Mark, or the person who last edited it wasn’t so concerned with the credulity of the faithful. Believers can heal by the laying on of hands, handle snakes and drink poison without ill effect. By these signs you will know them.
If you can believe that…
Actually, a colt is a “young male animal of the horse family”, so it’s possible that in one sentence he could have said “ass” and in another “colt” and meant the same thing. If they appear together the mix up is more likely down to the translation, not the original story
And Canuck, venom is a poison that can be taken orally. That’s why it’s called venom and not poison; venom has to be injected directly into the bloodstream through the skin or eyes. Alot of cultures use venom as medicine.
I was always reminded of Don Quixote when I read that passage, because the guys running around screaming praise while Jesus is all spread eagle across two beasts of burden just reeks of absurdity. It’s amazing Matthew isn’t satire…or maybe it is! That would explain all the hackneyed, half-hearted attempts at fulfilled prophecies that clearly don’t work! Someone couldn’t possibly be that stupid. It must be deliberate!
Looks like someone’s been reading this: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#1
If not, the comic contains some of the points from their, so you may want to read it anyway.
Through Matt’s link and little surfing, I came upon “Jesus Camp” (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7168860244966080667). I think this is worthy of a J&M comic.
Roodbooy try out scripturetext.com for the Greek text of Mat.21:5 http://scripturetext.com/matthew/21-5.htm I don’t think the author of Matthew was so dumb as to have Jesus mounting an ass and a colt at the same time, was he? Oh snap, Mat.21:7 confirms there were two animals. Also, the author of Matthew quoted Zechariah 9:9 almost verbatim. Was that Matthew’s idea of a fulfilled prophesy? Or another proof Jesus’ story was made up and he never existed at all?
“while Jesus is all spread eagle across two beasts of burden”
Just in case you wanna read further on this topic: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=3037
the original “prophecy” (in Zechariah) refers to synonymously paralleled animals (“a donkey, and a colt” – Matt 21:5). This is a Hebraism (a Hebrew figure of speech) which actually refers to a single animal. It is very common, and occurs right throughout the poetic and prophetic books.
whereas the ‘fulfillment’ is literal in having “a donkey” AND “a colt” as two *separate* animals (Matt 21:7).
Therefore, there is no fulfillment at all.
Matthew’s rendition of a “donkey AND a colt” is a clear reference, albeit mistakenly, to Zechariah’s single donkey.
The writer of Matthew fails to appreciate that Zechariah originally referred to “one animal” utilizing poetic parallel designations. Matthew failed to appreciate Zechariah’s meaning! Matthew misinterpreted Zechariah. And in misinterpreting Zechariah, Matthew revealed that he had CREATED this account of Jesus entering into Jerusalem. Matthew’s error reveals not only Matthew’s ignorance or esoteric interpretation of Hebrew, but it reveals that this is not a ‘fulfillment’ of prophecy. This is merely one writer’s creative telling of a story by using / misinterpreting prophecy.
My reference is the NIV. There it uses the phrase “drink deadly poison”. That translator, at least, seems to be showing that the act would be fatal to non-believers. It makes little sense that Jesus would have been quoted as giving a test that can be passed by anyone.
What evidence is there that non-lethal ingestion of ‘venom’ is the original intent?
And Canuck, venom is a poison that can be taken orally. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s why itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s called venom and not poison; venom has to be injected directly into the bloodstream through the skin or eyes. Alot of cultures use venom as medicine.
I’m not sure if you are being facetious or if you are just wrong, but I’m not sure where you are getting your deffinitions. According to toxicology venom is a classification of animal toxin. According to Casarett & Doull’s Toxicology, “toxicologists generally separate the ‘venomous’ animals from those termed ‘poisonous.’ The former are those animals capable of producing a poison in a highly developed secretory gland ro group of cells and that can deliver their toxin during a biting or stinging act. Poisonous animals, by contrast, are generally regarded to be those whose tissues, either in part or in their entirety, are toxic.”
Poison is pretty much just a catch-all term for some chemical that can cause harm. Also you mention that venom has to be taken orally, and then you suggest that it has to enter the bloodstream via the skin or eyes, which is obviously wrong just by virtue of the contradiction, not to mention that route isnt really a part of any deffinition.
None of your argument is really correct, and what was the point? In these cultures (ie the Jews and the Greeks / Romans) do only Christians get medicinal toxins?
Lovin’ your work geezer.
I’m surprised that no one has already hit on this simple solution: he rode on the ass of a colt.
Thank you, thank you, I’m here all week.
NOTE: This comments section is provided as a safe place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.
NAME — Get an avatar
EMAIL — Required / not published
Jesus & Mo is licensed under a Creative Commons License:
Feel free to copy for noncommercial purposes, under the same license.
Please provide a link back to jesusandmo.net
Hosted by NearlyFreeSpeech.NET.