tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post1316328114486985624..comments2023-03-05T09:03:32.659-05:00Comments on Failing The Insider Test: Matthew, the Colt, and the DonkeyJeffrey Amoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11134064631280499241noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post-81944780067754637032013-03-21T02:04:42.559-04:002013-03-21T02:04:42.559-04:00John Gill makes the point that the reason Matthew ...John Gill makes the point that the reason Matthew includes both animals, the colt and its mother, is that;<br /> -he was there and remembers details that Mark and Luke<br /> would have missed, and<br /> -there may well be allegorical implications related to the<br /> mother (beast of burden) representing the Jews who bore<br /> rites and ceremonies related to the law and the unridden<br /> colt representing the wild, untamed Gentiles, and<br /> -there is no reason to believe Jesus may have ridden both<br /> animals at some point down the steep slopes of the Mount<br /> of Olives. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post-9546482506756647482013-01-17T02:21:50.061-05:002013-01-17T02:21:50.061-05:00In all *four* accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and J...In all *four* accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) the colt is accounted for.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post-64280026914633776682013-01-17T02:18:56.669-05:002013-01-17T02:18:56.669-05:00Jesus rode on and was transported by one young don...<br />Jesus rode on and was transported by one young donkey that was the colt. Anyone that has been around horses and donkey's (which I have) knows that you can't take the colt away from it's mother. They are always together. There is no mention of *only* one donkey. If there was a mention of only one donkey then there would be a contradiction but this is not the case.<br /><br />Zechariah was referring to what Jesus would be riding on - a colt. He did not say that he is riding on a colt and a donkey. That would be riding on two animals at the same time that doesn't make any sense. He is strictly only saying what Jesus would be riding on. Said again for clarity he is saying that Jesus would be riding on a young donkey which is defined as a colt. He is not saying who else is there, what they had for dinner, what color of sandals Jesus was wearing, what other animals were around or what other animals were included in this walk/journey. All that is stated is that Jesus would be riding on a colt. That is it! The four gospel accounts are consistent with Zechariah.<br /><br /><br />So there was a baby donkey (the colt that Jesus rode on) and the mother donkey. Two donkeys.<br /><br />In all for accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) the colt is accounted for.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post-20733988672487995622011-04-24T13:25:56.592-04:002011-04-24T13:25:56.592-04:00You and your readers should consider looking at &q...You and your readers should consider looking at "The Grounds of Christianity Examined" by George Bethune English.<br /><br />It is available free on Gutenberg.<br /><br />It provides in greater detail the point you make and many others.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post-3734391003388956902011-04-19T20:39:39.196-04:002011-04-19T20:39:39.196-04:00I see you have been unable to leave behind the arg...I see you have been unable to leave behind the arguments against the Bible.<br /><br />Apologetics Press: “Second, regarding the accusation that Matthew wrote of two donkeys, instead of just one, because he allegedly misunderstood Zechariah’s prophecy, it first must be noted that Zechariah’s prophecy actually mentions two donkeys (even though only one is stated as transporting the King to Jerusalem).”<br /><br />In many places in the Bible, people refer to “Jesus, son of David.” This is one person, and this is neither an implication nor even a hint of multiple people. The parenthetical remark is correct: Zechariah mentions exactly one animal transporting him to Jerusalem.<br /><br />Apologetics Press: “In this verse, Zechariah used Hebrew poetic parallelism (the balancing of thought in successive lines of poetry).”<br /><br />I agree, and this supports my view. The reason for the phrasing of “foal of a donkey” is poetic, so we should not be surprised that “of a donkey” communicates no literal information.<br /><br />Anon: “It's sound exegesis.”<br /><br />No it's not. They make a mistake that's nearly universal among evangelicals.<br /><br />Apologetics Press: “However, when Matthew’s gospel is taken into account, the elusive female donkey of Zechariah 9:9 is brought to light.”<br /><br />They are starting with the conclusion that Zechariah is writing about Matthew's account, and then reading this into the text. It scarcely possible to more perfectly align with the definition of eisegesis.<br /><br />It is exactly the same mistake that causes people to be fooled by palm readers. A vague “prediction” is made, and then something very specific happens that loosely fits the prediction. The specific events are used to “clarify” what the palm reader “really” meant. Next thing you know, the victim is convinced that the palm reader made a verifiable and highly specific prediction that came true. But a sincere attempt to understand the palm reader's statements sees that the predictions started out vague – future events do not change what was and wasn't predicted. <br /><br />Similarly, Zechariah didn't predict anything about the foal's mother. A sincere attempt to understand what Zechariah said does not allow a future book to add something that Zechariah didn't say.Jeffrey Amoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11134064631280499241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1371161900895276004.post-35178336930468638052011-04-19T12:22:42.586-04:002011-04-19T12:22:42.586-04:00You ought to check out http://www.apologeticspress...You ought to check out http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=773<br /><br />It gives a great treatment of Matthew that takes into account actual language issues. It's sound exegesis.<br /><br />It's good to see you chasing the Bible in 2011. I see why you can't let go of it and leave it behind. It's pretty captivating stuff.<br /><br />Have a great day. To God be the Glory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com