What Was Jesus Dreaming Of When He Was So Rudely Roused From His Sleep?

[eyeshaveit]

"On that day, when evening had come, Jesus said to them, ?Let us go across to the other side.? And leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. And other boats were with him. And a great windstorm arose, and the waves were breaking into the boat, so that the boat was already filling. But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion. And they woke him and said to him, ?Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?? And he awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, ?Peace! Be still!? And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. He said to them, ?Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?? And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, ?Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him??? - Mark 4.

[Kusa]

He wasn?t dreaming anything because he wasn?t actually sleeping.

[GratefulApe]

"On that day, when evening had come, Jesus said to them, ?Let us go across to the other side.? And leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. And other boats were with him. And a great windstorm arose, and the waves were breaking into the boat, so that the boat was already filling. But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion. And they woke him and said to him, ?Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?? And he awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, ?Peace! Be still!? And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. He said to them, ?Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?? And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, ?Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him??? - Mark 4.

Does the Bible tell us the answer to that?

[eyeshaveit]

Does the Bible tell us the answer to that [the OP]?

To the best of my knowledge, 'No'.

[eyeshaveit]

"Early the next morning Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize who he was. Jesus shouted, ?Friends, have you caught anything?? ?No!? they answered.
So he told them, ?Let your net down on the right side of your boat, and you will catch some fish.? They did, and the net was so full of fish that they could not drag it up into the boat.
Jesus' favorite disciple told Peter, ?It?s the Lord!? When Simon heard that it was the Lord, he put on the clothes that he had taken off while he was working. Then he jumped into the water. The boat was only about a hundred yards from shore. So the other disciples stayed in the boat and dragged in the net full of fish.
When the disciples got out of the boat, they saw some bread and a charcoal fire with fish on it. Jesus told his disciples, ?Bring some of the fish you just caught.? Simon Peter got back into the boat and dragged the net to shore. In it were one hundred fifty-three large fish, but still the net did not rip." - John 21.


Who counted the fish?

[GratefulApe]

I haven?t a clue but I?m going to guess that it might have had something to do with being clothed correctly. The Mosaic Law.

[eyeshaveit]

"Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two. And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, ?Father, ?into Your hands I commit My spirit.?? Having said this, He breathed His last. - Luke 23.

Was Jesus killed on the Jewish Passover or the day before?

[GratefulApe]

"Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two. And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, ?Father, ?into Your hands I commit My spirit.?? Having said this, He breathed His last. - Luke 23.

Was Jesus killed on the Jewish Passover or the day before?

Passover.

1 Corinthians 5:7 (NASB)

7 Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.

[eyeshaveit]

?And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. Pray then like this: ?Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name...." - Matthew 6.

Why do Christians speak of God as their Father?

[GratefulApe]

?And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. Pray then like this: ?Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name...." - Matthew 6.

Why do Christians speak of God as their Father?

John 1  (NASB)

12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Italics mine

[kevin]

"Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two. And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, ?Father, ?into Your hands I commit My spirit.?? Having said this, He breathed His last. - Luke 23.

Was Jesus killed on the Jewish Passover or the day before?

This discrepancy was debated by the early church fathers almost two thousand years ago. In Mark, Jesus is crucified the day after Passover. The Last Supper is the Passover supper: Mark 14:14-15: ??...Where is the guest room for me where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?? And he will show you a large upper room...? And in Mark 14:16, "...And his disciples went forth...and they made ready the Passover." He is crucified the day after Passover, at 9 am, Mark 15:25, ?It was now the third hour, and they impaled him.?

In John, however, Jesus is crucified on the same day as Passover, hours before the Passover supper that he never eats. And he is also not crucified until after 12 pm, rather than at 9 am. The Last Supper is merely the unnamed meal the night before: John 13:2: ?So, while the evening meal was going on...? and John 13:4, ?...got up from the evening meal and laid aside his outer garments...? He is crucified the next day at 12 pm. That the day of the crucifixion is the same day as the Passover is indicated in John 19:14-16: ?Now it was preparation of the Passover; it was about the sixth hour [12 pm]. And he [Pilate] said to the Jews, ?See! Your king!?...At that time, therefore, he handed them over to them to be impaled.? Similarly, in John 19:31, ?Then the Jews, since it was Preparation, in order that the bodies might not remain on the torture stakes on the Sabbath (for the day of that Sabbath was a great one) requested Pilate to have their legs broken and the [bodies] taken away.? Preparation refers to the ceremonial cleaning and cooking that takes place before the Passover supper. In John, Jesus is already dead by the time Passover is eaten.

Was Jesus crucified before or after Passover? Both accounts cannot be simultaneously correct. Sometimes apologists suggest that the priests of John 19:31 ate Passover on a later day from ordinary Jews, but there is no evidence for that in history or Scripture that I am aware of. Harmonizing won?t fix it unless parts are ignored. John and the synoptic gospels simply do not agree on the date and the time. Did Jesus eat Passover, or not? Was he crucified at 9 am or at 12 pm?

Some apologists assert that the synoptic Gospels used Jewish clock time, and the Gospel of John used Roman clock time. Even if this is true, it still cannot explain the cricifixion occurring on different days.

Other apologists simply say that Jesus asked the disciples to obtain a room for the Passover, but never intended to eat there. If so, then Jesus deceived his disciples by specifically asking for a room where he "... might eat the Passover ..."

[Dexter]

"On that day, when evening had come, Jesus said to them, ?Let us go across to the other side.? And leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. And other boats were with him. And a great windstorm arose, and the waves were breaking into the boat, so that the boat was already filling. But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion. And they woke him and said to him, ?Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?? And he awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, ?Peace! Be still!? And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. He said to them, ?Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?? And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, ?Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him??? - Mark 4.

Your talking the sea of Galilee here right? A fairly big boat too to hold his disciples. I think this story may well be a metaphor for some greater truth.

[eyeshaveit]

"On that day, when evening had come, Jesus said to them, ?Let us go across to the other side.? And leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. And other boats were with him. And a great windstorm arose, and the waves were breaking into the boat, so that the boat was already filling. But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion. And they woke him and said to him, ?Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?? And he awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, ?Peace! Be still!? And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. He said to them, ?Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?? And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, ?Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him??? - Mark 4.

Your talking the sea of Galilee here right? A fairly big boat too to hold his disciples. I think this story may well be a metaphor for some greater truth.

Yeah, the Sea of Galilee, or Sea of Kinneret, or Sea of Ginosar, or Lake of Gennesaret, or Sea of Tiberias, etc.,
But do you agree that there was a historical Israelite in the first century, named Jesus of Nazareth: who lived, ate, drank, bled, dreamed, etc.

[eyeshaveit]

"Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two. And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, ?Father, ?into Your hands I commit My spirit.?? Having said this, He breathed His last. - Luke 23.

Was Jesus killed on the Jewish Passover or the day before?

This discrepancy was debated by the early church fathers almost two thousand years ago. In Mark, Jesus is crucified the day after Passover. The Last Supper is the Passover supper: Mark 14:14-15: ??...Where is the guest room for me where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?? And he will show you a large upper room...? And in Mark 14:16, "...And his disciples went forth...and they made ready the Passover." He is crucified the day after Passover, at 9 am, Mark 15:25, ?It was now the third hour, and they impaled him.?

In John, however, Jesus is crucified on the same day as Passover, hours before the Passover supper that he never eats. And he is also not crucified until after 12 pm, rather than at 9 am. The Last Supper is merely the unnamed meal the night before: John 13:2: ?So, while the evening meal was going on...? and John 13:4, ?...got up from the evening meal and laid aside his outer garments...? He is crucified the next day at 12 pm. That the day of the crucifixion is the same day as the Passover is indicated in John 19:14-16: ?Now it was preparation of the Passover; it was about the sixth hour [12 pm]. And he [Pilate] said to the Jews, ?See! Your king!?...At that time, therefore, he handed them over to them to be impaled.? Similarly, in John 19:31, ?Then the Jews, since it was Preparation, in order that the bodies might not remain on the torture stakes on the Sabbath (for the day of that Sabbath was a great one) requested Pilate to have their legs broken and the [bodies] taken away.? Preparation refers to the ceremonial cleaning and cooking that takes place before the Passover supper. In John, Jesus is already dead by the time Passover is eaten.

Was Jesus crucified before or after Passover? Both accounts cannot be simultaneously correct. Sometimes apologists suggest that the priests of John 19:31 ate Passover on a later day from ordinary Jews, but there is no evidence for that in history or Scripture that I am aware of. Harmonizing won?t fix it unless parts are ignored. John and the synoptic gospels simply do not agree on the date and the time. Did Jesus eat Passover, or not? Was he crucified at 9 am or at 12 pm?

Some apologists assert that the synoptic Gospels used Jewish clock time, and the Gospel of John used Roman clock time. Even if this is true, it still cannot explain the cricifixion occurring on different days.

Other apologists simply say that Jesus asked the disciples to obtain a room for the Passover, but never intended to eat there. If so, then Jesus deceived his disciples by specifically asking for a room where he "... might eat the Passover ..."

Thanks,
That's a lot to chew on.

[Dexter]

Comments on this board presuppose the supernatural. Whether I believe or disbelieve should not be posted here.
I think that story is a metaphor that is to be used to teach in a sermon.

[eyeshaveit]

Comments on this board presuppose the supernatural. Whether I believe or disbelieve should not be posted here.
I think that story is a metaphor that is to be used to teach in a sermon.

OK.

[kevin]

Thanks,
That's a lot to chew on.

it's one of those very old debates about scripture that goes back to the ante nicene fathers, like the discussions of the gospel accounts of jesus's travels that get the geography of palestine wrong. i don't think it's particularly important, because i believe that details like that got messed up in the years between the acts and the recording, and don't affect any content of the new testament gospel.

if you're inclined, one interesting discussion could be trying to figure out the sequence of events in the graveyard after the resurrection, which don't match between the gospel accounts and cannot be assembled into a single story, as far as i know. the events on the morning of the th eresurrection are very important in christianity, yet it seems to be an event that christians don't actually look at closely.

[eyeshaveit]

Thanks,
That's a lot to chew on.

it's one of those very old debates about scripture that goes back to the ante nicene fathers, like the discussions of the gospel accounts of jesus's travels that get the geography of palestine wrong. i don't think it's particularly important, because i believe that details like that got messed up in the years between the acts and the recording, and don't affect any content of the new testament gospel.

if you're inclined, one interesting discussion could be trying to figure out the sequence of events in the graveyard after the resurrection, which don't match between the gospel accounts and cannot be assembled into a single story, as far as i know. the events on the morning of the th eresurrection are very important in christianity, yet it seems to be an event that christians don't actually look at closely.

But the four accounts have been combined and they do come together nicely,
For instance the number of women is easily explained from the different views and perspectives.

[eyeshaveit]

"Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, ?Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.? When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. They told him, ?In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet:

??And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.??

Then Herod summoned the wise men secretly and ascertained from them what time the star had appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, ?Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found him, bring me word, that I too may come and worship him.? After listening to the king, they went on their way. And behold, the star that they had seen when it rose went before them until it came to rest over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. And going into the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh. And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their own country by another way." - Matthew 2.

Who were these wise men? How many wise men were there? Where did they come from? What was the star? Could the star have been a comet?

[kevin]

Thanks,
That's a lot to chew on.

it's one of those very old debates about scripture that goes back to the ante nicene fathers, like the discussions of the gospel accounts of jesus's travels that get the geography of palestine wrong. i don't think it's particularly important, because i believe that details like that got messed up in the years between the acts and the recording, and don't affect any content of the new testament gospel.

if you're inclined, one interesting discussion could be trying to figure out the sequence of events in the graveyard after the resurrection, which don't match between the gospel accounts and cannot be assembled into a single story, as far as i know. the events on the morning of the th eresurrection are very important in christianity, yet it seems to be an event that christians don't actually look at closely.

But the four accounts have been combined and they do come together nicely,
For instance the number of women is easily explained from the different views and perspectives.

perhaps its worth a second look.

the number of angels differ, for example. hard to get that wrong, it seemz to me.

[eyeshaveit]

Thanks,
That's a lot to chew on.

it's one of those very old debates about scripture that goes back to the ante nicene fathers, like the discussions of the gospel accounts of jesus's travels that get the geography of palestine wrong. i don't think it's particularly important, because i believe that details like that got messed up in the years between the acts and the recording, and don't affect any content of the new testament gospel.

if you're inclined, one interesting discussion could be trying to figure out the sequence of events in the graveyard after the resurrection, which don't match between the gospel accounts and cannot be assembled into a single story, as far as i know. the events on the morning of the th eresurrection are very important in christianity, yet it seems to be an event that christians don't actually look at closely.

But the four accounts have been combined and they do come together nicely,
For instance the number of women is easily explained from the different views and perspectives.

perhaps its worth a second look.

the number of angels differ, for example. hard to get that wrong, it seemz to me.

Different viewpoints and expressions - I'll look it up as time allows -
But the resurrection is the essential part - no resurrection and the rest matters not.

[eyeshaveit]

Number of Angels seen at the tomb of Jesus Christ:

"Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow." - Matthew 27.

Matthew and Mark describe only one angel, but do not say there was only one angel.
Luke and John say that there were two angels, and where there are angels there is always one.
Matthew and Mark were addressing one issue and question; Luke and John were addressing another question.

Matthew and Mark address the earthquake and moving the stone,
Luke and John on the other hand were addressing the missing body,
There were two angels at the tomb, but only one rolled away the stone.

[eyeshaveit]

"King Herod heard of it, for Jesus' name had become known. Some said, ?John the Baptist has been raised from the dead. That is why these miraculous powers are at work in him.? But others said, ?He is Elijah.? And others said, ?He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.? But when Herod heard of it, he said, ?John, whom I beheaded, has been raised.? For it was Herod who had sent and seized John and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, because he had married her. For John had been saying to Herod, ?It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife.? And Herodias had a grudge against him and wanted to put him to death. But she could not, for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he kept him safe. When he heard him, he was greatly perplexed, and yet he heard him gladly.

But an opportunity came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his nobles and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee. For when Herodias's daughter came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his guests. And the king said to the girl, ?Ask me for whatever you wish, and I will give it to you.? And he vowed to her, ?Whatever you ask me, I will give you, up to half of my kingdom.?  And she went out and said to her mother, ?For what should I ask?? And she said, ?The head of John the Baptist.? And she came in immediately with haste to the king and asked, saying, ?I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter.? And the king was exceedingly sorry, but because of his oaths and his guests he did not want to break his word to her. And immediately the king sent an executioner with orders to bring John's head. He went and beheaded him in the prison and brought his head on a platter and gave it to the girl, and the girl gave it to her mother. When his disciples heard of it, they came and took his body and laid it in a tomb." - Mark 6.

His body was buried,
But what happened to John the Baptist's head?

[kevin]

the angels are certainly an interesting detail. here is mathew:

Mat 28:2  And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
Mat 28:3  His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
Mat 28:4  And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
Mat 28:5  And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

mark:

Mar 16:5  And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

luke:

Luk 24:4  And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
Luk 24:5  And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

john:

Joh 20:12  And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

in my opinion, these accounts differ.

the single angel of mathew is so frightening that the keepers faint from fear. then in mark, he appears to be nothing more than a young man.

in luke, the young man has become two frightening and radiant men. then in john, the two men become two innocuous angels.

all of this can be harmonized if we believe that the women and apostles simultaneously could, and also could not, distinguish angels from men. and also that the angels were intensely frightening, and at the same time not alarming at all. and finally, that whether there were two or just one celestial visitor from heaven-- or not-- was a detail of so little interest to the frightened women that two accounts recorded it and two did not.

in addition, in mathew and mark, the angel or angels appears to the women and tells them to inform the disciples, which in mathew they depart to do. in mark they leave and don't tell anybody. in luke they see the angels, and then do tell the disciples, but in john, they tell the disciples and only afterwards do they see the angels. these particular accounts flatly contradict. whether they are minor or not depends upon whether one is an inerrantist or not.

there are various explanations for all this that people have put forward by making up possible actions on the parts of the people that don't have a basis in scripture but can account for everything at once. maybe so, maybe not.

[kevin]

here's an interesting question.


in 1 samuel 21:1-6, the high priest named ahimelech cautions david about eating the loaves of presentation: ?...later david came into nob to ahimelech the priest, and ahimelech began to tremble at meeting david...? the hungry david asks for the showbread for himself and his men, and ahimelech gives him the loaves.

in mark 2:26, however, jesus says the event occurred during the time of abiathar, ahimelech?s son:

?...entered into the house of god, in the account about abiathar the chief priest, and ate the loaves of presentation...? nwt,
?...in the time of abiathar the high priest...? neb,
?...in the days of abiathar the high priest...? niv,
?...how he entered into the house of god in [the days of] abiathar the high priest...? textus recepticus, english/greek interlinear.

according to the old testament, the event actually took place in the days of ahimelech, not in the days of abiathar. abiathar (ahimelech?s son), is high priest during much of david?s reign, and is prominent in episodes later in david?s life, in 1 samuel, 2 samuel, kings, and chronicles, but he is not introduced until 1 samuel 22:20, and not as priest until 1 samuel 23:9. ahimelech his father is the prominent priest through the early exile of david, and he and the entire suite of priests were executed by saul as result of this very episode. if the old testament is correct, then jesus is wrong. if jesus is correct as quoted, then the old testament authors confuse the the priesthood succession in some 39 additional scriptural references.

it's easy to say that abiathar was alive at the time of this event, but he was not high priest, played no part in this event, and isn't mentioned until later.

did jesus mess up on his old testament history?

[kevin]

. . . and one that has always puzzled me. scripture describes how jesus was mocked on his last day by being dressed in royal clothing, but contradicts itself on where it took place.

matthew 27:28. jesus is costumed by pontius pilate.
mark 15:17. jesus is costumed by pontius pilate.
luke 23:11. jesus is costumed by herod at his palace, not by pilate.
john 19:2. jesus is costumed by pontius pilate.

if the bible is accurate as written, then jesus was costumed twice in two different places and each account ignores the other.

where was jesus dressed in royal clothing, and who did it?

[kevin]

this one too. following the return to jerusalem, ezra and nehemiah contradict each other for census numbers of the hebrew families.

ezra 2:64 and nehemiah 7:66 both give the total to be 42,360. but adding the numbers up gives 29,818 men for ezra, and 31,089 men for nehemiah. the difference comes from the two books sometimes giving contradictory numbers for the same sons within the same families.

i confess that i was curious, and actually went in and counted up the numbers for myself long ago.

were the ancient israelites unable to count?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

here's an interesting question.


in 1 samuel 21:1-6, the high priest named ahimelech cautions david about eating the loaves of presentation: ?...later david came into nob to ahimelech the priest, and ahimelech began to tremble at meeting david...? the hungry david asks for the showbread for himself and his men, and ahimelech gives him the loaves.

in mark 2:26, however, jesus says the event occurred during the time of abiathar, ahimelech?s son:

?...entered into the house of god, in the account about abiathar the chief priest, and ate the loaves of presentation...? nwt,
?...in the time of abiathar the high priest...? neb,
?...in the days of abiathar the high priest...? niv,
?...how he entered into the house of god in [the days of] abiathar the high priest...? textus recepticus, english/greek interlinear.

according to the old testament, the event actually took place in the days of ahimelech, not in the days of abiathar. abiathar (ahimelech?s son), is high priest during much of david?s reign, and is prominent in episodes later in david?s life, in 1 samuel, 2 samuel, kings, and chronicles, but he is not introduced until 1 samuel 22:20, and not as priest until 1 samuel 23:9. ahimelech his father is the prominent priest through the early exile of david, and he and the entire suite of priests were executed by saul as result of this very episode. if the old testament is correct, then jesus is wrong. if jesus is correct as quoted, then the old testament authors confuse the the priesthood succession in some 39 additional scriptural references.

it's easy to say that abiathar was alive at the time of this event, but he was not high priest, played no part in this event, and isn't mentioned until later.

did jesus mess up on his old testament history?

in the account about: The Greek preposition e?pi? used here can refer to time or to place/location, such as a passage of Scripture. Most translators understand it to mean ?when (Abiathar was . . . ).? However, as explained in the study note on Abiathar the chief priest in this verse, the historical event that Jesus is referring to (1Sa 21:?1-6) makes it more likely that the Greek preposition should be understood in a locative sense, that is, referring to a Scriptural account. A similar Greek structure is found at Mr 12:26 and Lu 20:37, where many translations use the phrase ?in the account (passage) about.?

Abiathar the chief priest: The Greek term used here may be rendered ?high priest? or ?chief priest.? The latter rendering is more appropriate for Abiathar, since his father, Ahimelech, was high priest on the occasion described. (1Sa 21:?1-6) Abiathar is first mentioned shortly after David entered the house of God and ate the showbread. It seems that as a son of High Priest Ahimelech, Abiathar was already serving as a prominent, or chief, priest at that time. He was the only son of Ahimelech to survive the slaughter by Doeg the Edomite. (1Sa 22:18-?20) He later became high priest, evidently during David?s reign. Even if the rendering ?high priest? is used, the Greek construction rendered ?in the account about? is broad and may refer to the larger section of 1Sa chapters 21 to 23, where Abiathar was the most well-known high priest. Some Greek scholars favor the rendering ?in the time of Abiathar the high priest,? which could also refer to the overall time period, including the time when Abiathar later became high priest. Whatever the explanation, we can be sure that this statement of Jesus was in harmony with the historical facts.

NWT Study Edition

[kevin]

. . . Whatever the explanation, we can be sure that this statement of Jesus was in harmony with the historical facts.

NWT Study Edition

jst, i am neither a witness nor a roman catholic, so ^^^this type of explanation is of less than no value, because it obscures the actual words of scripture with dogma.

i addressed each of tbe points that tbe watchtower tries to suggest as solutions.

they dont work for the reasons i gave. please read my post again with tbe watchtower explanation in mind.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

. . . Whatever the explanation, we can be sure that this statement of Jesus was in harmony with the historical facts.

NWT Study Edition

jst, i am neither a witness nor a roman catholic, so ^^^this type of explanation is of less than no value, because it obscures the actual words of scripture with dogma.

i addressed each of tbe points that tbe watchtower tries to suggest as solutions.

they dont work for the reasons i gave. please read my post again with tbe watchtower explanation in mind.

Your objection was, "it's easy to say that abiathar was alive at the time of this event, but he was not high priest, played no part in this event, and isn't mentioned until later."

This is talked about in what I posted.  The text does not have to mean "when he was high priest" 

1.  "High" Priest can also mean "Chief" Priest which is lower in station than High Priest.

2.  The text does not have to mean "when Abiathar was" high Priest, but "in the time of" or "the account about".  It was during his time but it occured before he was the high priest.