Matthew's Supposed Stupidity: Jesus Rode 2 Donkeys

Рет қаралды 18,525

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 251

@MrJonny0 2 ай бұрын

I wouldn’t call it low hanging fruit. When a skeptic claims “the Bible is full of contradictions” they usually use this or Judas as an example.

@CollinBoSmith 2 ай бұрын

Not to mention the most referenced critical New Testament scholar doesn’t (or shouldn’t) have “low hanging fruit”. If anyone makes this claim they’re basically saying Bart I just says really dumb things sometimes, which doesn’t help their use of him.

@MrJonny0 2 ай бұрын

@@letmetalk2240those key words are “ἐπεκάθισεν ἐπάνω αὐτῶν” that simply mean “he sat on them” the debate is whether “αὐτῶν” or “them” are the animals or garments. That’s just Erhmans assertion it means the animals and proved it’s the animals by Erhmans translation. ⭕️

@Just_a_Reflection 2 ай бұрын

It defies reason that anyone takes this Ehrman guy seriously, let alone considers him their goto source for deconstruction through Scriptural scholarship. It must be pretty thin pickings in that camp.

@keneutervalve9459 2 ай бұрын

His pink haired twin sister is funny.

@Just_a_Reflection 2 ай бұрын

@@keneutervalve9459 😅😅😅

@bradleymarshall5489 2 ай бұрын

yet I've met atheist who deconverted because of him

@Just_a_Reflection 2 ай бұрын

@@bradleymarshall5489 The irony is that I was much more informed atheist than Ehrman, and I am now a Christian who will not deny Jesus for any gain or to avoid any penalty. I think that difference is that I have always been willing to accept the truth no matter the cost.

@Noir_Nouveau 2 ай бұрын

"Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here." “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me." Start your mental gymnastics in 3,2,1...

@adamstewart9052 2 ай бұрын

InspiringPhilosophy has also made a video covering this with "Did Jesus Ride Two Donkeys? Supposed Biblical Error #20". He shows that it's also been repeated by Paulogia which Erik has also responded to specifically with another video.

@danehollyoak4897 2 ай бұрын

Bart Erman is full of contractions.

@apo.7898 2 ай бұрын

Anal.

@michaelpaulholmes9667 2 ай бұрын

Dude is fixin' to give birth.

@AmariLindsey-l5p 2 ай бұрын

@@michaelpaulholmes9667 We definitely don't want to see that, lol.

@darkwolf7740 2 ай бұрын

Sometimes, simple common sense solves a 'problem'.

@perfectstranger1152 2 ай бұрын

Be thankful for that which seems like common sense. It literally is not common.

@AmariLindsey-l5p 2 ай бұрын

@@perfectstranger1152 It used to be common, that's why it's called common sense. However, over time it has become lost. This is why a more appropriate name now would be rare sense.

@captainobvious2435 2 ай бұрын

No. There really are problems and everyone knows this whether Christian or Atheist. Excuses for the problems come up but they're unsubstantiated. Like the saints rising from the dead and wondering the city during darkness and earthquake, yet it's a highly remarkable event no one else realizes except the Matthew book. Honest Christians note the problems and admit they exist. Dishonest Christians try to come up with unsubstantiated excuses and say "See, there! Problem solved with no evidence. Ha ha!"

@captainobvious2435 2 ай бұрын

I dare to say that any New Testament scholar whether Christian or Atheist knows there are problems in the Bible. That's just them being honest. But even with the existent problems it doesn't seem to sway a few scholars from not being Christian.

@Obeytheroadrules 2 ай бұрын

That’s right, why would a god who is supposedly outside of time and space, all powerful, creator of all things, have to rely on bronze / Iron Age logic ??? Why would this same god need books , priests, pastors etc…. ???

@MatthewChenault 2 ай бұрын

The best answer for most of these critics is to do the basics: Read the Bible for yourself and consult your pastor/priest about these questions. Consult theologians who know what they are talking about in order to better inform your understanding of the text while also having a solid understanding of the text.

@Obeytheroadrules 2 ай бұрын

No, put critical thinking into every question, definitely not ask any a pastor / priest anything, you will only get one sided answer. Critical thinking is obsolete in Christianity, simply because questions lead to answers, and those answers will never , ever lead to religion

@Sm64wii 2 ай бұрын

⁠@@Obeytheroadrulescomedic. Critical thinking is impossible without God. You have no epistemic justification for metaphysics, ethics, or logic. Go watch Jay Dyer destroy your favorite Reddit-tier atheists.

@Obeytheroadrules 2 ай бұрын

@@Sm64wii all laws of physics, all laws of nature, and all quantum states are natural not supernatural , critical thought is the opposite of faith, critical thought is kryptonite for supernatural myths . Metaphysics, is a philosophy , philosophies are an abstract. They can explain the science but they’re not the science itself, You don’t need evidence for a philosophy.

@Sm64wii 2 ай бұрын

@@Obeytheroadrules So if they’re rooted in nature what is the justification for them? Do you realize if you don’t have epistemic justification for these things your worldview is self refuting? Critical thought isn’t possible without God, because you don’t have justification. Find me a single scholar in Koine Greek that says that the word Pistis (which translates to faith) means anything other than belief based on evidence. If you don’t have an account for metaphysics your worldview becomes absurdity, and therefore self refuting. That’s literally the argument and you’re consistently agreeing with what I’m saying without understanding it. Maybe TAG is too much for you? You’ve never taken a philosophy class if you can’t even understand justified true belief. You typed that all out and progressed 0. What is your epistemic justification for your worldview? TAG is a reduction argument based on the impossibility of the contrary, that being that God must exist to ground anything transcendental. If you can’t ground anything transcendental you give up logic, meaning of words, the self, etc etc. meaning that your original comment about “critical thinking” is self refuting and comedic

@veryangryduckpl2122 2 ай бұрын

@@ObeytheroadrulesWhat a baseless claim. "No logic will ever lead to religion".

@ryankohnenkamp8946 2 ай бұрын

Yeah, but how many donkeys were at the empty tomb......?

@jgrahamiii7749 2 ай бұрын

Or how many theologians can dance on the head of a pin?

@KasperKatje 2 ай бұрын

That depends on the gospel. By Christian "logic", the fact they are not mentioned does not mean they weren't there.

@panperl1212 2 ай бұрын

It's not Christian logic, it's a normal aspect of communication. Or do you normally go to the conclusion that the bus must have had no other passengers when someone says that he took the bus somewhere?

@KasperKatje 2 ай бұрын

@@panperl1212 my conclusion would be that we can't know if there were other passengers and if there were, I wouldn't and couldn't know how many.

@panperl1212 2 ай бұрын

@@KasperKatje Dishonest answer.

@cybersquaregaming 2 ай бұрын

That donkey drip though...

@colmortimer1066 2 ай бұрын

I think you missed the biggest easiest point to make. A young donkey is not going to get you very far, and would likely be used for the least little bit at the end of the ride into town. Even with strong horses it was common to get off one to ride another to rest them a bit on a long journey. I think it is likely Jesus would have rode the older one most the way, switching to the colt at the very end. So they did put the cloaks on both steeds, and he did ride both, just not at the same time.

@williamrice3052 2 ай бұрын

Makes sense

@jcbrown0 2 ай бұрын

@@colmortimer1066 I dunno, if that’s what happened, the author of Matthew chose a very strange way to describe it. I also don’t really understand why Jesus wouldn’t have just ridden a single donkey all the way. Why go to the trouble of bringing two different animals and switching midway?

@colmortimer1066 2 ай бұрын

@@jcbrown0 A small donkey that has not been ridden before, is not very strong. How far would you be able to carry a grown man? Animals get tired, they have limits. It's not a lot of trouble to get off one animal, to get on another. It's a lot more trouble if an animal collapses under you because of exhaustion. This was all to fulfill the prophesy of Zechariah 9:9, where he was to ride in on a colt of a donkey. So he could not just ride the older one the whole way.

@jcbrown0 2 ай бұрын

@@colmortimer1066 I don’t know much about donkey physiology, but Mark and Luke seem to suggest that the colt was brought to Jesus, he got on it, and he rode down into Jerusalem. Your alternative story that they also brought a mother donkey, and it was actually that mother donkey Jesus rode most of the way before switching to the colt near their destination, doesn’t really mesh with that.

@colmortimer1066 2 ай бұрын

@@jcbrown0 That was not my story that there were 2 Donkey's that story came from Testify's video here. All I did in my comment was take the idea of what the video said, then add to it what I know about how riding animals work. If you have a problem with 2 donkey's take that up with them. Assuming their were 2 donkeys, as the video suggests, I think my reasoning better fits than the more convoluted reasons they gave.

@Pyr0Ben 2 ай бұрын

Found the backdoor ;)

@acem82 2 ай бұрын

I'm telling you, Jesus rode both donkeys at once, doing the splits, à la Jean Claude van Damme. That's my mind canon, and you can't convince me otherwise!

@michaelmccarthy3139 2 ай бұрын

My college professor used this to prove "how ridiculous the Greek is." I read him the clear King James translation and said, do you really think the author had no common sense? He backed down.

@litigioussociety4249 2 ай бұрын

3:30 bro ate Chinese people 😋

@eugenetswong 2 ай бұрын

This video is proof that he hates eating Japanese people. 😞 😛

@greenbird679 2 ай бұрын

Yeah.. that was funny 🤣

@Brutici 2 ай бұрын

fully recommend it 10/10!

@billyhw5492 2 ай бұрын

The donkey is the Old Covenant. The colt is the New Covenant. The Lord first sat upon the former, and then sat upon the latter, with the former leading the way.

@Austin-kt7ky 2 ай бұрын

Videos like this are much needed. Thank you for posting these.

@connorrhun 2 ай бұрын

I once was on a wikipedia page for some Biblical topic and almost all the references were to Bart Erhman and that’s gotta be some kind academic crime

@drgaffneybestfoot Ай бұрын

Thank-you sooo much for your channel and this particular playlist . Bart Ehrman and religion for breakfast YT channel destroyed my young son’s faith . I’m so glad you started this channel in this particular format which is great for young skeptics .

@John_Six_Twenty-Nine 2 ай бұрын

Bert Ahrman

@negativedawahilarious 2 ай бұрын

Eart Bahrman

@BornAgainBrother 2 ай бұрын

Cartman🤪

@darkwolf7740 2 ай бұрын

Lisa Ehrman

@jeromeofmiddleton 2 ай бұрын

Bear Artman

@lionelgazali3392 Ай бұрын

Amen Hallelujah 😊❤

@ironknightbcpg7778 Ай бұрын

3:15 On the horses and donkey part this is very true, these animals are spiritual creatures when you get excited, scared, or calm they’ll get excited, scared, or calm so Jesus bringing the colts mother this would assist in making the colt avoided a freak out based on the reactions of excitement or terror.

@thadofalltrades 2 ай бұрын

:46 without question the funniest thing I've seen all week

@jiubertomonteiro1461 2 ай бұрын

Hello Erik, God bless you. Which is the video where you defend the attempt to harmonize passages of the Bible?

@TestifyApologetics 2 ай бұрын

this one kzbin.info/www/bejne/hZaphqRugs-Mo5I

@r.nunezz 2 ай бұрын

Could you deflate the “contradictions” he accuses of the places Mary & Joseph went after Jesus’ birth

@John-fk2ky 2 ай бұрын

I think that’s been mentioned before, but that’s pretty darn simple, actually. First, they went to Jerusalem when Jesus was a baby, then went back to Bethlehem. Some time later they are visited by the magi, at which point Jesus is no longer a baby. At that point the family goes to Egypt. I am not sure if they go to Jerusalem every year for things like Passover, but since picture ID wasn’t a thing, I wouldn’t call short visits when Jerusalem is buried by a sea of people all that dangerous if they did go every year. After Herod died, the family leaves Egypt and moves to Nazareth. I legitimately don’t understand how anyone could get the idea of contradictions from that when I’ve seen the same phenomenon of different sources mentioning different things in events that are much more recent.

@r.nunezz 2 ай бұрын

@@John-fk2ky Ahh I see thank you. I saw a clip of him talking about it on a podcast with that one atheist vegan guy and figured there was some easy refutation (it is Ehrman of course) I just couldn’t be bothered to search for one😂

@shayalynn 2 ай бұрын

@@r.nunezz I personally would think that at least two years had elapsed from when the three magi initially seen the sign in the sky and appeared before Herod the Great until when they came to Jesus, maybe when Jesus was at the age of two years old? I can’t think of why Herod would specifically kill male children of the ages of two and under if it’s not the case. What do you think? There is also the three shepherds who were allowed to Jesus at His birth

@vukasinpilipovic9625 2 ай бұрын

Great video! I would like to see your way of explaining the issue of who killed the Goliath. It will be helpful because I have a really hard time understanding it.

@jacobfavret1729 2 ай бұрын

BLUNDERIN’ BARTY ERRORMAN 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️

@RobertsonGerson 2 ай бұрын

2:00 Is that Bart Ehrman before?

@jaddee4273 2 ай бұрын

Thanks for your videos 🙏🏻💗💗

@richardwatterstan 2 ай бұрын

God bless you so much, Testify. You really must've been the guy I was praying for to rebuke Bart Ehrman. Thank you for your series on him, specifically what he says in Jesus, Interrupted. Someone I know is Mormon and has tried to drive me away from Christianity with that book, and Those Incredible Christians by Schonfield. Can you speak on that book? Thanks.

@ebiweneoseji7332 Ай бұрын

The word "and" is from the greek word "kai" which means "that is", used to explain something by mentioning the synonym of it

@built4speed101 Ай бұрын

Bridgeway writes: "As the messianic king, the son of David, Jesus then entered his royal city of Zion. He came not riding a horse as a conquering warlord, but sitting on a donkey as a king of peace, as the Scriptures foretold (see Zech 9:9)." Bart has a reading comprehension problem, which contributed to his unbelief of Scripture.

@herbolinge6590 Ай бұрын

I think the better options are simply that either it's a bit of an unfortunate case of writing something like "I rode in a car, and in a fast car [that is]!" So you repeat it with an additional qualification to drive in the point that this was a young donkey on top of being a donkey. As you can see, even in english we say it as "on top of" these days. Or Jesus literally rode in on two different donkeys but of course at different times. I mean people switch animals during travel, that's totally normal as well.

@fernandoformeloza4107 2 ай бұрын

Doesn't say anywhere in Matthew 21:7 that Jesus rode both at the same time, but very well could have rode both at separate points of time in the journey. This is a very lame and cheap attempt by Bart Erhman to discredit the scriptures

@brucecooper7905 2 ай бұрын

I wonder what Bruce Metzger would think of Bart today.

@truncated7644 2 ай бұрын

He would love him as a human being and disagree with him on some minor academic issues. He would contain his own religious perspectives to himself and his religious community and not impose it on his academic work, peers, or Bart.

@Christ_Inspiring 2 ай бұрын

Prophet Bart Ehrman saw, is the go to for every Muslim and skeptic there is. 2014, he published “How Jesus became God” though he contradicts what he claims is true, he admits that Paul’s letters and Mark’s gospel are the earliest examples of the reliability of Jesus’s words and teachings, even though he denies Jesus ever claiming to be God in the Synoptics, he doesn’t deny it. In 2018, he published his book “Jesus as God in the Synoptics” and admits that his previous book was not well studied or well explained, though he boasts about being an “ex-evangelical” and “studying and doing research for 8 years” while making the book. But in this book, he admits that what he said previously is wrong, and that Jesus does indeed claim to be God in the Synoptics. Unfortunately, in his debate with Peter J. Williams, in 2020, he denies Jesus ever claiming to be God, and his go to for that is, John 10:30; 14:9; 8:58, and he demands that the exact words be found in the Synoptics. Even though he says Mark is the earliest, he doesn’t really care what they say, teach, or know what Jesus thought. And yet again, he makes the same claim in 2023, with a conversation that he had with cosmic skeptic (Alex O’ Connor) and says “I am firmly convinced Jesus never claimed to be God” and what a surprise, he uses the same verses from John’s gospel. You’d think that a man who demands the sayings of Jesus’s divinity from John, would read what the Synoptics have to say. He’s a funny man.

@jgrahamiii7749 2 ай бұрын

The secret to understanding this alleged contradiction (and virtually all others) is to realize that in the case of the supposed triumphal entry is there are TWO entries: one on the 9th of Nisan and the other on the tenth of Nisan. Careful consideration of Mathew, Mark and Luke will show this. The principle of Biblical interpretation that needs to be understood is "do not conflate similar accounts as being identical and vice versa." Another classic is the number of times Peter denied the Lord. Tradition says three, but in comparing the synoptic Gospels and remembering that punctuation is a tool of later compilations of texts and not original to the revelation the Gospel writers included, one can see that Peter actually denied Him 6 times. One of the earliest of the so-called modern-day apologists was an Anglican scholar named EW Bullinger who, in his "Companion Bible" has numerous appendices that deal with anomalies as Peter's denials, the temptations of the Lord, and who was crucified with Him. It is well worth the expense for the serious Bible scholar to have this volume in the library. Research is fun as one can never know what gems the Lord will give to those who love His Word.

@silverltc2729 Ай бұрын

The tame donkey was because Christ has to use the line of Ishmael (Wild donkey of a man) to conquer Jerusalem with peace.

@ibperson7765 2 ай бұрын

1:16 Did he say “bruh” though? “He brought me a donkey and I rode on it” Oh, so youre declaring that’s all he ever did and never brought anything else and that’s all you ever did for the rest of your life was ride it right? 🤦🏻‍♂️

@SamWicker-su7rp 5 күн бұрын

Let me clear this one up. The grammer says that they 'put on them (donkeys) their clothes. And they sat him thereon.'. The last statement refers not to the donkeys, but to the clothing. Go ahead, diagram the sentence.

@paulkelly1162 2 ай бұрын

Testify, did you see both prophecy debates with McLatchie. His opponent claimed to raise animals, he claimed any colt big enough to ride wouldnt need its mom. I haven't face checked this.

@CorneliusCorndogJr 2 ай бұрын

0:42 is this ai generated? Because it is so creepy

@carlose4314 2 ай бұрын

What are your thoughts on Mystical City of God by Maria de Agreda?

@MrWhocares51 2 ай бұрын

Bart errorman

@treysenn8012 2 ай бұрын

i was speaking with someone regarding Matthew's gospel, they mentioned Matthew being the only person throughout history to record Herod's baby "killing spree" in bethlehem, unfortunately, they argued since he was the only one who recorded it that it simply isn't true and it's just a copy from Pharoah in Exodus and another case of Matthew "lying to fulfill prophecies".

@josiahserrano6651 2 ай бұрын

What is the copy from Pharoah?

@treysenn8012 2 ай бұрын

@@josiahserrano6651 Pharoah also killed a bunch of male babies (exodus chapters 1 and 2) in which Moses would've been in that number. He did it because he saw that the israelites in Egypt were growing larger and larger and he didn't want all the children to grow up and overthrow his power in Egypt essentially. Moses's mother however hid Moses for 3 months, then put him in a basket by the river. For comments sake i'll keep it there but skeptics argue that Matthew copied from that story to fulfill a prophecy written by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:15, Matthew 2:16-18).

@KasperKatje 2 ай бұрын

@@treysenn8012it's clear that Matthew had a lot of imagination, was a copycat and most likely thought "Let's see how much bs I can get away with". Zombies walking through Jerusalem, guards at the tomb and knowing the secret of paying off those guards etc. It is clearly the Nigerian prince scam: the gullible will believe it and that's my main target.

@thomasherzog86 2 ай бұрын

the problem isnt that its a ridiculous picture, but that its an impossible task to ride two animals at once only included in the text to "prove" the prophecy of Zechariah 9. If you interpret it as "he only rode one", the purpose of proving the prophecy is lost.

@joaobonfim 2 ай бұрын

Christian here. Why are there cloaks on the two animals, though, if Christ is to seat on only one of the animals? I mean, of course, they could've put their cloaks on both animals (maybe a zealous way of preparing the animals for the people to see Jesus, since his entering as a king should be presentable), but only one of them be used be Christ, however I find it strange that both of them had cloaks. Things that seem weird to us can happen, of course, and do happen at times, but would there be another reason for the second animal to wear a cloak on top of it aside from what I supposed?

@JamesMoore-uq5oi 2 ай бұрын

@@joaobonfim One perspective is the donkey is the Old Covenant or Jewish fulfillment, the colt is the New Covenant and is yet to be ridden on fully. Maybe the colt is a representation of his second coming. I don't think it's a traditional interpretation, though.

@joaobonfim 2 ай бұрын

@@JamesMoore-uq5oi Interesting view. Thank you for sharing.

@retrictumrectus1010 2 ай бұрын

I will put it this way. If Jesus, or any bigshot, asks me to bring two smartphones, I make sure both are fully charged, let alone functional. Or if He asks me to bring a can of Coke and a can of Sprite, I make sure both are icy cold when I bring them to Him. Putting cloaks on the animals is like making sure both phones are fully charged or both drinks are cold enough. It is common sense in my culture. We don't want a situation where a bigshot says "I prefer this Iphone over the android one, why did you bring this when it won't turn on?" or "I want to drink this Coke, but it is not cold." It is just embarrassing. And talking back "just use the android" or "just drink sprite" is outright disrespectful.

@joaobonfim 2 ай бұрын

@@retrictumrectus1010 Makes sense as well. Thank you.

@jcbrown0 2 ай бұрын

@@retrictumrectus1010But why is Jesus asking for two animals?

@CyberUser_055 2 ай бұрын

Thank you. Make more videos debunk critics like Ehrman or McCllelan. Thank your for your duty Testify 🤜🏻🤛🏻🙏

@MrHelpy34 2 ай бұрын

you should really do some stuff on the Old Testament

@jueneturner8331 2 ай бұрын

Matthew used increasing what another Gospel writer lists as 1 into 2 or more things or people (stones, blind men, donkeys, demoniacs) as a signal of "a witness for a Messianic miracle. He didn't misreport to his Hebrew audience; we, his "not Hebrew" audience have misunderstood. The "great expert" should have recognized it; instead he became an atheist.

@PMA65537 2 ай бұрын

Groucho: ... shot an elephant in my pyjamas. How it got in my pyjamas i don't know. (Animal Crackers)

@lator1941 2 ай бұрын

At this point, Bart Erhman is just ridiculous

@jonathanwilliams1065 2 ай бұрын

Does any animal give birth to children of a different species? Is a colt, the foal of a donkey, also a donkey? Exactly

@williamrice3052 2 ай бұрын

But they say that donkeys are hybrids involving a horse

@mitchwatson6787 2 ай бұрын

The wojak use is on point

@zaddyxyborg9873 2 ай бұрын

I watch you cause I like you. Bart is such a hard watch if you want to dispute him to the mass, teach them what language is. 1 thing I'm questioning you for is are the gospels a historical document. I believe they are and based on watching your videos for a long time now I think you believe to. This opens the door for skeptics and rightfully so. It should entice us to seek more knowledge the problem will always be the will of the person. I think the reason Bart feels so wrong to read is because it portrays an unwillingness and opinionated approach to the gospels. His claim is not just saying it's a contradiction but also saying the words on the page are a matter of opinion. He wrote a book and his target audience are people that Don't believe, don't want to believe, looking for a reason not to believe, and no anyone without the holy spirit. Tbh I still don't understand the the donkey and colt meaning. I've read the passage 100 times and still don't understand what gods saying to me. I gave up and said we'll it's part of the prophecy, but I'm going to restudy it again today so thanks for helping me with this video. God Speed on these videos.

@SES77 2 ай бұрын

I do not post this as a way to garner more understanding, and not as an insult or anything else. I am a poor Christian man, and find the Bible hard to read and understand and need extra sourced to help me understand it. But this is a burning question I have recently. I come here seeking help with a question of faith and pray that someone has proper guidence. Is Paul a legitimate source on the lord, or did he co-opt the words of Jesus for himself? I have seen strong arguments that Paul not only contradicts Christ, but also is possibly one of the false teachers that Christ warned us about. So my question is Paul to be trusted and is there anything that truley validates his claims other than just Paul's word?

@TestifyApologetics 2 ай бұрын

see my live tab, I have a video on the topic.

@SES77 2 ай бұрын

@@TestifyApologetics Thank you

@themegamexican 2 ай бұрын

@@SES77 If you consider the Apostle Peter trustworthy, then you must also trust the Apostle Paul because Peter affirms him: 2 Peter 3:15 "and consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,"

@shayalynn 2 ай бұрын

@@themegamexican Yeah but the problem is, there are claims that the second letter attributed to Peter is not actually written by Peter. I’m not personally claiming this but just bringing this up. I think it’s important to consider.

@jcbrown0 2 ай бұрын

One thing I think you’re missing here is that these are not two independent accounts that diverge. These are one account and another account that copied it nearly word for word but changed a couple things. One of the more interesting things is how they replaced “it”, which clearly refers to the donkey in Mark, with “them” in Matthew. That’s a pretty clear signal he thought Jesus was sitting on two donkeys. Otherwise there would be no need to change the pronoun.