is not about me believing or disbelieving what the Hellenist and Muslims believe.

Pls present your Historical untruths of the Bible, lets begin with that.

And, pls post scriptures alongside. Thank you

butterflyl1on:


There is no split. I am still waiting for you to explain in your own words the phrase "in the days".

Sarassin do not disappoint me by acting as if you have not seen me ask this twice before.

Sarassin:


Asked and answered severally. It is blinding obvious in the context of the verse in Mark, that Jesus is referring to events that took place during the “days” being the period of Abiathar’s tenure as High Priest. There can be no other interpretation.

Mujtahida:

Hahahaha hahahaha@failed woefully. Those are just preliminary observations. Just remove my moniker from the thread title. I didn't give you permission to use my moniker to open the thread. You could have opened it and simply mentioned me.

If you think I'm one to chicken out of a challenge of this nature you don't have no clue

butterflyl1on:
Not while he was highpriest. Within the period he became highpriest.
You cannot win this one
so stop trying to twist the scripture.
I asked you to explain in your own words the phrase "in the days".

I am still waiting.

Sarassin:
There is nothing to "win" here
and there is nothing to explain.
Jesus' words are quite clear and there's no need to split a homogeneous statement by Jesus just for the sake of apologetics.
If you believe that Jesus' statement in the Book of Mark was truly referring to Ahimelech then fine, I respect your position and I leave it at that.

Emmanystone:

Yes, your moniker will be there. I threw you a wager and you caught it. So, it was suppose to actually be between both of us only, but i decided to invite others.

Pls present your points with Bible passages

Mujtahida:

You threw me a wager and I accepted it does not mean you'd use my moniker to open the thread. I find that disrespectful and offensive. I have politely asked you to remove it cos when I accepted the challenge I didn't accept that my moniker would be used as the title of the thread. That was never stated by you as part of the bargain.
Since you want to look for a cheap means of saying ohhh he's run away, then I'd simply abandon your thread and open another one where I'd post all the contradictions and lies since you cannot out of respect oblige my simple request.

But for the record I'm not chickening out. Naaa. I'd open the thread and post the link here on this thread so that everyone can know I stood by the challenge.

Mujtahida:
You threw me a wager and I accepted it does not mean you'd use my moniker to open the thread. I find that disrespectful and offensive. I have politely asked you to remove it cos when I accepted the challenge I didn't accept that my moniker would be used as the title of the thread. That was never stated by you as part of the bargain.
Since you want to look for a cheap means of saying ohhh he's run away, then I'd simply abandon your thread and open another one where I'd post all the contradictions and lies since you cannot out of respect oblige my simple request.

But for the record I'm not chickening out. Naaa. I'd open the thread and post the link here on this thread so that everyone can know I stood by the challenge.

Emmanystone:

Yes, your moniker will be there. I threw you a wager and you caught it. So, it was suppose to actually be between both of us only, but i decided to invite others.

Pls present your points with Bible passages

MuttleyLaff:
C'mon mayne, all this whining over a ten a penny ID?
Disrespectful? Offensive? Pftt
Pull the other leg

butterflyl1on:


This is not what I asked for.

I said explain the phrase "in the days"

I did not say make reference to the scriptures. Simply find expression to it.

Pls give me the go ahead to open a thread for the contradictions, lies, absurdities, and historical untruths in the Bible. And, promise to stay through while we trash these issues out.

You present them, i treat them.

I'm waiting to hear you say 'Go ahead

Sarassin:


The phrase "in the days" means exactly that, 'within the days howsoever stipulated'. You see context is required.

Mujtahida:

By fiat? Even when I ask in the most polite terms that you take off my moniker you insist it must be there? OK.

I will open a thread and post the contradictions and lies there. My moniker on this thread is a trophy for you. Carry am go chop eba.

Cos all you needed to do was to open thread and make an introductory remark, mention me and i'd show up.

Mujtahida:

Not whining. Not at all. I don't like it that my moniker is on the thread. That was not the bargain at all. My moniker on the thread has nothing to do with showing the contradictions and the lies in the bible.
I am not one to run from an intellectual debate. Argument na my work. I mean it even professionally. So forget about whining.

Let him remove my moniker and let's get down to business.
And do quit the condescension in your tone @the bolded. Respect is my first and last touchstone for any sort of engagement.

Mujtahida:
This is what I agreed to. Nowhere did you say you open a thread with my moniker on it. You didn't say 'give me the go ahead to open the thread with moniker.' So stand by what I agreed to. Open the thread without my moniker and we are good.

Cc Emmanystone

butterflyl1on:
She decided to do one better. She decided not to mention just you but to also include others. We are not complaining, so why the fuss over a disposable ID?