Mishnah,As I will demonstrate, your attempted rebuttal both misreads the evidence by failing to understand simple Bible texts (as I, no less prophetically than any Bible text, said above), and totally misunderstands the burden of evidence.
"When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son"As we can see, Hosea is talking past tense, not future, and he talked explicitly about Israel, not any Messiah. The text refers directly to the most important nation-bearing myth known to his audience. Fact: Matthew misquoted Hosea.
Fact is that Matthew made a false claim about "what was spoken through the prophet" (and direct quote follows) not some mythical thought that may have existed in his brain at the time. Metthew told an untruth. When you assert that both were inspired by God, you in fact presume what you want to prove, namely that the Bible is inspired. You commit a logical fallacy, a circular argument, and a pretty primitive one at that.
You are commiting another fallacy, by reversing the burden of evidence. Those who claim a supernatural source for the Bible, must meet the full burden of evidence. And, as I show above, Matthew makes a false claim abotu a text we have in its entirity, so we can see that he 1) misrepresents it, and 2) quotes it out of context.
From where do you get this idea? To sit means to sit. I have some of my clothes on the chair behind me, and I sit in my office chair. I will not, and even you will not, assert that I sit on two chairs.If you claim that this is standard usage of "sit" or "ride", I hereby challenge you to find documented examples of such usage.
As I showed above, this is an explanation without any merit. It does violence to language and lends support to the idea that Bible apologists can say anything to support their preconceived ideas. There is also nothing in the text supporting the claim that Jesus had any property placed on the second animal. The text says "They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them." As we can see, it is the disciples who place their clothes on both animals, and then we have Jesus riding both.Further evidence that Matthew is creating this fantasy to "fulfill" his faulty reading of the OT prophecy, we find when we look at parallell accounts in Mk 11:1-11, Lu 19:29-38 and Jn 12:12-16.Look at the following links to read these accounts: http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=mk+11%3A1-11&version=NIV-IBS&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=englishhttp://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Lu+19%3A29-38+&version=NIV-IBS&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=englishhttp://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Jn+12%3A12-16&version=NIV-IBS&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=englishAs you can see, John makes no mention of any animal (except in the quotation applied to the crowd). Both Mark and Luke tells us that there was only one colt. As Mk 11:4-7 says, "They went and found a colt outside in the street, tied at a doorway. As they untied it, some people standing there asked, "What are you doing, untying that colt?" They answered as Jesus had told them to, and the people let them go. When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks over it, he sat on it. "As we can easily see, this contradicts the over-eager and ridiculous account in Matthew. It also demonstrates that your own attempts to reconcile the account in Matthew with anything resembling a sane scenario is just wrong. Either Jesus rode on one animal, or he had two. Not both one and two simultanously.
- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
HOSEA 11:1 - You mention types and antitypes but do nothing to demonstrate that Hosea did not have a second fulfillment in mind.
I have to do such thing, since nobody can know what a person living 2500+ years ago (or whatever) had "in mind" at the time of writing. What we have, is the text itself. This is why I actually use the text in my discussion, which you avoid carefully to do. This says it all, doesn't it?Hosea writes,"When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son"As we can see, Hosea is talking past tense, not future, and he talked explicitly about Israel, not any Messiah. The text refers directly to the most important nation-bearing myth known to his audience. Fact: Matthew misquoted Hosea.
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.
Fact is that Matthew made a false claim about "what was spoken through the prophet" (and direct quote follows) not some mythical thought that may have existed in his brain at the time. Metthew told an untruth. When you assert that both were inspired by God, you in fact presume what you want to prove, namely that the Bible is inspired. You commit a logical fallacy, a circular argument, and a pretty primitive one at that.
You need to _prove_ that they were not inspired to know the secondary fulfillment and that you have not done.
You are commiting another fallacy, by reversing the burden of evidence. Those who claim a supernatural source for the Bible, must meet the full burden of evidence. And, as I show above, Matthew makes a false claim abotu a text we have in its entirity, so we can see that he 1) misrepresents it, and 2) quotes it out of context.
TWO DONKEYS - To "sit" upon something could convey the idea that both he and his garments were placed upon the animals.
From where do you get this idea? To sit means to sit. I have some of my clothes on the chair behind me, and I sit in my office chair. I will not, and even you will not, assert that I sit on two chairs.If you claim that this is standard usage of "sit" or "ride", I hereby challenge you to find documented examples of such usage.
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.
As I showed above, this is an explanation without any merit. It does violence to language and lends support to the idea that Bible apologists can say anything to support their preconceived ideas. There is also nothing in the text supporting the claim that Jesus had any property placed on the second animal. The text says "They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them." As we can see, it is the disciples who place their clothes on both animals, and then we have Jesus riding both.Further evidence that Matthew is creating this fantasy to "fulfill" his faulty reading of the OT prophecy, we find when we look at parallell accounts in Mk 11:1-11, Lu 19:29-38 and Jn 12:12-16.Look at the following links to read these accounts: http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=mk+11%3A1-11&version=NIV-IBS&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=englishhttp://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Lu+19%3A29-38+&version=NIV-IBS&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=englishhttp://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Jn+12%3A12-16&version=NIV-IBS&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=englishAs you can see, John makes no mention of any animal (except in the quotation applied to the crowd). Both Mark and Luke tells us that there was only one colt. As Mk 11:4-7 says, "They went and found a colt outside in the street, tied at a doorway. As they untied it, some people standing there asked, "What are you doing, untying that colt?" They answered as Jesus had told them to, and the people let them go. When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks over it, he sat on it. "As we can easily see, this contradicts the over-eager and ridiculous account in Matthew. It also demonstrates that your own attempts to reconcile the account in Matthew with anything resembling a sane scenario is just wrong. Either Jesus rode on one animal, or he had two. Not both one and two simultanously.
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."
You have either not read what I wrote, or you misunderstand it. I do not deny that a naive direct reading of Zechariah could make a reader assume it was two animals. Matthew obviously did this (probably he read it from the LXX). That is not the point. Translation is not mathematics. You cannot just randomly take synonyms our of dictionaries and apply them wherever you want. It is extremely obvious you didn't look up and actually read Zechariah, or you have never done any serious reading of any OT poetry.The text Matthew misapplies, Zech 9:9, says "Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king[1] comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey."Are you seriously suggesting that the author here actually prophecied about the king riding on two animals? These parallell constructs can be found all over the OT, as any casual Bible reader knows. And I am very certain you would never interprete this text differently, were it not for a strong desire to save Matthew from being exposed as dishonest and incompetent. Which is something, I have to say, he has in common with most Bible inerrantist apologists to this day.- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]