Was Jesus a Progressive Socialist?

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Machinist]

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

2don.jpg

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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. .

[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 didn't say there weren't any links. You claimed that there were "no supporting citations." You were wronger than wrong.

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

[rogue06]

tabibito provided a link that took me to post #50 of a particular thread from 2015. On that post [i.e. #50] there were not links. It was a cut and paste.

You didn't say there weren't any links. You claimed that there were "no supporting citations." You were wronger than wrong.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It would be similar if, by going from memory, I noted that Shakespeare included several anachronisms in the opening of his play Julius Caesar including the mention of there being chimneys. This was something I learned during a class long discussion back in High School. While other examples were given the one I remember from nearly half a century ago was chimneys.

Now, while looking up something in Shakespeare's plays is easy enough to do^[1] doing so with someone less known and from a work I'm not sure of the title is would obviously be far more difficult.




1. And here is the reference to chimneys:

MARULLUS:

Wherefore rejoice? What conquest brings he home?
What tributaries follow him to Rome,
To grace in captive bonds his chariot-wheels?
You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things!
O you hard hearts, you cruel men of Rome,
Knew you not Pompey? Many a time and oft
Have you climb'd up to walls and battlements,
To towers and windows, yea, to chimney-tops,...

What you are singularly failing to acknowledge is that in your initial post [i.e. post # 264] you made a definitive statement with no reference to "going from memory".

You stated unequivocally that "At least according to Ian Howard Marshall, the late Professor Emeritus of New Testament Exegesis at Scotland's University of Aberdeen as well as president of the British New Testament Society. He says that prior to 44 A.D. there were no Roman troops in Galilee, meaning that the Centurion would therefore almost certainly have been a member of Agrippa's military (which was modelled after the Roman's)."

You were wrong over Agrippa.

However, both yourself and several here regularly rush in where angels fear to tread.