Jan, you are missing several points.
HOSEA 11:1 - You mention types and antitypes but do nothing to demonstrate that Hosea did not have a second fulfillment in mind. Matthew believed that he did and if we accept the premise that they were both inspired by the same spirit, then there is no problem. You need to _prove_ that they were not inspired to know the secondary fulfillment and that you have not done.
TWO DONKEYS - To "sit" upon something could convey the idea that both he and his garments were placed upon the animals. So Jesus and his property sat on the two animals, and in effect that meant that Jesus was upon the two in terms of his person and his property. You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to biblical Hebrew. So you make wild comments about what Zechariah 9:9 means. You, in effect, distort matters to fulfill your own speculative condemnation. This is just what you condemn Matthew for doing. The Hebrew text uses the conjunction waw which can mean "even" or "and." You limit its meaning self-servingly to skew the issue to your liking. That is dishonest. The LXX translates it using KAI which can also mean "even" or "and."
If this is the best you can do, and apparently it is since this is what you led with, then you have nothing legitimate to offer. All you do is state opinion as fact.
Mishnah