Matthew's big blunder - and what we can learn fro it

[Picaro]

Christians believe that Jesus "fulfilled" OT prophecy. But in fact it's not prophecy fulfilled but prophecy historicized after the fact. The "fulfilled prophecies" were retrojected into the gospel writers' stories in order to flesh out the Jesus character who they knew so little about. After all, these writers wrote decades after Jesus died, and knew almost nothing about him. In their zeal to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, they searched the Old Testament for anything (sometimes just phrases) that could possibly be construed as messianic prophecies, and then created or modified events in Jesus' life to fulfill those so-called prophecies.

How do we know that? How do we know that the stories weren't actual records of actual fulfillment of prophecy? Well, lots of reasons, but one, in particular, stands out, at least to me. It's sometimes referred to as "Matthew's big blunder", and this blunder, I'm afraid, gives the game away.

In the story of the triumphal entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem, Mark, Luke and John all say that Jesus entered the city riding on a donkey. But Matthew has Jesus enter the city straddling TWO animals, not one - a donkey AND a colt! Here's the passage in Matthew:

Matthew 21:1-7
Now when they drew near Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, AND a colt with her. Loose THEM and bring THEM to Me. And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of THEM,’ and immediately he will send THEM.”

All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet [Zechariah], saying:

“Tell the daughter of Zion,
‘Behold, your King is coming to you,
Lowly, and sitting on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.’”

So the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them. They brought the donkey AND the colt, laid THEIR clothes on THEM, and set Him on THEM.

The reason Matthew has Jesus on TWO animals instead of one is that he misunderstood the prophecy (quoted above) to refer to two animals. But this is an error on his part [yes, an error. You can throw out any belief in “inerrancy” right here!] This is a common occurrence in the OT of something called a parallelism, where the same idea is stated twice with slightly different wording, but actually means the same thing. In this case the passage in Zechariah is NOT referring to two animals. The donkey and the colt represent the same animal, and the other gospel writers all understood this, which is why they had Jesus enter the city on a lone donkey. Matthew didn't get it though. He thought the Zechariah passage literally meant TWO animals, so that's what he put in his story. It’s rather comical when you to try to picture Jesus straddling two animals!

Stunt rider Jesus to the rescue!

What does this tell us? What conclusions can we draw from this?

Here’s what we can conclude:

1) Whoever wrote the gospel of Matthew could not possibly have been an eyewitness. If he was, he would have known that Jesus entered the city on just one donkey, as he would have seen it with his own eyes.

2) Not only was the author not a witness, but he did not get his information from anyone else who was a witness, for the same reason as above.

3) Since he was neither a witness nor an acquaintance of a witness, there is only one way he could have gotten his information – from his own imagination – with the help of the Old Testament! Of course, he got the story from Mark, but then he changed Mark’s version of the story in order to reflect what he thought it should say in order to make the prophecy come true. It is a conscious act of fraud in order to make the text fit his own personal opinion about what must have happened. It is prophecy fulfillment invented, not recorded, and this is most likely how all of the gospels were written.

There’s an old story that goes like this: “While traveling through a forest, a person noticed a circle marked on a tree with an arrow shot perfectly into the center. A few yards away he noticed several more targets, each with arrows in the center. Later, he met the talented archer and he asked him, "How did you become such an expert that you always get your arrows into the center of the bullseye?" "It's not difficult," responded the archer, "First I shoot the arrow and then I draw the circle."”


That’s how the gospels were written!


And Matthew's blunder, among other things, gives the game away.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

Although Matthew says that two donkeys were fetched, his account is consistent with Jesus only riding on one of them: When Matthew says that Jesus "sat on them", he uses the plural not because he is describing Jesus straddling more than one donkey, but because he is describing Jesus sitting on the clothes that have been put on the donkeys, and Jesus could do this while sitting on only one donkey.

they get this tripe from echo chambers like infidels.org and similar junk sites, like patheos, and never bother to verify or research other sources. They aren't actually interested in discussion anyway, just running around astro-turfing and spreading bullshit; the real enemy is anything that might put restraints on mindless self-indulgence and assorted mental illnesses and deviancies of one sort or another, and sociopathic compulsions.

 

[Picaro]

History taught by whom, Slow Joe?? LMAO! You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Well, true, my school didn't teach us anything about the Trilateralist, Bilderberger, Illuminati Lizard People who are making your life miserable... you totally got me there, Mr. Crazy Person.

Many of those at least have some kernel of truth in them somewhere, while none of your ludicrous fantasies ever do.

 

[Picaro]

In any case, for those who are actually interested in historical theology, you can find many examinations of Mathew around, some better than others; one point of interest is that Mathew's order of Jesus's spoken speeches follows the pattern of the Torah, for instance, and for a reason.

The Gospel according to Matthew organizes Jesus’ sayings into 5 sets of instructions to mirror the 5 books of the Law—the first 5 books of the Bible that Jews call “Torah.” Jesus’ words are being put on par with God’s words first revealed at Mount Sinai. That is significant. Jesus' teaching has become what Moses' instructions were: God's law for God's people. When put in that light, you can see the way Matthew’s Gospel structures Jesus’ sayings actually says quite a lot in itself.

The allusions to the laws of the first covenant become even clearer when you investigate the form and content of Jesus’ first and most famous sermon given on a mountain. Have you ever thought about the fact that Matthew situates the first long sermon on a mountain? Do you think it is intentionally meant to mimic God’s first giving of the Law on Mount Sinai? Absolutely it is. If you have overlooked that detail your whole life, it’s because you were not immersed in the Torah as a child and did not participate in the Law’s required Jerusalem pilgrimages to worship as an adult. The Jewish audience of Matthew’s Gospel wouldn’t miss these subtle connections between the Law of Moses and teaching of Jesus.

The Sermon on the Mount begins in Matthew 5:3-12 with the Beatitudes. Why? It’s not an historical accident. The beatitudes intentionally echo the blessings of Deuteronomy 28:1-14 that Israel proclaimed from Mount Gerizim after entering the holy land. According to Deuteronomy 27:11-12, Moses commanded half of Israel to stand on Mount Gerizim and recite the blessings of obeying God. It is believed the Israelites repeated this corporate act every seven years when they gathered in Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Booths (Deuteronomy 31:9-13; m. Sotah 7:8). Since the structure of the blessings and the mountain setting is similar for both Jesus’ beatitudes in Matthew 5:3-12 and the traditional Jewish recitation of Deuteronomy’s blessings, the relationship must not be overlooked. The Gospel of Matthew is purposefully connecting the two events. What’s the purpose? Jesus is gathering Israel on a mountain to declare the new characteristics of those who will be blessed. The covenant requirements for God’s people are changing. Jesus is redefining Torah.

.... and more at the link.

Jesus vs. Torah: How the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew's Gospel redefined God’s Law

A better plan is to read a good book on Jewish history covering the era and Jerusalem itself first, so as to understand what many of the references are to the society and culture contemporary with the NT times. Joachim Jeremia's Jerusalem in the Time Of Jesus is a fine and wonderfully sourced professional scholarly secular study of the era itself, the laws, economy, government, etc., the best I know of in English, translated from German, easy to get, and a good reference and extensive bibliography.

Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus by Joachim Jeremias

 

[godsandmen]

Christians believe that Jesus "fulfilled" OT prophecy. But in fact it's not prophecy fulfilled but prophecy historicized after the fact. The "fulfilled prophecies" were retrojected into the gospel writers' stories in order to flesh out the Jesus character who they knew so little about. After all, these writers wrote decades after Jesus died, and knew almost nothing about him. In their zeal to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, they searched the Old Testament for anything (sometimes just phrases) that could possibly be construed as messianic prophecies, and then created or modified events in Jesus' life to fulfill those so-called prophecies.

How do we know that? How do we know that the stories weren't actual records of actual fulfillment of prophecy? Well, lots of reasons, but one, in particular, stands out, at least to me. It's sometimes referred to as "Matthew's big blunder", and this blunder, I'm afraid, gives the game away.

In the story of the triumphal entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem, Mark, Luke and John all say that Jesus entered the city riding on a donkey. But Matthew has Jesus enter the city straddling TWO animals, not one - a donkey AND a colt! Here's the passage in Matthew:

Matthew 21:1-7
Now when they drew near Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, AND a colt with her. Loose THEM and bring THEM to Me. And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of THEM,’ and immediately he will send THEM.”

All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet [Zechariah], saying:

“Tell the daughter of Zion,
‘Behold, your King is coming to you,
Lowly, and sitting on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.’”

So the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them. They brought the donkey AND the colt, laid THEIR clothes on THEM, and set Him on THEM.

The reason Matthew has Jesus on TWO animals instead of one is that he misunderstood the prophecy (quoted above) to refer to two animals. But this is an error on his part [yes, an error. You can throw out any belief in “inerrancy” right here!] This is a common occurrence in the OT of something called a parallelism, where the same idea is stated twice with slightly different wording, but actually means the same thing. In this case the passage in Zechariah is NOT referring to two animals. The donkey and the colt represent the same animal, and the other gospel writers all understood this, which is why they had Jesus enter the city on a lone donkey. Matthew didn't get it though. He thought the Zechariah passage literally meant TWO animals, so that's what he put in his story. It’s rather comical when you to try to picture Jesus straddling two animals!

Stunt rider Jesus to the rescue!

What does this tell us? What conclusions can we draw from this?

Here’s what we can conclude:

1) Whoever wrote the gospel of Matthew could not possibly have been an eyewitness. If he was, he would have known that Jesus entered the city on just one donkey, as he would have seen it with his own eyes.

2) Not only was the author not a witness, but he did not get his information from anyone else who was a witness, for the same reason as above.

3) Since he was neither a witness nor an acquaintance of a witness, there is only one way he could have gotten his information – from his own imagination – with the help of the Old Testament! Of course, he got the story from Mark, but then he changed Mark’s version of the story in order to reflect what he thought it should say in order to make the prophecy come true. It is a conscious act of fraud in order to make the text fit his own personal opinion about what must have happened. It is prophecy fulfillment invented, not recorded, and this is most likely how all of the gospels were written.

There’s an old story that goes like this: “While traveling through a forest, a person noticed a circle marked on a tree with an arrow shot perfectly into the center. A few yards away he noticed several more targets, each with arrows in the center. Later, he met the talented archer and he asked him, "How did you become such an expert that you always get your arrows into the center of the bullseye?" "It's not difficult," responded the archer, "First I shoot the arrow and then I draw the circle."”


That’s how the gospels were written!


And Matthew's blunder, among other things, gives the game away.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

Although Matthew says that two donkeys were fetched, his account is consistent with Jesus only riding on one of them: When Matthew says that Jesus "sat on them", he uses the plural not because he is describing Jesus straddling more than one donkey, but because he is describing Jesus sitting on the clothes that have been put on the donkeys, and Jesus could do this while sitting on only one donkey.

they get this tripe from echo chambers like infidels.org and similar junk sites, like patheos, and never bother to verify or research other sources. They aren't actually interested in discussion anyway, just running around astro-turfing and spreading bullshit; the real enemy is anything that might put restraints on mindless self-indulgence and assorted mental illnesses and deviancies of one sort or another, and sociopathic compulsions.

Really? Tripe? Then prove me wrong! Go ahead!

 

[JoeB131]

Well, he's certainly a lousy troll, for sure; denying the obvious is pretty stupid these days, as is not even doing basic Google Scholaring on well documented subjects. But some still think 'Posting Last!!!' is 'Winning!!!', so you just have to mock them instead of trying to have real discussions with such spammers.

Guy, it's been well documented.

Jesus never existed.

 

[JoeB131]

In any case, for those who are actually interested in historical theology, you can find many examinations of Mathew around, some better than others; one point of interest is that Mathew's order of Jesus's spoken speeches follows the pattern of the Torah, for instance, and for a reason.

The problem is, most of these "examinations' are tap dancing around how poor a writer Matthew was. He plagarized Mark and either misquoted or just made up "Scripture' to make Jesus fit into the "Messiah" box.

Jews didn't buy it, which is why Christians have been trying to eradicate them for the last 2000 years.

 

[RWNJ]

Christians believe that Jesus "fulfilled" OT prophecy. But in fact it's not prophecy fulfilled but prophecy historicized after the fact. The "fulfilled prophecies" were retrojected into the gospel writers' stories in order to flesh out the Jesus character who they knew so little about. After all, these writers wrote decades after Jesus died, and knew almost nothing about him. In their zeal to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, they searched the Old Testament for anything (sometimes just phrases) that could possibly be construed as messianic prophecies, and then created or modified events in Jesus' life to fulfill those so-called prophecies.

How do we know that? How do we know that the stories weren't actual records of actual fulfillment of prophecy? Well, lots of reasons, but one, in particular, stands out, at least to me. It's sometimes referred to as "Matthew's big blunder", and this blunder, I'm afraid, gives the game away.

In the story of the triumphal entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem, Mark, Luke and John all say that Jesus entered the city riding on a donkey. But Matthew has Jesus enter the city straddling TWO animals, not one - a donkey AND a colt! Here's the passage in Matthew:

Matthew 21:1-7
Now when they drew near Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, AND a colt with her. Loose THEM and bring THEM to Me. And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of THEM,’ and immediately he will send THEM.”

All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet [Zechariah], saying:

“Tell the daughter of Zion,
‘Behold, your King is coming to you,
Lowly, and sitting on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.’”

So the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them. They brought the donkey AND the colt, laid THEIR clothes on THEM, and set Him on THEM.

The reason Matthew has Jesus on TWO animals instead of one is that he misunderstood the prophecy (quoted above) to refer to two animals. But this is an error on his part [yes, an error. You can throw out any belief in “inerrancy” right here!] This is a common occurrence in the OT of something called a parallelism, where the same idea is stated twice with slightly different wording, but actually means the same thing. In this case the passage in Zechariah is NOT referring to two animals. The donkey and the colt represent the same animal, and the other gospel writers all understood this, which is why they had Jesus enter the city on a lone donkey. Matthew didn't get it though. He thought the Zechariah passage literally meant TWO animals, so that's what he put in his story. It’s rather comical when you to try to picture Jesus straddling two animals!

Stunt rider Jesus to the rescue!

What does this tell us? What conclusions can we draw from this?

Here’s what we can conclude:

1) Whoever wrote the gospel of Matthew could not possibly have been an eyewitness. If he was, he would have known that Jesus entered the city on just one donkey, as he would have seen it with his own eyes.

2) Not only was the author not a witness, but he did not get his information from anyone else who was a witness, for the same reason as above.

3) Since he was neither a witness nor an acquaintance of a witness, there is only one way he could have gotten his information – from his own imagination – with the help of the Old Testament! Of course, he got the story from Mark, but then he changed Mark’s version of the story in order to reflect what he thought it should say in order to make the prophecy come true. It is a conscious act of fraud in order to make the text fit his own personal opinion about what must have happened. It is prophecy fulfillment invented, not recorded, and this is most likely how all of the gospels were written.

There’s an old story that goes like this: “While traveling through a forest, a person noticed a circle marked on a tree with an arrow shot perfectly into the center. A few yards away he noticed several more targets, each with arrows in the center. Later, he met the talented archer and he asked him, "How did you become such an expert that you always get your arrows into the center of the bullseye?" "It's not difficult," responded the archer, "First I shoot the arrow and then I draw the circle."”


That’s how the gospels were written!


And Matthew's blunder, among other things, gives the game away.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

Although Matthew says that two donkeys were fetched, his account is consistent with Jesus only riding on one of them: When Matthew says that Jesus "sat on them", he uses the plural not because he is describing Jesus straddling more than one donkey, but because he is describing Jesus sitting on the clothes that have been put on the donkeys, and Jesus could do this while sitting on only one donkey.

So that's how your apologetics websites try to weasel out of it huh? No, he was straddling two animals. Nice try though.

It must be difficult for you, having such a poor grasp of basic Grammar. As usual, it sucks to be you.

 

[godsandmen]

Christians believe that Jesus "fulfilled" OT prophecy. But in fact it's not prophecy fulfilled but prophecy historicized after the fact. The "fulfilled prophecies" were retrojected into the gospel writers' stories in order to flesh out the Jesus character who they knew so little about. After all, these writers wrote decades after Jesus died, and knew almost nothing about him. In their zeal to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, they searched the Old Testament for anything (sometimes just phrases) that could possibly be construed as messianic prophecies, and then created or modified events in Jesus' life to fulfill those so-called prophecies.

How do we know that? How do we know that the stories weren't actual records of actual fulfillment of prophecy? Well, lots of reasons, but one, in particular, stands out, at least to me. It's sometimes referred to as "Matthew's big blunder", and this blunder, I'm afraid, gives the game away.

In the story of the triumphal entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem, Mark, Luke and John all say that Jesus entered the city riding on a donkey. But Matthew has Jesus enter the city straddling TWO animals, not one - a donkey AND a colt! Here's the passage in Matthew:

Matthew 21:1-7
Now when they drew near Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, AND a colt with her. Loose THEM and bring THEM to Me. And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of THEM,’ and immediately he will send THEM.”

All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet [Zechariah], saying:

“Tell the daughter of Zion,
‘Behold, your King is coming to you,
Lowly, and sitting on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.’”

So the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them. They brought the donkey AND the colt, laid THEIR clothes on THEM, and set Him on THEM.

The reason Matthew has Jesus on TWO animals instead of one is that he misunderstood the prophecy (quoted above) to refer to two animals. But this is an error on his part [yes, an error. You can throw out any belief in “inerrancy” right here!] This is a common occurrence in the OT of something called a parallelism, where the same idea is stated twice with slightly different wording, but actually means the same thing. In this case the passage in Zechariah is NOT referring to two animals. The donkey and the colt represent the same animal, and the other gospel writers all understood this, which is why they had Jesus enter the city on a lone donkey. Matthew didn't get it though. He thought the Zechariah passage literally meant TWO animals, so that's what he put in his story. It’s rather comical when you to try to picture Jesus straddling two animals!

Stunt rider Jesus to the rescue!

What does this tell us? What conclusions can we draw from this?

Here’s what we can conclude:

1) Whoever wrote the gospel of Matthew could not possibly have been an eyewitness. If he was, he would have known that Jesus entered the city on just one donkey, as he would have seen it with his own eyes.

2) Not only was the author not a witness, but he did not get his information from anyone else who was a witness, for the same reason as above.

3) Since he was neither a witness nor an acquaintance of a witness, there is only one way he could have gotten his information – from his own imagination – with the help of the Old Testament! Of course, he got the story from Mark, but then he changed Mark’s version of the story in order to reflect what he thought it should say in order to make the prophecy come true. It is a conscious act of fraud in order to make the text fit his own personal opinion about what must have happened. It is prophecy fulfillment invented, not recorded, and this is most likely how all of the gospels were written.

There’s an old story that goes like this: “While traveling through a forest, a person noticed a circle marked on a tree with an arrow shot perfectly into the center. A few yards away he noticed several more targets, each with arrows in the center. Later, he met the talented archer and he asked him, "How did you become such an expert that you always get your arrows into the center of the bullseye?" "It's not difficult," responded the archer, "First I shoot the arrow and then I draw the circle."”


That’s how the gospels were written!


And Matthew's blunder, among other things, gives the game away.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

Although Matthew says that two donkeys were fetched, his account is consistent with Jesus only riding on one of them: When Matthew says that Jesus "sat on them", he uses the plural not because he is describing Jesus straddling more than one donkey, but because he is describing Jesus sitting on the clothes that have been put on the donkeys, and Jesus could do this while sitting on only one donkey.

So that's how your apologetics websites try to weasel out of it huh? No, he was straddling two animals. Nice try though.

It must be difficult for you, having such a poor grasp of basic Grammar. As usual, it sucks to be you.

That so-called solution you posted is so laughably bad, it really doesn't deserve a response. Grammar here is obviously on my side. Only a person willing to swallow anything to save the Bible from error would believe crap like that. Continue in your bubble, I understand. I've been there.

 

[Dale Smith]

History taught by whom, Slow Joe?? LMAO! You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Well, true, my school didn't teach us anything about the Trilateralist, Bilderberger, Illuminati Lizard People who are making your life miserable... you totally got me there, Mr. Crazy Person.

Your schooling about history probably consisted of praising those that started the Bolshevik revolution while never teaching you about what became of those "malcontents" that were not on board with communism or how Mao Tse-Tung was funded by the same banking oligarchs that funded Lenin.....yeppers, I would venture to say that what you were "taught" was liberal bullshit where a "da gubermint" is beyond reproach and a benevolent entity and you owe all that you are to the "state".....(snicker)

P.S I am not "miserable" in the slightest....I have found that being a truth teller of pertinent facts to be incredibly rewarding....

Hope this helps!!!!

 

[JoeB131]

Your schooling about history probably consisted of praising those that started the Bolshevik revolution while never teaching you about what became of those "malcontents" that were not on board with communism or how Mao Tse-Tung was funded by the same banking oligarchs that funded Lenin.....yeppers, I would venture to say that what you were "taught" was liberal bullshit where a "da gubermint" is beyond reproach and a benevolent entity and you owe all that you are to the "state".

Meh, not really. In HS, I got the typical Cold War "The Commies are out to get us" spiel", and in college, they were hardly much friendlier. They dint' teach us a darn thing about the Lizard People at the Central Bank, though.

P.S I am not "miserable" in the slightest....I have found that being a truth teller of pertinent facts to be incredibly rewarding....

Actually, you are the most miserable creature here. Only a TRULY MISERABLE COCKSUCKER would claim murdered children were crisis actors.

 

[Picaro]

In any case, for those who are actually interested in historical theology, you can find many examinations of Mathew around, some better than others; one point of interest is that Mathew's order of Jesus's spoken speeches follows the pattern of the Torah, for instance, and for a reason.

The problem is, most of these "examinations' are tap dancing around how poor a writer Matthew was. He plagarized Mark and either misquoted or just made up "Scripture' to make Jesus fit into the "Messiah" box.

Jews didn't buy it, which is why Christians have been trying to eradicate them for the last 2000 years.

Nah. the problem is you have no clue whatsoever as to how the books are structured, much less what they say, and you listen to other tards just as clueless, and now have some stupid idea that just because you and them are basically ignorant that means you get make up whatever you want, based on some premise or other that are themselves based on dumbassery and cluelessness. This is why you and the other morons end up just playing 'I Touched You Last!!!' with every post; you don't know anything about the subjects at all.

 

[RWNJ]

Christians believe that Jesus "fulfilled" OT prophecy. But in fact it's not prophecy fulfilled but prophecy historicized after the fact. The "fulfilled prophecies" were retrojected into the gospel writers' stories in order to flesh out the Jesus character who they knew so little about. After all, these writers wrote decades after Jesus died, and knew almost nothing about him. In their zeal to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, they searched the Old Testament for anything (sometimes just phrases) that could possibly be construed as messianic prophecies, and then created or modified events in Jesus' life to fulfill those so-called prophecies.

How do we know that? How do we know that the stories weren't actual records of actual fulfillment of prophecy? Well, lots of reasons, but one, in particular, stands out, at least to me. It's sometimes referred to as "Matthew's big blunder", and this blunder, I'm afraid, gives the game away.

In the story of the triumphal entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem, Mark, Luke and John all say that Jesus entered the city riding on a donkey. But Matthew has Jesus enter the city straddling TWO animals, not one - a donkey AND a colt! Here's the passage in Matthew:

Matthew 21:1-7
Now when they drew near Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, AND a colt with her. Loose THEM and bring THEM to Me. And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of THEM,’ and immediately he will send THEM.”

All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet [Zechariah], saying:

“Tell the daughter of Zion,
‘Behold, your King is coming to you,
Lowly, and sitting on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.’”

So the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them. They brought the donkey AND the colt, laid THEIR clothes on THEM, and set Him on THEM.

The reason Matthew has Jesus on TWO animals instead of one is that he misunderstood the prophecy (quoted above) to refer to two animals. But this is an error on his part [yes, an error. You can throw out any belief in “inerrancy” right here!] This is a common occurrence in the OT of something called a parallelism, where the same idea is stated twice with slightly different wording, but actually means the same thing. In this case the passage in Zechariah is NOT referring to two animals. The donkey and the colt represent the same animal, and the other gospel writers all understood this, which is why they had Jesus enter the city on a lone donkey. Matthew didn't get it though. He thought the Zechariah passage literally meant TWO animals, so that's what he put in his story. It’s rather comical when you to try to picture Jesus straddling two animals!

Stunt rider Jesus to the rescue!

What does this tell us? What conclusions can we draw from this?

Here’s what we can conclude:

1) Whoever wrote the gospel of Matthew could not possibly have been an eyewitness. If he was, he would have known that Jesus entered the city on just one donkey, as he would have seen it with his own eyes.

2) Not only was the author not a witness, but he did not get his information from anyone else who was a witness, for the same reason as above.

3) Since he was neither a witness nor an acquaintance of a witness, there is only one way he could have gotten his information – from his own imagination – with the help of the Old Testament! Of course, he got the story from Mark, but then he changed Mark’s version of the story in order to reflect what he thought it should say in order to make the prophecy come true. It is a conscious act of fraud in order to make the text fit his own personal opinion about what must have happened. It is prophecy fulfillment invented, not recorded, and this is most likely how all of the gospels were written.

There’s an old story that goes like this: “While traveling through a forest, a person noticed a circle marked on a tree with an arrow shot perfectly into the center. A few yards away he noticed several more targets, each with arrows in the center. Later, he met the talented archer and he asked him, "How did you become such an expert that you always get your arrows into the center of the bullseye?" "It's not difficult," responded the archer, "First I shoot the arrow and then I draw the circle."”


That’s how the gospels were written!


And Matthew's blunder, among other things, gives the game away.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

Although Matthew says that two donkeys were fetched, his account is consistent with Jesus only riding on one of them: When Matthew says that Jesus "sat on them", he uses the plural not because he is describing Jesus straddling more than one donkey, but because he is describing Jesus sitting on the clothes that have been put on the donkeys, and Jesus could do this while sitting on only one donkey.

So that's how your apologetics websites try to weasel out of it huh? No, he was straddling two animals. Nice try though.

It must be difficult for you, having such a poor grasp of basic Grammar. As usual, it sucks to be you.

That so-called solution you posted is so laughably bad, it really doesn't deserve a response. Grammar here is obviously on my side. Only a person willing to swallow anything to save the Bible from error would believe crap like that. Continue in your bubble, I understand. I've been there.

So, what makes you think that the verse says that he sat on both donkeys, instead of the clothes that they placed on those donkeys? Consider this.

They placed some cushions on the chairs and I sat on them.

Now, did I sit on the cushions, or did I sit on the chairs?

It is the same sentence structure as the verse in Matthew. So why do you insist that Jesus sat on both donkeys? Would you think that I sat on all of the chairs, however many there are, or that I sat on the cushions on one chair. No. You abandon common sense and believe what you want to believe. Sucks to be you.

 

[godsandmen]

They placed some cushions on the chairs and I sat on them.

Now, did I sit on the cushions, or did I sit on the chairs?

It is the same sentence structure as the verse in Matthew. So why do you insist that Jesus sat on both donkeys? Would you think that I sat on all of the chairs, however many there are, or that I sat on the cushions on one chair. No. You abandon common sense and believe what you want to believe. Sucks to be you.

Now, did I sit on the cushions, or did I sit on the chairs?

Take your pick. But in either case, you are sitting on both of them! You're either sitting on both chairs of both cushions. You are not, however, sitting on one chair or one cushion. If you sit on a chair, you are not sitting on a chair and a cushion, you are sitting on a chair. You don't use a plural when you're sit on a chair. If you throw a saddle on a horse, you don't say "I'm sitting on them". You say I'm sitting on a horse.

Look at the passage again:

Now when they drew near Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, AND a colt with her. Loose THEM and bring THEM to Me. And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of THEM,’ and immediately he will send THEM.... The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on. ”

If you look at the flow of this passage, it is clear that this is referring to Jesus sitting on both animals. Now let me ask you a question: If Jesus was only sitting on one animal, why would they have felt the need to put cloaks on BOTH animals "for Him to sit on"?

 

[shimon]

They placed some cushions on the chairs and I sat on them.

Now, did I sit on the cushions, or did I sit on the chairs?

It is the same sentence structure as the verse in Matthew. So why do you insist that Jesus sat on both donkeys? Would you think that I sat on all of the chairs, however many there are, or that I sat on the cushions on one chair. No. You abandon common sense and believe what you want to believe. Sucks to be you.

Now, did I sit on the cushions, or did I sit on the chairs?

Take your pick. But in either case, you are sitting on both of them! You're either sitting on both chairs of both cushions. You are not, however, sitting on one chair or one cushion. If you sit on a chair, you are not sitting on a chair and a cushion, you are sitting on a chair. You don't use a plural when you're sit on a chair. If you throw a saddle on a horse, you don't say "I'm sitting on them". You say I'm sitting on a horse.

Look at the passage again:

Now when they drew near Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, AND a colt with her. Loose THEM and bring THEM to Me. And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of THEM,’ and immediately he will send THEM.... The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on. ”

If you look at the flow of this passage, it is clear that this is referring to Jesus sitting on both animals. Now let me ask you a question: If Jesus was only sitting on one animal, why would they have felt the need to put cloaks on BOTH animals "for Him to sit on"?

Now you are seeing the "Double Assed" comment I made in Action Godsandmen ...Isnt It I Humorous An "Ass" is Riding an "Ass" or is it a Donkey no wait it was a pony...Regardless the followers are made an ASS by trying to work it all out for themselves isnt it ASSinine...One must stand aside and smirk at how grown men and women can try to make a fairytale they were told as children work as adults but then some here still believe in Santa and teach their children such that is why there are so many people in the world truly making A..es of themselves over it.....There are other stories in there that are just as silly but basically none that make me chuckle more then this one does...

 

[RWNJ]

They placed some cushions on the chairs and I sat on them.

Now, did I sit on the cushions, or did I sit on the chairs?

It is the same sentence structure as the verse in Matthew. So why do you insist that Jesus sat on both donkeys? Would you think that I sat on all of the chairs, however many there are, or that I sat on the cushions on one chair. No. You abandon common sense and believe what you want to believe. Sucks to be you.

Now, did I sit on the cushions, or did I sit on the chairs?

Take your pick. But in either case, you are sitting on both of them! You're either sitting on both chairs of both cushions. You are not, however, sitting on one chair or one cushion. If you sit on a chair, you are not sitting on a chair and a cushion, you are sitting on a chair. You don't use a plural when you're sit on a chair. If you throw a saddle on a horse, you don't say "I'm sitting on them". You say I'm sitting on a horse.

Look at the passage again:

Now when they drew near Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, AND a colt with her. Loose THEM and bring THEM to Me. And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of THEM,’ and immediately he will send THEM.... The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on. ”

If you look at the flow of this passage, it is clear that this is referring to Jesus sitting on both animals. Now let me ask you a question: If Jesus was only sitting on one animal, why would they have felt the need to put cloaks on BOTH animals "for Him to sit on"?

But it doesn't say that Jesus sat on both of them. It merely states that they put cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on. Perhaps Jesus chose one or the other to sit on. You are reading something into the passage that simply isn't there.

 

[godsandmen]

They placed some cushions on the chairs and I sat on them.

Now, did I sit on the cushions, or did I sit on the chairs?

It is the same sentence structure as the verse in Matthew. So why do you insist that Jesus sat on both donkeys? Would you think that I sat on all of the chairs, however many there are, or that I sat on the cushions on one chair. No. You abandon common sense and believe what you want to believe. Sucks to be you.

Now, did I sit on the cushions, or did I sit on the chairs?

Take your pick. But in either case, you are sitting on both of them! You're either sitting on both chairs of both cushions. You are not, however, sitting on one chair or one cushion. If you sit on a chair, you are not sitting on a chair and a cushion, you are sitting on a chair. You don't use a plural when you're sit on a chair. If you throw a saddle on a horse, you don't say "I'm sitting on them". You say I'm sitting on a horse.

Look at the passage again:

Now when they drew near Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, AND a colt with her. Loose THEM and bring THEM to Me. And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of THEM,’ and immediately he will send THEM.... The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on. ”

If you look at the flow of this passage, it is clear that this is referring to Jesus sitting on both animals. Now let me ask you a question: If Jesus was only sitting on one animal, why would they have felt the need to put cloaks on BOTH animals "for Him to sit on"?

But it doesn't say that Jesus sat on both of them. It merely states that they put cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on. Perhaps Jesus chose one or the other to sit on. You are reading something into the passage that simply isn't there.

I don't know how to explain any better. I does say they sat him on both animals. You're just not reading it correctly. This isn't just my opinion. This is the opinion of the vast majority of Bible scholars, even some evangelical ones (if you can even call them 'scholars'). If it makes you feel better to believe it was one animal, then go for it. I really couldn't care less. Whatever it takes to keep your dream of inerrancy alive.

 

[JoeB131]

Nah. the problem is you have no clue whatsoever as to how the books are structured, much less what they say, and you listen to other tards just as clueless, and now have some stupid idea that just because you and them are basically ignorant that means you get make up whatever you want, based on some premise or other that are themselves based on dumbassery and cluelessness. This is why you and the other morons end up just playing 'I Touched You Last!!!' with every post; you don't know anything about the subjects at all.

I backed up my statements with actual arguments, like the contradictions between Luke and Matthew...

Your arguments have been non-existence, other than saying "you're wrong".

 

[Dale Smith]

Your schooling about history probably consisted of praising those that started the Bolshevik revolution while never teaching you about what became of those "malcontents" that were not on board with communism or how Mao Tse-Tung was funded by the same banking oligarchs that funded Lenin.....yeppers, I would venture to say that what you were "taught" was liberal bullshit where a "da gubermint" is beyond reproach and a benevolent entity and you owe all that you are to the "state".

Meh, not really. In HS, I got the typical Cold War "The Commies are out to get us" spiel", and in college, they were hardly much friendlier. They dint' teach us a darn thing about the Lizard People at the Central Bank, though.

P.S I am not "miserable" in the slightest....I have found that being a truth teller of pertinent facts to be incredibly rewarding....

Actually, you are the most miserable creature here. Only a TRULY MISERABLE COCKSUCKER would claim murdered children were crisis actors.

Did you hear that Lenny "poseur" Pozner dropped his lawsuit against Wolfgang Halbig because he didn't want to go through the "discovery" process? Seems his bluff and bullying didn't work. Sandy Hook = Sandy Hoax, Cocksucker Joe.......you lose yet again.

(snicker)

 

[JoeB131]

Did you hear that Lenny "poseur" Pozner dropped his lawsuit against Wolfgang Halbig because he didn't want to go through the "discovery" process? Seems his bluff and bullying didn't work. Sandy Hook = Sandy Hoax, Cocksucker Joe.......you lose yet again.

No, I don't know who either of those guys are... but my guess is that someone figured that some loser living in his mother's basement wasn't worth suing because he didn't own anything.

Again, anyone who claims Sandy Hook was a hoax is a sad cocksucker with no life.

 

[Dale Smith]

Did you hear that Lenny "poseur" Pozner dropped his lawsuit against Wolfgang Halbig because he didn't want to go through the "discovery" process? Seems his bluff and bullying didn't work. Sandy Hook = Sandy Hoax, Cocksucker Joe.......you lose yet again.

No, I don't know who either of those guys are... but my guess is that someone figured that some loser living in his mother's basement wasn't worth suing because he didn't own anything.

Again, anyone who claims Sandy Hook was a hoax is a sad cocksucker with no life.

Well, since you don't even have a clue about the major opposing players in this facade? Why should anyone believe anything you claim as it pertains to Sandy Hoax?

But allow me to "fill you in".....Wolfgang Halbig is a former Florida state trooper that became a school safety adviser that was put on national TV after the Columbine shooting.......he's not a "loser". He simply asked some pertinent questions about the event and was shut down, intimidated and bullied. Lenny Pozner? Do some research on him......I have had a conversation with him and he is a total fraud, liar and pout out in front in a lame attempt to stop anyone that speaks out against Sandy Hoax......


Knowledge is power, Cocksucker Joe........knowledge is power.

Hope this helps!!!