Luke's gospel mentions multiple owners. A colt would not have been first ridden without his mother escorting him. Here's the correct explanation to put this controversy to rest: The Septuagint (Greek) Zechariah implies 2 animals, Matthew does not say Jesus rode on top of both animals, the Greek reads "Epi Kathise Epano Aufton, this means Jesus sat postured "over" the animals, not sitting on both of them. If Jesus sat on both of them, the Greek would read "Ekathise epano Auton", NO mistake here.
(Part 1) The anonymous author of Matthew misunderstands the Hebrew idiom of Zechariah (he didn’t understand the Hebrew device called “synonymous parallelism”), and thinks that Zechariah is talking about two donkeys, when in fact he is only talking about one. You must remember that the Matthew is simply an expanded version of Mark, but it is also a creative reinterpretation of the source.
I've always been under the impression that Matthew used a hermeneutic common amongst the rabbis, that is, reading over parallelisms (knowingly or not) as a way of, at least in some cases, affirming the fullness of the text's meaning (like Akiba on halacha).
I like the end to this video. I must say - I was a bit sceptical, because you rarely find people that discuss beliefs in a way that doesn't offend the other party. I like what I have seen so far. Thanks Brady!
(Part 2) So, the anonymous author of Matthew sees Mark, realizes it does not fulfill his misunderstanding of Zechariah, and deliberately made Jesus fulfill the prophecy of Scripture. This explain why the Matthew’s Gospel has two donkeys (the other gospels only have one). Read Bart D. Ehrman books (e.g. Jesus, Interrupted, p. 50).
Letting other people do your thinking for you is wrong yes. I love how people like yourself label all Christians by one ONE Christian writes. I didn't realize God had labeled biblical interpretation as a sin. God doesn't contradict Himself. Yes I do have faith but it's also grounded in logic. Thank you for your comment.
nothing "half-assed" about the book of Matthew. Mark , Luke and John mention one donkey and the relationship to prophesy , read in context there are no contradictions only differing recollections. What would you expect since they are attributed to four of Jesus' disciples not just one of them. They are complimentary not contradictory.
@nequillim Jesus couldn't spare 30 seconds on the mount to say "oh yeah, don't enslave people any more, that's bad" but could say "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." He could curse a fig tree for not having figs out of season. Most relevant here, he could not correctly prophesy the death of Lazarus. Psalm 137: you hear "harps upon the willows", I hear babies smashed on rocks. My selections are revealing, yours obfuscating.
When I read that part I thought it was the poetic parallelism bit, whereby the second phrase restates and further describes the first, so I imagined him riding an adolescent colt. . . Other than that, maybe he sat on them like a Lay-z-boy, sitting on the shorter colt and reclining on the mother... Okay that's just silly.
@nequillim Not at all. If you could demonstrate that the active agents were isolated from the prophesy and that the prophesy were specific to the agents identified you're getting somewhere. So if it were say a Mayan prophesy detailing date, location, names or the like then we'd have something interesting. If I predict Elvis will return to Vegas in a black car & later someone claiming to be Elvis gets a black car to match, this adds no credibility to my prophesy or his claim of being The King.
@nequillim "As long as the right side of the equation matches the left side, the method is irrelevant." Prophesy is more than prediction, it implies divine inspiration. It's fulfilment is seen as evidence if divine interaction with the prophet and the prophesy adds value to the event. Your definition leaves the event as benign as my prophesying that I will sleep tonight. My Elvis prediction may have been accurate but that doesn't make it prophetic or mean the guy in the black car is Elvis.
Genesis 49:11 Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes: I believe both Zech. and Matt. had this in mind. This verse is packed with meaning, and all the blessings to the sons in Gen 49. Hebrew poetry repeats, giving further meaning the second time. Jesus is not only the vine, but the choice vine. The garments are clothes (coverings). The wine is blood of grapes (representing Jesus' blood). The foal is a young donkey. The ass is a female donkey. the colt is a son. Putting it together the colt is a young male donkey. And this is all symbolic. Judah didn't tie his literal foal to a literal vine. So I don't believe Jesus rode any literal donkey.
@nequillim Faith is not an opportunity, it's a resort; usually the last one. As is the "mysterious ways" non-argument. Trying to find ways to make the facts fit your preconceptions, rather than going wherever the evidence takes you, is a classic example of not having "your brain in gear." Try reading the Bhagavad-gita and then try to have the same (likely) feeling of scepticism when you read the Bible or listen to sermons.
there is always an explanation like this...It's a wrong translation it's out of context...it's for that culture you can't understand it because you like to live in your sin...and so on...
your so ignorant... thats not what he is saying he is saying that you are supposed to discover what is written and what it means by yourself. its the journey of discovery and is part of getting to know god.
@nequillim You pick some fine examples of where humanity has been wrong. We have tried for a long time to understand the world and been wrong, or at least inaccurate, almost all the time. Newton was wrong about gravity, Einstein got it better and may well still be wide of the mark. But we improve our understanding. We refine the inaccurate, we reject the false. "Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." ~Tim Minchin
> God doesn't contradict Himself. God is what we make out of him, if there is a god figure we have no connections to it might as well not exists at all, so what matters is what people believe/write/read.
No, no. He rode in on two beasts. The people rejoiced, thinking that the circus was in town. Judas exploited the confusion and sold tickets. When all was sorted out the people who were cheated brought charges, Jesus was held responsible, crucified, and the rest is history. -The Gospel according to eirpcalc
@nequillim What? Faith doesn't enable the application of science. What on earth do you mean? Faith in what? An overlord, an afterlife? You may hope for better times to come, I would rather work for them, if for no other reason than this has a demonstrably better success rate. Your last sentence is just so wrong I fear you are simply reciting someone with an agenda. Be sceptical of those who gain from your lack of questioning. In summary for your whole post: "Citation needed."
@nequillim The Origin of Species was published in 1859, steamboats were high-tech back then. The principles of evolution through random variation and non-random selection have been evidenced with innumerable rigorous tests and discoveries since then. Nobody has any need to use that old book as 'proof'. The Bible was written thousands of years ago when bronze was high-tech and has been demonstrated to be inaccurate, contradictory and immoral since then. If you can't support your claim, sit down.
13 лет назад
@ImperatorAquila It's a fictional story man, calm down.
> All Bibles are filled with contradictions because God want's us to find and learn the truth for ourselves.´ Yes and the more absurd it sounds the truer it is, right? That's why I am a proud Pastafarian, join me brother!
@nequillim As ever the unsupported assertions of the pious delivered with the only weight they have, confidence and volume. I oppose the Bible's teachings of racism, slavery, homophobia, sexism, clannish thuggery and slaughter. Your empty threats do little to convince me to do otherwise and I suspect your arguments here do little to convince anyone else. All the best.
nobody rides on baby animals (colt), and everyone knew what it meant for Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey meant - everyone would have recognized the symbolism instantly - no thought to it at all. People who read their Pentatuech, laws and prophets, anyway (Jewish 'bible'). @ 4:11
It's really not a problem, Jesus has very long legs and a great sense of equilibrium.
"...make sure your brain is in gear." Brilliant theological advice.
Luke's gospel mentions multiple owners. A colt would not have been first ridden without his mother escorting him. Here's the correct explanation to put this controversy to rest: The Septuagint (Greek) Zechariah implies 2 animals, Matthew does not say Jesus rode on top of both animals, the Greek reads "Epi Kathise Epano Aufton, this means Jesus sat postured "over" the animals, not sitting on both of them. If Jesus sat on both of them, the Greek would read "Ekathise epano Auton", NO mistake here.
(Part 1) The anonymous author of Matthew misunderstands the Hebrew idiom of Zechariah (he didn’t understand the Hebrew device called “synonymous parallelism”), and thinks that Zechariah is talking about two donkeys, when in fact he is only talking about one. You must remember that the Matthew is simply an expanded version of Mark, but it is also a creative reinterpretation of the source.
Gotta give Matthew credit for academic honesty. "Hmm. . . . This doesn't quite look right. Well, it's my source and I'm gonna quote it verbatim."
you guys have done a great job on quite an exegetical conundrum! thankya!
thanks for sharing
"I wish to appear as if I am fulfilling a prophesy, go fetch me a donkey or two." ~ Jesus
I've always been under the impression that Matthew used a hermeneutic common amongst the rabbis, that is, reading over parallelisms (knowingly or not) as a way of, at least in some cases, affirming the fullness of the text's meaning (like Akiba on halacha).
I like the idea of theology departments specifically being there to point out mistakes in "God's [perfect] words".
We're ignoring the real question: Do Irish theologians get so little money that they can only afford to dye 1 half of their hair?
@yarbabez
Only I would know if I read and study the bible friend.
Just like only you know how you spend your free time right?
@martynwonder Getting accurate historical information from these documents is very hard.
On what verse was that based on again?
The path to God's Kingdom is a life long and strenuous path. A path that can never be properly traveled through laziness.
I like the end to this video.
I must say - I was a bit sceptical, because you rarely find people that discuss beliefs in a way that doesn't offend the other party. I like what I have seen so far.
Thanks Brady!
(Part 2) So, the anonymous author of Matthew sees Mark, realizes it does not fulfill his misunderstanding of Zechariah, and deliberately made Jesus fulfill the prophecy of Scripture. This explain why the Matthew’s Gospel has two donkeys (the other gospels only have one).
Read Bart D. Ehrman books (e.g. Jesus, Interrupted, p. 50).
but,
is there a reason why any of this could be considered as historical facts ?
Jesus Christ was probably riding side-saddle on the mother horse, and his feet were probably resting on the colt.
Letting other people do your thinking for you is wrong yes.
I love how people like yourself label all Christians by one ONE Christian writes.
I didn't realize God had labeled biblical interpretation as a sin.
God doesn't contradict Himself.
Yes I do have faith but it's also grounded in logic.
Thank you for your comment.
@nequillim
Good luck with that.
Looking at things from all angles ftw.
nothing "half-assed" about the book of Matthew. Mark , Luke and John mention one donkey and the relationship to prophesy , read in context there are no contradictions only differing recollections. What would you expect since they are attributed to four of Jesus' disciples not just one of them. They are complimentary not contradictory.
@nequillim Jesus couldn't spare 30 seconds on the mount to say "oh yeah, don't enslave people any more, that's bad" but could say "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." He could curse a fig tree for not having figs out of season. Most relevant here, he could not correctly prophesy the death of Lazarus.
Psalm 137: you hear "harps upon the willows", I hear babies smashed on rocks. My selections are revealing, yours obfuscating.
When I read that part I thought it was the poetic parallelism bit, whereby the second phrase restates and further describes the first, so I imagined him riding an adolescent colt. . . Other than that, maybe he sat on them like a Lay-z-boy, sitting on the shorter colt and reclining on the mother... Okay that's just silly.
@nequillim Not at all.
If you could demonstrate that the active agents were isolated from the prophesy and that the prophesy were specific to the agents identified you're getting somewhere.
So if it were say a Mayan prophesy detailing date, location, names or the like then we'd have something interesting.
If I predict Elvis will return to Vegas in a black car & later someone claiming to be Elvis gets a black car to match, this adds no credibility to my prophesy or his claim of being The King.
@nequillim "As long as the right side of the equation matches the left side, the method is irrelevant." Prophesy is more than prediction, it implies divine inspiration. It's fulfilment is seen as evidence if divine interaction with the prophet and the prophesy adds value to the event. Your definition leaves the event as benign as my prophesying that I will sleep tonight.
My Elvis prediction may have been accurate but that doesn't make it prophetic or mean the guy in the black car is Elvis.
Genesis 49:11
Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:
I believe both Zech. and Matt. had this in mind. This verse is packed with meaning, and all the blessings to the sons in Gen 49. Hebrew poetry repeats, giving further meaning the second time. Jesus is not only the vine, but the choice vine. The garments are clothes (coverings). The wine is blood of grapes (representing Jesus' blood). The foal is a young donkey. The ass is a female donkey. the colt is a son. Putting it together the colt is a young male donkey. And this is all symbolic. Judah didn't tie his literal foal to a literal vine. So I don't believe Jesus rode any literal donkey.
You're just trolling Eric.
Nice video Bibledex. New Subscriber. :)
@nequillim Faith is not an opportunity, it's a resort; usually the last one. As is the "mysterious ways" non-argument.
Trying to find ways to make the facts fit your preconceptions, rather than going wherever the evidence takes you, is a classic example of not having "your brain in gear."
Try reading the Bhagavad-gita and then try to have the same (likely) feeling of scepticism when you read the Bible or listen to sermons.
there is always an explanation like this...It's a wrong translation it's out of context...it's for that culture you can't understand it because you like to live in your sin...and so on...
your so ignorant... thats not what he is saying he is saying that you are supposed to discover what is written and what it means by yourself. its the journey of discovery and is part of getting to know god.
@nequillim You pick some fine examples of where humanity has been wrong. We have tried for a long time to understand the world and been wrong, or at least inaccurate, almost all the time. Newton was wrong about gravity, Einstein got it better and may well still be wide of the mark. But we improve our understanding. We refine the inaccurate, we reject the false.
"Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
~Tim Minchin
> God doesn't contradict Himself.
God is what we make out of him, if there is a god figure we have no connections to it might as well not exists at all, so what matters is what people believe/write/read.
@nequillim A prophesy has no predictive value if it's agents are actively contriving to fulfil it.
No, no. He rode in on two beasts. The people rejoiced, thinking that the circus was in town. Judas exploited the confusion and sold tickets. When all was sorted out the people who were cheated brought charges, Jesus was held responsible, crucified, and the rest is history. -The Gospel according to eirpcalc
@nequillim What?
Faith doesn't enable the application of science. What on earth do you mean?
Faith in what? An overlord, an afterlife? You may hope for better times to come, I would rather work for them, if for no other reason than this has a demonstrably better success rate.
Your last sentence is just so wrong I fear you are simply reciting someone with an agenda. Be sceptical of those who gain from your lack of questioning.
In summary for your whole post: "Citation needed."
@nequillim The Origin of Species was published in 1859, steamboats were high-tech back then. The principles of evolution through random variation and non-random selection have been evidenced with innumerable rigorous tests and discoveries since then. Nobody has any need to use that old book as 'proof'.
The Bible was written thousands of years ago when bronze was high-tech and has been demonstrated to be inaccurate, contradictory and immoral since then.
If you can't support your claim, sit down.
@ImperatorAquila It's a fictional story man, calm down.
> All Bibles are filled with contradictions because God want's us to find and learn the truth for ourselves.´
Yes and the more absurd it sounds the truer it is, right? That's why I am a proud Pastafarian, join me brother!
is clearly to me the other animal was for his wife come on now.
can't trust people named Matthew...
@nequillim As ever the unsupported assertions of the pious delivered with the only weight they have, confidence and volume.
I oppose the Bible's teachings of racism, slavery, homophobia, sexism, clannish thuggery and slaughter. Your empty threats do little to convince me to do otherwise and I suspect your arguments here do little to convince anyone else.
All the best.
nobody rides on baby animals (colt), and everyone knew what it meant for Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey meant - everyone would have recognized the symbolism instantly - no thought to it at all. People who read their Pentatuech, laws and prophets, anyway (Jewish 'bible'). @ 4:11