Mark 2 and 1 Samuel 21

[Guest]

mark 2
23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.

24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?

25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

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?

27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

I samuel 21

21:1 Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why [art] thou alone, and no man with thee?

21:2 And David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me, Let no man know any thing of the business whereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee: and I have appointed [my] servants to such and such a place.

21:3 Now therefore what is under thine hand? give [me] five [loaves of] bread in mine hand, or what there is present.

21:4 And the priest answered David, and said, [There is] no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women.

21:5 And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women [have been] kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and [the bread is] in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel.

21:6 So the priest gave him hallowed [bread]: for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away


problems
---------------------------------------------

1 - the high preist was not Abiathar, but it was his father Ahimelek

2 - David was alone when he came to the preist, the gospels and jesus say he was accompanied by men

either the gospel writer made a terrible error or jesus doesnt know Tnach history.

 

[BJGrolle]

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible says this:

Mar 2:26 -
The days of Abiathar the high priest - It appears from 1Sa_21:1, which is the place referred to here, that Ahimelech was then high priest at Nob: and from 1Sa_22:20; 1Sa_23:6, and 1Ch_18:16, it appears that Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech. The Persic reads Abimelech instead of Abiathar. Theophylact supposes that Abiathar was the priest, and Ahimelech or Abimelech the high priest, and thus endeavors to reconcile both the sacred historians. Others reconcile the accounts thus: Ahimelech was called Ahimelech Abiathar, אב ab, father, understood; and Abiathar was called Abiathar Ahimelech, בן ben, son, understood. Probably they both officiated in the high priesthood; and the name of the office was indifferently applied to either.

John Gill's Exposition says this:

In the days or Abiathar the high priest: and yet from the history it is clear, that it was in the days of Ahimelech the high priest, the father of Abiathar; wherefore the Jew charges (k) Mark with an error, and Matthew and Luke too: whereas the two last make no mention of the name of any high priest; and it might be observed, that in the Persic version of Mark it is rendered, "under Abimelech the high priest"; and in an ancient copy of Beza's, the whole clause is omitted; though it must be owned, that so it is read in other Greek copies, and in the ancient versions, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and others: wherefore let it be further observed, that the fact referred to was done in the days of Abiathar, though it was before he was an high priest; and the particle επι may be so rendered, about, or "before Abiathar was high priest", as it is in Mat_1:11. Besides, Abiathar was the son of an high priest, and succeeded his father in the office: and might be at this time his deputy, who acted for him, or he by has advice; and according to a rule the Jews (l) themselves give,

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

So that Abiathar might at this time be called the high priest; and is the rather mentioned, because he was the more eminent and famous man; and whom the Jews call (m) Urim and Thummim, because there was much inquiry made by them; in his and his father's days, and very little after: to which may be added, that the names of the father and the son are sometimes changed; Ahimelech is called Abiathar, and this Abiathar is called Ahimelech, the son of Abiathar, 2Sa_8:17, and Abimelech the son of Abiathar, 1Ch_18:16. And it seems as if both father and son had two names, and were sometimes called by the one, and sometimes by the other: for as the father is sometimes called Abiathar, the son is called Ahimelech, or Abimelech, as in the places mentioned; and which refer to the times when David was king of Israel, and long after the death of Saul, and consequently long after Ahimelech, and the rest of the priests at Nob, were killed by the order of Saul: wherefore Ahimelech, or Abimelech, in the said places, must be the son of Abiathar; and who afterwards was thrust out of the priesthood by Solomon, for joining with Adonijah in his usurpation, 1Ki_1:25. And from whence it appears, that his father was called Abiathar also, and which some take to be their family name; and if so, then there is no difficulty, and the evangelist rightly says, that this affair was in the days of Abiathar: but be it that he intends the son, what has been before observed is a sufficient solution of this difficulty; for the evangelist does not say that Abiathar was high priest, when David came and eat the showbread; he only says, "it was in the days of Abiathar the high priest": for certain it is, that this happened in his days; and as certain, that he was an high priest; and Mark might with great propriety call him so, though he was not strictly one, till after this business was over: besides, he was not only the son of an high priest, and it may be his deputy, and some have thought officiated at this time, his father being sick or infirm through old age; but inasmuch as his father was directly killed by the order of Saul, he narrowly escaping, immediately succeeded him in the office of the high priesthood; and therefore his being an high priest so very near the time of this action, without any impropriety and impertinence, and especially without incurring the charge of falsehood, the evangelist might express himself as he does.

 

[Solo]

mark 2
23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.

24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?

25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

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?

27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

I samuel 21

21:1 Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why [art] thou alone, and no man with thee?

21:2 And David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me, Let no man know any thing of the business whereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee: and I have appointed [my] servants to such and such a place.

21:3 Now therefore what is under thine hand? give [me] five [loaves of] bread in mine hand, or what there is present.

21:4 And the priest answered David, and said, [There is] no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women.

21:5 And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women [have been] kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and [the bread is] in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel.

21:6 So the priest gave him hallowed [bread]: for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away


problems
---------------------------------------------

1 - the high preist was not Abiathar, but it was his father Ahimelek

2 - David was alone when he came to the preist, the gospels and jesus say he was accompanied by men

either the gospel writer made a terrible error or jesus doesnt know Tnach history.

Or your investigation into the truth is flawed. David was not alone as is shown in the scriptures of Mark and of 1 Samuel. Here is the verses that you quoted that show that others were with David to eat five loaves of bread and they had not been with women.

21:3 Now therefore what is under thine hand? give [me] five [loaves of] bread in mine hand, or what there is present.
21:4 And the priest answered David, and said, [There is] no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women.
21:5 And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women [have been] kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and [the bread is] in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel.

Jesus, God does not lie, so I suspect that the understanding of skeptics are false.

In the days or Abiathar the high priest:
and yet from the history it is clear, that it was in the days of Ahimelech the high priest, the father of Abiathar; wherefore the Jew charges Mark with an error, and Matthew and Luke too: whereas the two last make no mention of the name of any high priest; and it might be observed, that in the Persic version of Mark it is rendered, "under Abimelech the high priest"; and in an ancient copy of Beza's, the whole clause is omitted; though it must be owned, that so it is read in other Greek copies, and in the ancient versions, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and others: wherefore let it be further observed, that the fact referred to was done in the days of Abiathar, though it was before he was an high priest; and the particle (epi) may be so rendered, about, or "before Abiathar was high priest", as it is in (Matthew 1:11) . Besides, Abiathar was the son of an high priest, and succeeded his father in the office: and might be at this time his deputy, who acted for him, or he by has advice; and according to a rule the Jews themselves give,

``the son of an high priest, who is deputed by his father in his stead, (rwma lwdg Nhk yrh) , "lo! he is called an high priest".''

So that Abiathar might at this time be called the high priest; and is the rather mentioned, because he was the more eminent and famous man; and whom the Jews call Urim and Thummim, because there was much inquiry made by them; in his and his father's days, and very little after: to which may be added, that the names of the father and the son are sometimes changed; Ahimelech is called Abiathar, and this Abiathar is called Ahimelech, the son of Abiathar, (2 Samuel 8:17) , and Abimelech the son of Abiathar, (1 Chronicles 18:16) . And it seems as if both father and son had two names, and were sometimes called by the one, and sometimes by the other: for as the father is sometimes called Abiathar, the son is called Ahimelech, or Abimelech, as in the places mentioned; and which refer to the times when David was king of Israel, and long after the death of Saul, and consequently long after Ahimelech, and the rest of the priests at Nob, were killed by the order of Saul: wherefore Ahimelech, or Abimelech, in the said places, must be the son of Abiathar; and who afterwards was thrust out of the priesthood by Solomon, for joining with Adonijah in his usurpation, (1 Kings 1:25) (1 Kings 2:26) . And from whence it appears, that his father was called Abiathar also, and which some take to be their family name; and if so, then there is no difficulty, and the evangelist rightly says, that this affair was in the days of Abiathar: but be it that he intends the son, what has been before observed is a sufficient solution of this difficulty; for the evangelist does not say that Abiathar was high priest, when David came and eat the showbread; he only says, "it was in the days of Abiathar the high priest": for certain it is, that this happened in his days; and as certain, that he was an high priest; and Mark might with great propriety call him so, though he was not strictly one, till after this business was over: besides, he was not only the son of an high priest, and it may be his deputy, and some have thought officiated at this time, his father being sick or infirm through old age; but inasmuch as his father was directly killed by the order of Saul, he narrowly escaping, immediately succeeded him in the office of the high priesthood; and therefore his being an high priest so very near the time of this action, without any impropriety and impertinence, and especially without incurring the charge of falsehood, the evangelist might express himself as he does.

From John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

 

[Guest]

Show me proof that is a normal practice from a source outside a christian writer and I will accept the reason. No christian websites or writers.

That sounds like the lamiest excuse I have ever heard, but if you can show me that the father and sons names were interchangeable then I have no choice to believe it. I dont recall calling Abraham Isaac and Isaac Abraham.

 

[Solo]

Show me proof that is a normal practice from a source outside a christian writer and I will accept the reason. No christian websites or writers.

That sounds like the lamiest excuse I have ever heard, but if you can show me that the father and sons names were interchangeable then I have no choice to believe it. I dont recall calling Abraham Isaac and Isaac Abraham.

This is a Christian forum and your desire to read from non-Christian sources is not going to be met here. I suggest that you take your unbelief elsewhere, as it is against the rules of this forum.

 

[Guest]

I figured you couldnt find the answer

 

[BJGrolle]

Why would a non-Christian source be more credible? It seems to me that a non-Christian source would be less credible.

Joh 20:25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" Thomas said to them, "Unless I see the scars of the nails in his hands and put my finger on those scars and my hand in his side, I will not believe."
Joh 20:26 A week later the disciples were together again indoors, and Thomas was with them. The doors were locked, but Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you."
Joh 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and look at my hands; then reach out your hand and put it in my side. Stop your doubting, and believe!"
Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"
Joh 20:29 Jesus said to him, "Do you believe because you see me? How happy are those who believe without seeing me!"
Joh 20:30 In his disciples' presence Jesus performed many other miracles which are not written down in this book.
Joh 20:31 But these have been written in order that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through your faith in him you may have life. (GNB)

I don't particularly like the word "happy" in verse 29, so here is the KJV for you:

Joh 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

 

[Guest]

a unbiased side, christian is baised and other religions are bias. I want just the facts , that's the only way to see what the truth is.

 

[BJGrolle]

:o

You come to a Christian forum and expect an unbiased viewpoint?

I guess I don't understand that any more than you understand the verses I just posted. :smt102