Was Jesus a Progressive Socialist?

[Mountain Man]

That is a translation of the text as it has come down to us, however once again it is possible there was an early corruption. Certainly the author of Matthew has been ridiculed for the notion that Jesus sat astride two separate animals. However, as with all these texts various arguments have been put forward. It has suggested that the writer apparently failed to recognize that Zechariah uses a poetic construction called “parallelismus memborum,” a repetition using synonyms for heightened effect, rather than to refer to two separate things [donkey and colt] and thereby makes an overly literal attempt to illustrate the precise wording of the text, rather than its intent. The other contention is that the writer was fully cognisant with the Hebrew texts and modified the ending of Zechariah 9.9 to read υίόν ύποζυγίου thereby describing the female donkey as a beast of burden and by doing so makes a a connection between Zechariah 9:9 and Genesis 49:14–15 where Issachar [at least in the Hebrew text] is compared to such an animal.

Once again, it all comes down to interpretation.

You of course ignore the third and most likely possibility: that skeptics like you who insist on an absurd degree of literalism are forcing an "error" into the text where none exists.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You of course ignore the third and most likely possibility: that skeptics like you who insist on an absurd degree of literalism are forcing an "error" into the text where none exists.

The texts as they have come down to us is all we have. Everything else is interpretation. .

[rogue06]

At post #50 in the relevant thread there was nothing but an uncredited and unsupported cut and paste. Is that clear enough for you?

And that's the latest level that you have dug that hole you are in.

The facts were laid out in this post

I guess you missed this like you missed all of the citations I provided that you falsely claimed I didn't provide.

Stop acting like a big baby and just admit that your snarky remark blew up in your face.

You declared that

[...]

And we see that the tendency for rogue06 to make comments with no supporting citations goes back to at least 2015.

Only to have it shown that I had actually cited and quoted from the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Philadelphia Inquirer and the Journal of American History (the first and last source twice) as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the book Damned Lies and Statistics. I also cited the San Francisco Examiner but didn't quote them.

Then you claimed that they weren't in the quotes from my post that tab provided so you couldn't be faulted for missing them

In the link provided by "our mutual friend" there were no links that I could discern.

Only one problem with that.

There is no way you could have known that post was from 2015 unless you looked at the original post. The one that had all of the citations you declared I didn't provide. So you can't hide behind tab's not including them in his snippets when you obviously saw the original post.

Moreover, you tried a bit of bait and switch here. You moved the goal post when you said here that I didn't provide any links because you hadn't said that I hadn't given any "links" but rather that I hadn't provided any "supporting citations."

I guess you thought you could slip that one past since I established that I had provided "supporting citations" in spades.

So, in the end, as the posts clearly reveal, you thought that you would slip a snarky comment in only for it to backfire which led you to keep on digging the hole you placed yourself in, first by trying to shift the blame for your screw up onto tab, and also by trying to change what you falsely claimed I had not done.

Now put your big girl pants on and take responsibility for your actions rather than trying to gaslight your way out.

You can keep moving the goal posts clear out of the stadium to the other side of town, but nothing will change that.

[Mountain Man]

The texts as they have come down to us is all we have. Everything else is interpretation. .

There's interpretation, and then there's rampant silliness. The idea that Matthew intended to convey that Jesus was riding two animals simultaneously is clearly the latter.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And that's the latest level that you have dug that hole you are in.

The facts were laid out in this post


You can keep moving the goal posts clear out of the stadium to the other side of town, but nothing will change that.

Obviously my comment was not clear enough for you, so let me repeat it.

At post #50 in the relevant thread there was nothing but an uncredited and unsupported cut and paste.

What you wrote elsewhere on that thread is irrelevant to that simple fact.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

There's interpretation, and then there's rampant silliness. The idea that Matthew intended to convey that Jesus was riding two animals simultaneously is clearly the latter.

What the author may have intended we do not know as we have no original MS of the text nor the author's own thoughts on the topic.

[Mountain Man]

What the author may have intended we do not know as we have no original MS of the text nor the author's own thoughts on the topic.

"We just can't know for certain!" is often the last refuge of Bible skeptics who have begun to realize how ridiculous their argument really is but have a misplaced sense of pride in never conceding a debate.

[Machinist]

The author could have been going for something like this right here:

2don.jpg

[tabibito]

What the author may have intended we do not know as we have no original MS of the text nor the author's own thoughts on the topic.

An admission that perhaps Matthew did not make a mistake. He might have made a mistake in what he wrote, or there might be a colloquial expression in play. Given that either may be the case, the claim that he DID make an error fails. Even if it did prove to be an error, it would be no more than a careless slip in grammar. That is nothing that any fair minded commentator would make a fuss about.

Matt 21:5 shows that Matthew knew full well that Zechariah's prophecy had the messiah riding a donkey's colt, not that he thought there were two animals. Once that fact has been pointed out to a critic, any claim that Matthew had misinterpreted the prophecy is an outright lie.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

"We just can't know for certain!" is often the last refuge of Bible skeptics who have begun to realize how ridiculous their argument really is but have a misplaced sense of pride in never conceding a debate.

With these texts no one can claim they know what the writer intended. To try to pretend otherwise is quite ridiculous. We have the texts as they have come down to us. Everything else is interpretation.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

An admission that perhaps Matthew did not make a mistake. He might have made a mistake in what he wrote, or there might be a colloquial expression in play. Given that either may be the case, the claim that he DID make an error fails. Even if it did prove to be an error, it would be no more than a careless slip in grammar. That is nothing that any fair minded commentator would make a fuss about.

Matt 21:5 shows that Matthew knew full well that Zechariah's prophecy had the messiah riding a donkey's colt, not that he thought there were two animals. Once that fact has been pointed out to a critic, any claim that Matthew had misinterpreted the prophecy is an outright lie.

My comment was stating the blindingly obvious.

[tabibito]

With these texts no one can claim they know what the writer intended. To try to pretend otherwise is quite ridiculous. We have the texts as they have come down to us. Everything else is interpretation.

But strangely enough, you make confident assertions about what the writers intended.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

But strangely enough, you make confident assertions about what the writers intended.

I have very briefly put forward overviews of arguments concerning these texts. However, no one [not even @Mountain Man] can know what the writer was thinking he wrote his text.

Nor can anyone [not even @Mountain Man] know where, if, and in precisely what way, those texts may have been interpolated and/or corrupted in later copying because we do not have an original complete MS for any these texts from which to work.

[rogue06]

Obviously my comment was not clear enough for you, so let me repeat it.

At post #50 in the relevant thread there was nothing but an uncredited and unsupported cut and paste.

What you wrote elsewhere on that thread is irrelevant to that simple fact.

First, nothing was cut and pasted. Sources were cited and quoted.

Second, that is irrelevant to the fact that you falsely claimed that I had "[made] comments with no supporting citations."

So once again,

I guess you missed this like you missed all of the citations I provided that you falsely claimed I didn't provide.

Stop acting like a big baby and just admit that your snarky remark blew up in your face.

You declared that

[...]

And we see that the tendency for rogue06 to make comments with no supporting citations goes back to at least 2015.

Only to have it shown that I had actually cited and quoted from the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Philadelphia Inquirer and the Journal of American History (the first and last source twice) as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the book Damned Lies and Statistics. I also cited the San Francisco Examiner but didn't quote them.

Then you claimed that they weren't in the quotes from my post that tab provided so you couldn't be faulted for missing them

In the link provided by "our mutual friend" there were no links that I could discern.

Only one problem with that.

There is no way you could have known that post was from 2015 unless you looked at the original post. The one that had all of the citations you declared I didn't provide. So you can't hide behind tab's not including them in his snippets when you obviously saw the original post.

Moreover, you tried a bit of bait and switch here. You moved the goal post when you said here that I didn't provide any links because you hadn't said that I hadn't given any "links" but rather that I hadn't provided any "supporting citations."

I guess you thought you could slip that one past since I established that I had provided "supporting citations" in spades.

So, in the end, as the posts clearly reveal, you thought that you would slip a snarky comment in only for it to backfire which led you to keep on digging the hole you placed yourself in, first by trying to shift the blame for your screw up onto tab, and also by trying to change what you falsely claimed I had not done.

Now put your big girl pants on and take responsibility for your actions rather than trying to gaslight your way out.

You can keep moving the goal posts clear out of the stadium to the other side of town, but nothing will change that.

GIF Goal Posts.gif

[rogue06]

My comment was stating the blindingly obvious.

H_A-dude.gif