Jesus not perfect and here's why.
The Bible is a inspired book of god and like and elder told me when I was young , there's no contradictions in the Bible and all the prophecies have come true except the two or three that are supposed to come true in the future. So with that said the messiah Jesus Christ himself must not be perfect and here's why.
In Mark chapter 2 Jesus is telling his followers that it's ok to pick wheat on the sabbath and mentions the story about David eating bread that was in the holy place ment only for the priests to use. He mentions the high priests name as Abiathar.
Well if you go to 1 Samuel chapter 21 you'll see that the high priest name was Ahimelech.
So I guess Jesus was imperfect not the true messiah after all and now we know why the Jews are still waiting.
Or was it the mortal story tellers that were imperfect in this case ???
Ahimelech was the father of Abiatha also a priest why the confusion in Mark's account?
Maybe Mark misquoted since he was the one telling the story of a story of a story? (As Finkie said)
Maybe sons and father's names were interchangable back in the day?
Maybe father and son priest combo served together?
Maybe the name of the high priest wasn't the point of the allegorical story and not to be nit-picky about the sabbath was the point of the story? Keyword being story.
The narrative at Mark 2:23-38 may be a polemic interpolation.
What Jehovah's Witnesses do not like to admit is that the Gospel preached by the original Christian community was totally presented by word of mouth. The written accounts, which came much later, each presented the Gospel with a slant designed for a particular audience and set of circumstances.
Mark wrote his gospel account at the time near the fall of the Second Temple (70 C.E.). Not only was there tension between the Jews and the Roman government, there was quite a bit of tension between Jews and Christians too, especially with the Church starting to become more of a Gentile-rich religion and less a Jewish sect.
Controversies in the written Gospels often have anachronisms which make them easy to spot as not belonging to the original oral traditions about Jesus. They seem to use the original oracles (sayings) of Jesus, but they transport them into new situation to give them a relatively "modern" import, modern to the time of the written compositions that is.
Take for instance this story of plucking grain on the Sabbath from Mark 2. The Pharisees are pictured as petty, nitpicking opposers to Jesus (as usual), but it is out of character for what is really a legal challenge (i.e., a concern over right behavior regarding Torah/Sabbath observance). Why would a valid concern, especially one important even to Christian Jews (see Acts 21:20 and compare to Matthew 5:17-19), be coming from the mouths of mean-spirited, hypocritical religious teachers?
The Pharisees here are a caricature, not the real thing. If what was describe really happened on the Sabbath, Pharisees would not be out in the fields to just stand around and make sure people were not working in them. Jesus' own citation of the David/bread-of-Presence story sets a precedence that was already well-taught in Judaism (even in Jesus' day) that human need can indeed negate the observance of any Sabbath requirement. Why would Jesus be teaching something that actually comes from the Pharisees (and using it as an argument against them)?
The conflict appears to be a narrative device to define the position the Christians were taking to the Jews during the Great Revolt. Whether or not the Flight to Pella actually occurred as Eusebius reported it, it is clear that the Gentile Christians were not going to side with Judean Zealots even if the Jewish Christians felt a need to. Whatever was happening within Jewish Christianity at the time, the need for lines to be drawn by leaders was definitely a need that could be served well by a written account of Jesus.
The conversation in the narrative in Mark 2 seems to be quite unconcerned with the details of what is being discussed. Because of the problems in the writing, as Crazyguy points out, some scholars have suggested that Marcan authorship connected with Peter is not possible. Why would a Jew confuse Ahimelech for Abiathar, not to mention the odd situation of the Pharisees being out in a field on Shabbat (which would give the impression that they were working, thus breaking the Sabbath, something that would obviously not occur in the slightest).
Yet, there is just enough of an argument to make for a true Marcan authorship possibility, or at least for Jewish Christian influence. The lack of precise details is also a Jewish narrative device, often used to get the reader to look beyond the report as historical to consider a moral lesson. If this is the case, it would make sense that the conversation is not the teaching material here.
Jesus makes the statement in Mark 2:25, "have you never read...?" but the details of the story Jesus is referring to are then given incorrectly. Mark writes that David "and his companions" were hungry and in need of food and that David "entered the house of God" when "Abiathar was high priest."
Not only was Abiathar not the high priest in the account being mentioned (1 Samuel 21:1-6), David acts alone, does not act out of hunger, and never enters the "house of God" to eat the holy bread. The idea that the author would get all this wrong after specifically having Jesus asked if the account had ever been read makes this very odd writing.
That Jesus likely taught such a thing about the Sabbath is true, as this was a common teaching in Judaism at the time and remains one today. It is actually the basic rule one learns as to how to properly observe Shabbat, as one must always refrain from doing anything for the sake of Sabbath observance when there is true, dire human need at stake.
Therefore the story must have placed Jesus' teaching in a tableau to illustrate the growing dislike Christians were developing for Jews in general. Teaching Christians how to view the Jews was a new lesson of the Church, one that did not come from the original oral teaching of the Gospel which originated with the Jewish Christians. With the Great Revolt in the air (or the dust from the Temple's fall still in the air if Mark was written after the Temple fell), it is likely that this and other "conflicts" between Jesus and "the Jews" were colored by political differences, not theological.
Post script: another indicator that this is not about the conversation is that this narrative is discussing Sabbath observance. Only Jewish Christian observed the Sabbath. The day after the Sabbath was the meeting day for Christianity. Gentile Christians did not observe the Sabbath.--Compare Acts 21:20 with Colossians 2:6 and Romans 14:4-6.
When the sun set on Saturday, Jewish Christians were free to assemble for worship with Gentile Christians. Sabbath observance made it impossible to do this sooner. This may explain why Paul's discourse at a Christian meeting ran into the late hours of the night and led to Eutychus falling out of a window. The Christian service began as soon as Jews were able to join, on "the first day of the week" which began after the Sabbath ended on Saturday evening. (Acts 20:7) Thus the need for many lamps since it was Saturday night. (Acts 20:8) The details in verses 9-12 fit perfectly in starting "Sunday services" at night, as soon as "the first day of the week" began according to Jewish standards.
That the subject of Sabbath observance would be necessary by the time the Gospel was written down is highly unlikely. So the point of the narrative in Mark 2 is likely not about Sabbath observance but about where to align oneself as a Jewish Christian.
Its obvious that the author screwed up but let's not forget what we were taught that the Bible is gods infallible word.
There's a much simpler explanation of why Jesus wasn't "perfect"...
...there's no such thing.
The narrative at Mark 2:23-38 may be a polemic interpolation.
Perhaps you meant 23-28.
The best example of this was in the cited text on Mark 2:28 --- KJV Mark 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath. NAS Mark 2:28 "Consequently, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."
Who was Jesus speaking to? The Pharisees. The people who knew the law, but used it to benefit themselves, by refusing to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, therefore NOT accepting the abolishment of certain commandments, thus not willing to relinquish their authority to a higher authority which was Jesus. It doesn’t take a Ph.D. to use common sense in biblical matters.
So, the fallacy is within one’s interpretation of scripture, NOT scripture itself. JW’s have no problem understanding the significance of the Sabbath. However, Christendom as a whole does, as they revere the Sabbath alongside the Jews. The best example of that was and is the “BLUE LAW” the Sunday law enacted in the USA by the Puritans as early as 1677 and ironically still in use today by unwittingly people.
*** w09 6/1 pp. 22-23 Does God Change His Mind? ***
Why Was Sabbath-Keeping Temporary?
God instituted the observance of a weekly Sabbath after he delivered the Israelites from Egypt. He later made it part of their national Law. (Exodus 16:22-30; 20:8-10) The apostle Paul explained that Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice and “abolished... the Law of commandments consisting in decrees” and “blotted out the handwritten document.” (Ephesians 2:15; Colossians 2:14) What was “abolished” and “blotted out” included the Sabbath law, for the Bible goes on to say: “Therefore let no man judge you in eating and drinking or in respect of a festival or of an observance of the new moon or of a Sabbath.” (Colossians 2:16) Why did God give the Law, including the Sabbath, in the first place?
The apostle Paul wrote: “The Law has become our tutor leading to Christ.” Then he added: “Now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor.” (Galatians 3:24, 25) Rather than changing his mind, God used the Sabbath as a temporary arrangement to teach people that they should regularly take time to meditate on spiritual matters. Although the Sabbath law was temporary, it pointed forward to the time when mankind would find lasting rest from physical and spiritual afflictions. —Hebrews 4:10; Revelation 21:1-4.
The thing that amazes me about this account is that it is clear that Jesus would priorities life over observing a law meant to demonstrate the sacredness of something.
How JWs do not see that this applies to blood? If the life of someone is at stake, the answer should be exactly what Jesus said: "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need?".
If that answer was enough for Jesus, why not for Watchtower?
Thanks for making the minor correction on the numbering of verses. I was writing on a tablet that oddly doesn't believe I intend to use the numbers or words I am typing, changing them all the time for something different. It's like a wrestling match. I am off it at the moment and back on a solid computer with a real keyboard (they still make those, thankfully).
Bar Enosha: Messianic?
The expression "son of man" as used by Jesus is actually a play on words in Jewish idiom, and it doesn’t mean “Messiah” to Jewish ears. At Mark 2:28 the Greek term is HUIOS TOU ANTHROPOU. I am sure you know that Jesus was not speaking Koine Greek here. Mark merely wrote in his account in Greek, but all the conversations were likely in Aramaic and perhaps some of them were in Hebrew (maybe even Latin, if you count the conversations with the Romans).The expression in Aramaic is BAR ENOSHA and in Hebrew it is BEN-ADAM. The expression literally translates as "son of man" in formal equivalent English, but translations like the Common English Bible use the phrase “the Human One” here at Mark 2:28. Why?
While it comes from the literal expression meaning “offspring of,” the phrase "son of" in Jewish idiom has a very peculiar meaning which unfortunately English does not share. In Jewish expression, a "son of" something or someone has either the qualities of or is of the same substance as their "father." Since it appears you favor Watchtower theology, let’s use Christian texts to show you what I mean (though the Hebrew Bible is filled with these examples too).
At Mark 3:17 both James and John are called “sons of thunder.” At Luke 10:6 Jesus tells his followers that the peace they bring will surely rest on finding a “son of peace.” At John 17:12 Judas Iscariot is referred to by Jesus as the “son of destruction” or “perdition.” Thunder, peace, and destruction cannot have sons, so what do these expressions mean?
The New World Translation (2013) renders Luke 10:6: “If a friend of peace is there, your peace will rest upon him.” The previous edition (1984) has a footnote on the word “friend,” saying that the word in the Greek is literally “son.” A “son of peace” is a “friend of peace.” Other translations render “son of peace” as “anyone...who shares in peace” (NRSV) or “a peaceful person” (ISV) or even just someone who is “peaceful.” (NLT)
Along the same lines, “sons of thunder” means “boisterous.” James and John were “boisterous” men, or even “all bark, no bite” as a possibility. Judas Iscariot was not an offspring of “destruction,” but he ended up being destroyed by his own actions. As the “son of destruction” he was “one doomed to destruction” (NIV) or he was the “one person, [who] became lost.”--GWT.
Now about Mark 2:28 you wrote:
Who was Jesus speaking to? The Pharisees. The people who knew the law, but used it to benefit themselves, by refusing to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, therefore NOT accepting the abolishment of certain commandments, thus not willing to relinquish their authority to a higher authority which was Jesus.
But did the Pharisees understand Jesus calling himself the Messiah by the use of the expression “Son of Man” and thus someone who has the ability to ‘abolish certain commandments,’ as you claim? The answer is “no.”
The phrase “son of man” simply means “human being” in Jewish speech (oddly the Greek expression means the same thing, “human”). Because it simply means “human” (more literally, “son of Adam”) the term also means “me, myself.”
Explains the Jewish Encyclopedia: “Among Jews the term ‘son of man’ was not used as the specific title of the Messiah….As such [it] could have been understood only as the substitute for a personal pronoun, or as emphasizing the human qualities of those to whom it is applied. That the term does not appear in any of the epistles ascribed to Paul is significant….Most [Christian scholars and theologians] have come to the conclusion that Jesus, speaking Aramaic, could never have designated himself as the ‘son of man’ in a Messianic, mystic sense, because the Aramaic term never implied this meaning.”
Jesus was either saying: “So a man is lord even of the Sabbath.” Or: “I’m the master over the Sabbath.” The expression means that the Sabbath doesn’t control people and tell people what to do, but people can exercise their own conscience on how to properly observe the Sabbath. The needs of humans come first, and this is a Jewish tenet that existed then and now as I mentioned above.
Was Sabbath Keeping Abolished by Jesus?
The Watchtower comments you posted were quite incorrect on answering these questions, and you can help me prove it by answering these questions.
Why did Peter tell God he was still obeying kosher laws and had never broken them during the vision at Acts 10:12-14? Was Peter lying? Didn’t Jesus abolish kosher laws too along with the Sabbath? If so, why did Peter tell God he still ate kosher? Around 50 CE Paul writes that Peter was still eating kosher and it was an issue of contention at Galatians 2:11-13. Wouldn’t Peter have already understood that the Mosaic Law was abolished?
At Acts 21:20-26 we read that Jewish Christians still observed the Law, and that Paul himself performed a Nazarite ritual to show that he still saw himself under it.
If Sabbath keeping was abolished by Jesus, why were Jewish Christians still observing the Law in Acts? Why was Peter telling God he only ate kosher and Paul arguing with Peter about this some 20 years after Jesus’ death?
At Romans 14:4-6, Paul tells the Romans not to judge those who observe certain days as more important than others. If this is so, why would keeping the Sabbath be wrong?
Also Paul’s letters to the Ephesians, the Colossians, and the Galatians where he tells these Christians they are not to observe the Law, that they are not under it--were the Ephesians, the Colossians, and the Galatians ever under the Law? Wasn’t the Law given only to the House of Israel? How could God release the Gentiles from the Law if they were never obliged to keep it?
I would like to see you provide answers for all these questions.
And I would prefer you to not paste and copy from the Watchtower or any JW publication. Why not? The Watchtower Study edition of February 2017 states: “The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction.” (“Who Is Leading God’s People Today?” paragraph 12). I would rather not hear an explanation that comes from a group whose leaders “can err in doctrinal matters.”