No, Jesus Didn't Ride Two Donkeys In Matthew's Gospel

[@thefrazzledreader4764]

A lot of my atheist friends have been poking fun at this passage. Now I have a video to share everytime I see it. Thanks. 😁

[@ceelothatmane9421]

@@splinteredlight3019 no one cares

[@TotalAnalyst2]

​@@splinteredlight3019 Genetic Modified Skeptic he seems willing to learn from mistakes and has gotten solid and Cosmic Skeptic

[@diarradunlap9337]

"I find this whole donkey objection, well, rather asinine." Sir, YOU have just Won. The. Internet. for today with that one.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I'm a dad. So I made dad jokes.

[@jkm9332]

I’m a skeptic...about many skeptics’ reading abilities.

[@Ryan-zh2or]

Having taken Bart's class at Chapel Hill, I can remember him telling us this stuff. Most of the alleged "contradictions" that he brought up can be fixed with a 30 second google search. He should know much better than this by now especially since he was once a professing Christian.

[@plzenjoygameosu2349]

He profits from his books from his use of deception, of course he’s never gonna “get it”. Or he could seriously just be lucifer’s useful idiot.

[@diegotobaski9801]

I believe these problems only seem to exist with his popular writings. His general academic work(journals, thesis, papers) don't seem to have these kinds of problems.

[@kwameadu0075]

I think his Christian background was part of the problem. He was raised as fundamentalist and a strict biblical literalist. He still reads the Bible through that Lens.

[@TestifyApologetics]

BTW, I like Paul even though I find his arguments to be terrible, and have had friendly exchanges with him on Twitter. I don't normally initiate or reply to response videos, but this one...I have a hard time letting it go and Paulogia states the objection so perfectly.

[@webslinger527]

You definitely should do more.👍

[@gy5240]

I hope you have posted this to his video.

[@plzenjoygameosu2349]

How can you like Paul? The guy is literally deceptive, he knows and actively uses his audience’s ignorance.

[@webslinger527]

@@plzenjoygameosu2349 true

[@jaqhopkins6467]

This “issue” kept coming up on my social media feed recently.. even Muslims who claim to believe Jesus is the messiah made fun of it. Needless to say, we should be more patient with ourselves instead of jumping to conclusions about an ancient text. I feel that many people in Christianity leave the faith because they read modern era thinking into the text. We’ve departed from the Jewishness of the Gospels and ignore that it’s from antiquity. Keep up the good work and faith 🙏🏽💯 God Bless

[@zahydierodriguez1529]

Wait Muslims that believe Jesus is God? What? 😂😂😂 I thought Muslims believed he was a prophet not the messiah

[@TestifyApologetics]

Glad you found it timely. I previously wrote a blog post about it and noticed I got a ton of traffic suddenly and I was like...oh, it's Palm Sunday. I normally post on Friday but I wanted to get this pushed out ASAP while people were still searching.

[@jaqhopkins6467]

@@zahydierodriguez1529 messiah. They don’t equate the Messiah as God.

[@zahydierodriguez1529]

@@jaqhopkins6467 oh 👌

[@rebelresource]

100% we need to understand the world of the Bible to interpret the words of the Bible! Check out biblical expeditions for cheap classes from a top scholar!

[@ASRCFTAtheist]

Great video. From a fellow ex-skeptic, love your material. God bless, keep up the good work

[@alenkratohvil6479]

Why would you stop being a skeptic? Yikes. So you can believe nonsense like Jesus etc?

[@jonbass6346]

Beautiful pun at the end!!! Great video too! I didn’t even know this was an “objection.”

[@TestifyApologetics]

What can I say, I'm a dad.

[@hwd7]

When The Lord sat on them, it means the blankets, that were on the colt, the foal of the Donkey. Solved.

[@michaelhow8403]

@@ryana1787 sure you could I read it that way. But the word them can easily refer to human sitting on one of the blankets. Also it uses the word sit for Jesus to be on both he’d need to stand. The ya clear he’s only sitting on 1 you really need to stretch this to make it seem like he’s on both. Sure it could mean both animals but use common sense.

[@adamkpetty]

One of the best things I did for my faith was take a Bible class in college. The professor used these same Bart Erhman arguments throughout the class. This was one that I particularly remember. That class led me to years of study that is continuing to this day. Thanks liberal professor for making me a better Christian!

[@Kebabrulle4869]

I feel like the people saying that the circus trick interpretation of Matthew 21 is more reasonable than the common sense interpretation, are the same people that think that Hume’s interpretation of miracle accounts (that they’re all more likely to be mistaken) is more reasonable than them being caused by God.

[@supayakamupercaya]

Shalom Erik. Used to read your writings. Glad to see you starting to create youtube videos. They are well made. Found this channel, because of pastor Mike W

[@TestifyApologetics]

Thanks for reading! Not everyone makes that connection.

[@Derek_Baumgartner]

Great vid! Keep up the good work! Feels like another good point to note how some people try to find 'contradictions' in the Bible (by reading it and treating it in a way they'd treat no other text in history): -Suppose I say to my friend "I went to the theater a few years ago with my sister." -Suppose the next day I tell you "I went to the theater a few years ago." Now, let me read the above as if I were cynical about the above claims. Ahem: Wow, what is this? Is he lying? Does he even have a sister? Does he even know if he has a sister (not that we can know if he did have one, or not)? What a fool he must be, not even able to account for whether or not he has a sister, and if he does, does he even know if he went to the theater with her? ---- Of course, the obvious part is this: the second sentence has me simply saying less, without any contradiction. If I went to the theater with my sister, then I went to the theater. The extra detail about my sister doesn't change that fact. (some of you may be aware of the 'two or one angel(s) at the tomb?' "contradiction" for example, that is only a contradiction if you read it with the 'cynic' goggles seen above) This example of the 'two donkeys' contradiction in Matthew strikes me another case of cynic's goggles. A good way to spot when someone has cynic's goggles on: -Are they willing to take everything about their disliked topic literally, but never seriously? -If pressed, do they want to jump between topics rather than focus on this one? -How often do they say something like "Now, let's be charitable about/well, they could also mean X, so here's my thoughts on that..", or do they refuse to even consider other interpretations and their viability?

[@VicCrisson]

I'm starting to like this channel very much, keep up the good work

[@cerebralfaithvideo]

Story Time: I bought Lydia McGrew’s book”Hidden In Plain View” from Tim McGrew at the National Conference On Christian Apologetics back in 2017. I got to attend a couple of his lectures, and we hung out at lunch time. It was great. Also, I literally laughed LOUDLY with your Dad Joke at the very end of this video. Anyone who follows me on Facebook (or knows me in real life) knows how much I adore puns.

[@daniellinzel1994]

I love the pun at the end: as(s)inine! Great video, thank you for making it!

[@TestifyApologetics]

I'm a dad, I make dad jokes. Glad you found it helpful.

[@Ap31920]

It seems there is a weird phenomenon where people (particularly modern atheists) stop analyzing when reading the Bible. When I saw what the video was about I was legitimately confused because the "them" only makes sense when referring to the robes. It's weird how atheists turn off their brains when reading the Bible. It reminds me of how some atheists have told me I believe in talking donkeys.... because clearly the whole Balaam incident tooooooootally did not imply (or explictily say) this was a completely supernatural event 🙄

[@TestifyApologetics]

It's that some of them tend to assume the worst about the four evangelists.

[@Ap31920]

@@TestifyApologetics Yes, although that kind of makes them look worse. It makes it look like they think they are the only ones with functioning brains. Which means now they are not only biased and irrational, now they're arrogant to boot.

[@brotherchrisrco1125]

Bart Erhman is Atheists very own Prophet of Bait and Switch...

[@Jomare-j3b]

I love this channel. Keep up the great work

[@shilohplatt789]

Me: Sees Mike Winger posting a video Also me: Instinctively clicks and subscribes.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Thanks!

[@udayanthadasanayake1763]

Thank you for making me sceptical about the scepticism of the sceptics Eric. Btw great video! I'm an ex atheist (now Christian)

[@AbhiDaBeatTheSecond]

I noticed that this is an edited comment. When did you become Christian?

[@1MarmadukeFan]

I love how Paulogia’s eyes are drawn off kilter.

[@zeraphking1407]

None of the verses cited claim Jesus rode two animals at the SAME time.

[@manne8575]

Bro, you desere waaayyy more subs. Keep up the good work!

[@AnHebrewChild]

Testify - this one is especially excellent. Good work on this video. As always, thank you for always speaking so highly of the Lord Jesus. 4:45 👏

[@realitywins6457]

When you’re more hungry for an interpretation of the data to specifically undermine the author, that’s a warning light on your dashboard.

[@Gutslinger]

That portrait of that dude looks exactly like what one would expect from a dude like him.. A true testament to the quality of his works.

[@inukithesavage828]

Yeah, never undestimate the motivated 'reasoning' of a hardened skeptic.

[@YovanypadillaJr]

Biblical Contradictions come up a lot when talking to Atheists, are there any resources you point them to.

[@soldierofchrist4ever]

Checkout one of the many magnum opus' of Gleason L. Archer, titled Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Archer is good, as Travis said. Michael Brown's 5 volume set Jewish Objections to Jesus is another good resource.

[@soldierofchrist4ever]

@@TestifyApologetics Also, I'm really glad you made mention of A.T. Robertson, in this video. I remember first cutting teeth long ago, on his Harmony of The Gospels. Very underrated Greek scholar if you ask me.

[@petery6432]

Keeping Faith in an Age of Reason is my go-to for debunking alleged contradictions in the Bible.

[@soldierofchrist4ever]

@@petery6432 Man, I'm so glad you came along and added this to the list. How could I forget to mention Jason Lisle? You're right though, it's a great resource. Soli Deo Gloria!

[@koinoniagames8533]

You earned a subscribe. Good job!

[@johnkeefer8760]

My one criticism of this video: Using a Hexagon for a Stop Sign. Besides that good work haha

[@toluwaniahmed508]

The apologetics on this is very funny. So you think the author of Matthew wrote that Jesus called for 2 donkeys to be brought to him, teased the prophecy of Zechariah, then had Jesus sit on cloaks, doesn't say anything about him sitting or riding on either of the donkeys, and suddenly enters Jerusalem? Is this really about common sense or just trying hard to create a narrative that doesn't contradict the other gospels? Because we all know that if the other gospels hadn't mentioned something contrary, you'd have no basis to put this up to a technicality. We'd all be marvelling at the miraculous nature of Jesus riding on 2 donkeys

[@Peejayk]

Even if is Jesus not imagined to ride on 2 donkeys - the adding of 2 animals in the text of Mathew is enough To conclude he is trying to “fulfill” the prophecy ( the other gospels have only one animal)!

[@Mark-cd2wf]

Bart Ehrman: brittle fundy Christian turned brittle fundy atheist.... And his trusty disciple Paulogia: _another_ brittle fundy Christian turned brittle fundy atheist. Great video, bro! Keep it up 👍

[@SilverSurfer5150]

Excellent! Thank you and Jesus bless you!

[@douglasgorden3843]

Everybody's focusing on the donkeys, but what about Paulogia's claim that Matthew misquotes Zachariah and attributes it to Jeremiah? (Matthew 27:9)

[@BrandonCorley109]

Here's something I recently wrote on it for a class. Hope you find it helpful: Often times when New Testament writers quote the Old Testament, they have entire passages in mind including how certain passages intertextually relate to other passages. The reason Matthew says he is quoting Jeremiah instead of Zechariah is to help indicate to us that this is one of those cases where he has the relationship between two passages from the Old Testament in mind here. Matthew is trying to get us to think intertextually. Matthew recognizes that the word, "potter" from Zechariah 11 is unique in the Bible and connected back to Jeremiah 19. He also mentions "blood money" in the context of the Shepherd of Zechariah being betrayed, which should make us think of Jeremiah 19:4's "blood of the innocents". The reason that the word, "potter" is even used in Zechariah, when God commands Zechariah to throw the money "into the house of the Lord, to the potter" is that the unique word had previously been used in Jeremiah 19 as a picture of God's judgment and Jerusalem's destruction that sends Israel into exile. Zechariah is saying that Israel's rejection of this future shepherd, parallel to Israel's rejection of God in Jeremiah 19:4, will bring judgment upon themselves. What Matthew is trying to tell us is that through Judas, the Jews had rejected their Messiah, and this will cause Israel to go into exile. This would have been fulfilled in 70 A.D. when Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jews were sent into exile. This can be confirmed by reading the start of Zechariah 11, which speaks of the destruction of the temple. In other words, by rejecting the true Temple (John 2:21), the Jews will have their temple destroyed. In rejecting their shepherd, the Jews are only hurting themselves. So, not only was the prophecy about the Shepherd being betrayed fulfilled when Judas betrayed Jesus, through the use of intertextuality, Matthew informs us that there's more going on in that there's another aspect to this prophecy about Israel's exile that begins to find its fulfillment when Judas betrays Jesus. By saying he is quoting from Jeremiah when he quotes from Zechariah, Matthew is helping us see and interpret what Zechariah meant when spoke of the "potter's field". While the fact that Matthew says he is quoting from Jeremiah when he's really quoting from Zechariah may be confusing to some people, the entire reason that Matthew does it is in order to bring clarity to what Zechariah's prophecy originally meant in the first place.

[@douglasgorden3843]

@@BrandonCorley109 or, Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is that Matthew made a mistake. And if it is a mistake, then it does not bode well for divine inspiration and inerrancy. Therefore to preserve inerrancy and divine inspiration there is no option but to hold to more complicated explanations that presuppose the author's intent.

[@Nov_Net]

I was gonna ask the same

[@TamerSpoon3]

@@douglasgorden3843 That Matthew made a mistake is not the only simple option. Others are a scribal error (unlikely); Matthew is referring to a scroll that contained multiple books, the first of which was Jeremiah (see Luke 24:44 where Jesus refers to the Writings as Psalms); or he is quoting Jeremiah 19 and Zechariah 11 just as Mark quotes Isaiah 40 and Malachi 3 in Mark 1:2-3 where Mark only attributes the text to the major prophet Isaiah.

[@nzsl368]

*A Donkey and Her Colt❓* Although most Christians would rather not concern themselves with some of the more minute details of Jesus’ life reported in the New Testament, when challenged to defend the inerrancy of The Book that reports the beautiful story of Jesus, there are times when such details require our attention. Such is the case with Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem during the final week of His life. People who wear the name of Christ enjoy reading of the crowd’s cries of “Hosanna!,” and meditating upon the fact that Jesus went to Jerusalem to bring salvation to the world. Skeptics, on the other hand, read of this event and cry, “Contradiction!” Allegedly, Matthew misunderstood Zechariah’s prophecy, and thus contradicted what Mark, Luke, and John wrote regarding Jesus’ final entry into Jerusalem (see van den Heuvel, 2003). Matthew recorded the following: Now when they drew near Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Loose them and bring them to Me. And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of them,’ and immediately he will send them.” All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: “Tell the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold, your King is coming to you, lowly, and sitting on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey.’ ” So the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them. They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him on them. And a very great multitude spread their clothes on the road; others cut down branches from the trees and spread them on the road. Then the multitudes who went before and those who followed cried out, saying: “Hosanna to the Son of David! ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ Hosanna in the highest!” (Matthew 21:1-9, emp. added). Skeptics are quick to point out that the other gospel writers mention only “one colt,” which the disciples acquired, and upon which Jesus rode. Mark recorded that Jesus told the two disciples that they would find “a colt tied, on which no one has sat” (11:2). The disciples then “went their way, and found the colt tied by the door outside on the street, and they loosed it…. Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their clothes on it, and He sat on it” (Mark 11:4,7, emp. added; cf. Luke 19:29-38; John 12:12-16). Purportedly, “[t]he author of Matthew contradicts the author of Mark on the number of animals Jesus is riding into Jerusalem” (“Bible Contradictions,” 2003). Can these accounts be reconciled, or is this a legitimate contradiction? First, notice that Mark, Luke, and John did not say that only one donkey was obtained for Jesus, or that only one donkey traveled up to Jerusalem with Jesus. The writers simply mentioned one donkey (the colt). They never denied that another donkey (the mother of the colt) was present. The fact that Mark, Luke, and John mention one young donkey does not mean there were not two. If you had two friends named Joe and Bob who came to your house on Thursday night, but the next day while at work you mention to a fellow employee that Joe was at your house Thursday night (and you excluded Bob from the conversation for whatever reason), would you be lying? Of course not. You simply stated the fact that Joe was at your house. Similarly, when Mark, Luke, and John stated that a donkey was present, Matthew merely supplemented what the other writers recorded. Consider the other parts of the story that have been supplemented by one or more of the synoptic writers. Whereas Matthew mentioned how Jesus and His disciples went to Bethphage, Mark and Luke mentioned both Bethphage and Bethany. Mark and Luke indicated that the colt they acquired for Christ never had been ridden. Matthew omitted this piece of information. Matthew was the only gospel writer to include Zechariah’s prophecy. Mark and Luke included the question that the owners of the colt asked the disciples when they went to get the donkey for Jesus. Matthew excluded this information in his account. As one can see, throughout this story (and the rest of the gospel accounts for that matter), the writers consistently supplemented each other’s accounts. Such supplementation should be expected only from independent sources-some of whom were eyewitnesses. It is very possible that Matthew was specific in his numbering of the donkeys, due to the likelihood that he was an eyewitness of Jesus’ final entrance into Jerusalem. (Bear in mind, Matthew was one of the twelve apostles; Mark and Luke were not.) Second, regarding the accusation that Matthew wrote of two donkeys, instead of just one, because he allegedly misunderstood Zechariah’s prophecy, it first must be noted that Zechariah’s prophecy actually mentions two donkeys (even though only one is stated as transporting the King to Jerusalem). The prophet wrote: “Behold, your King is coming to you…lowly and riding on a donkey [male], a colt, the foal of a donkey [female]” (Zechariah 9:9). In this verse, Zechariah used Hebrew poetic parallelism (the balancing of thought in successive lines of poetry). The terms male donkey, colt, and foal all designate the same animal-the young donkey upon which the King (Jesus) would ride into Jerusalem (Mark 11:7). Interestingly, even though the colt was the animal of primary importance, Zechariah also mentioned that this donkey was the foal of a female donkey. One might assume that Zechariah merely was stating the obvious when mentioning the mother’s existence. However, when Matthew’s gospel is taken into account, the elusive female donkey of Zechariah 9:9 is brought to light. Both the foal and the female donkey were brought to Christ at Mount Olivet, and both made the trip to Jerusalem. Since the colt never had been ridden, or even sat upon (as stated by Mark and Luke), its dependence upon its mother is very understandable (as implied by Matthew). The journey to Jerusalem, with multitudes of people in front of and behind Jesus and the donkeys (Matthew 21:8-9), obviously would have been much easier for the colt if the mother donkey were led nearby down the same road. _for more details about the said contradiction, click link below:_ apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=773

[@judyheiger773]

2 donkeys..Matt speaks of. Great message inside the passage. Be blessed

[@Alecthedude17]

I love the video! Could you make one on Mathew 27:9? I guess Mathew mistakes Zechariah for Jerimiah. It’s about the 30 pieces of silver or whatever. I’m curious to know what you think.

[@almsforthepoor9395]

I made a video about the supposed Jeremiah mistake. Check it out. It's called the Potter and the clay; potter's field prophecy.

[@repentantrevenant9776]

I personally have no problem with Matthew adding the Donkey's mother so as to make the connection to the prophecy more explicit - I don't think this makes Matthew "historically unreliable." He does seem to be quoting from Mark word for word, and replacing "it" with "them," so the interpretation that the second "them" refers to the cloaks and not the donkeys seems dubious to me. That being said, I don't think he's trying to trick his readers into thinking that Jesus straddled two animals or put a foot on each like jet skis. Matthew's audience was around these animals a lot more than we are. It's absurd to think he would be trying to conjure up such a ridiculous picture.

[@waxworse]

Everything that Bart Errman stands for can be summed up in "Yea, hath God said?"

[@arulsammymankondar30]

Even without expertise in Greek and Hebrew languages, one can reconcile the 'problem' of two animals. 1. Mathew doesn't say that Jesus straddled both the animals ie. He doesn't say that at one point of time, Jesus was seated on both the animals. 2. Why is the need for two animals? Since the colt would be distressed without its mother and would have caused problem for the first time riding, the mother was brought along. Even the mother would have been distressed about losing its baby. It was an action of kindness by Jesus. 3. In fact there is a parallel incident reported by one Indian Christian monk called Sadhu Sunder Singh who lived about a century ago. He sees a cowherd trying to get a cow and calf cross a ravine. But the cow fearing the safety of its child , refuses to budge. Noticing that, Sunder Singh suggests that the cowherd carry the calf. When this is done, the cow simply follows and crosses the ravine.

[@arulsammymankondar30]

@@goldenalt3166 To a sceptic nothing is proved. Again what constitutes proof or evidence is a subjective concept. In the light of the above, only a reasonable explanation can be given - reasonable being defined in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence as reasonable to an ordinary man on the Clapham omnibus. Of course, you're entitled to your own conclusion. Of

[@arulsammymankondar30]

@@goldenalt3166 Courts are not arbitrators of truth. No such claim is made by them. Much less they weigh evidence within the rules set out. That is why we come across miscarriage of justice. The limits of the competency of courts can be seen in a celebrity trials. OJ Simpson was acquitted but doesn't mean his wife was not murdered. Had Simpson been an ordinary Afro-American, you would have guessed the outcome in that case. Also, note Gospels were not written to convince a court of law.

[@arulsammymankondar30]

@@goldenalt3166 I never said court's define reasonableness. It is obvious you are unable to understand what jurisprudence is . You're merely interested in setting up strawman.

[@arulsammymankondar30]

@@goldenalt3166 You're entitled to your views, as I already wrote. That doesn't mean I am wrong and you are correct.

[@solonkazos1379]

On the farm we always had to consider the mother animal when dealing with the young one. People today don't spend much time with animals and they don't know the tricks of the trade. The animals have families also and the colt would feel safe with mom being right there.

[@anthonyaguirre1498]

Great video! Glory to God!

[@ryanhelmer9369]

The mules are metaphores of the Zodiac. The 4 evagelist gospels are the 4 seasons (2 solstices and 2 equinoxes) each using the cross with Jesus is the sun & Mary nearby is Venus. Best metaphore of all time.

[@KimbaIsHere]

This is what I expect form an apologist. Matthew 21:6-7 (NET): So the disciples went and did as Jesus instructed them. They bought the donkey and the colt [two animals] and they placed their cloaks on them [the two animals they laid the cloaks onto], and he sat on them [the cloaks across the animals, or the two animals -- either way it is both the same results] [all statements within brackets are my commentary]

[@toomanymarys7355]

What about the rabbis on the entry of the Messiah? They actually divided two different animals, depending on whether the Messiah...looool I was LITERALLY writing about this as you spoke it!!!!

[@deiniolbythynnwr926]

I wonder what this guy imagines when he here's that song "she'll be riding six white horses when she comes". Let's pray for him.

[@zahydierodriguez1529]

I always wonder where exactly do this people get there sources from? I have been searching for skeptical scholars and most that I could find are erhman and carrier being the most popular. I really want to read the work of the experts they cite to make there vids

[@TestifyApologetics]

This is why I try and cite my sources in the description. I want people to find the books and other sources I'm using. As far as I'm concerned, I'm just the intro.

[@zahydierodriguez1529]

@@TestifyApologetics Hey did Paul have any sources besides Bart in he’s video? I haven’t checked it out

[@TestifyApologetics]

See the blog post in the description. I've seen double donkey in multiple places

[@chienweilim7649]

Atheists find so many contradictions in the Bible like this. Paul went to Corinth and Ephesus to preach the Gospel. Christian: Paul went to Corinth, then he went to Ephesus to preach the Gospel. Atheists: How did Paul go to Corinth and Ephesus at the same time? Unless Paul can split himself into 2 separate entities, its not possible for him to be at 2 places preaching the Gospel at the same time. I found a contradiction in the Bible.

[@Lebone_Bona-fide]

Best part of the video has to be from 2:42

[@MontyRL]

Who was that individual talking when in the early part of the video?

[@piano9433]

Sincere questions: 1) Why would they put their cloaks on THEM (both animals)? 2) Could Jesus sit on the cloakS (pluaral) by sitting on just one animal?

[@dark666razor]

Sure but picture it, he'd have to sit with one leg raised. Pretty funny nonetheless.

[@almsforthepoor9395]

Watch my video on this subject

[@dark666razor]

@@almsforthepoor9395 its a mistranslation by the gospel writer. Its not a donkey and a baby donkey. Its a donkey, and specifies its a baby donkey

[@almsforthepoor9395]

@@dark666razor If there exists a mistranslation then how are we to trust authoritative Scripture? Would God, who created Heaven and Earth, truly be incapable of keeping his word impure. Such a mistranslation would violate Psalm 12:6-7.

[@dark666razor]

@@almsforthepoor9395 yes, incredible how the "infallible" word of god has mistakes in it. Also amazing how a supposed omniscient omnipotent god needs a fucking book written by unknown authors to spread the word of his existance. Mindboggling how people believe this.

[@kostpap3554]

Also, the Septuagint. A significant portion of OT quotes of the NT are from the Septuagint, which all four writers knew well enough (for example matthew quotes the virgin birth prophecy of Isaiah from the Septuagint). The passage in question of the LXX in Zechariah has indeed two animals, and the proclamation "behold thy king..." made in Matthew and LXX Zechariah are almost the same. I don't know if he is quoting the LXX from memory here or paraphrasing it (for there are some differences), but he most probably did know the greek version of Zechariah, so its not a stretch to say that this interpretation of the two animals was a legit thing.

[@litigioussociety4249]

Much like the Sunday School answer of "Jesus" to most questions, the answer to flawed criticisms of the Bible is often "Bart Ehrman."

[@rebelresource]

Ok, the scholars you cited, this channel is the real deal.. you got karkkainen in there! Represent the Assemblies of God ;)

[@TestifyApologetics]

I am Pentecostal and wear the badge with honor!

[@rebelresource]

@@TestifyApologetics haha. Assemblies of God?

[@joserivera8429]

The thumbnail! 😂

[@austinlincoln3414]

Wait.. it says he sat on the cloaks yeah but literally right before that it says the cloaks are put on the donkeys. So he is sitting on the donkeys right?

[@almsforthepoor9395]

Check out my explanation of this passage.

[@theinvestigativemillennial9381]

I awoke to a sound....the sound of paulogia being bent over and spanked.

[@CotidianoGospelInternacional]

Desejo agradecer pelo conteudo de gospel internacional, isso pode ser relevante para Varias pessoas, essa é uma influência positiva, não tenho duvida! Que Deus derrame bênçãos sobre quem só quer o nosso bem! Um grande abraço Wlw

[@Guzman1611]

Great video, keep it up! What do you use for the animations? If you don’t mind me asking.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Thanks. It's called Videoscribe.

[@au8363]

Jesus Is King.!!! Jesus Loves You❤.!!! John 14:6 King James Bible Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me..!!! Follow Jesus Take The Narrow Path.!!!😊

[@SurrealKeenan]

How did I find my way back into religious youtube? I haven't been here since 2011

[@esauponce9759]

Interesting. Great video!

[@michaelbabbitt3837]

Charity, good faith. Those two qualities are missing in much of the writings and arguments of atheists and critics of Christianity.

[@androidboy1289]

This is good! 😁 Done clicking subscribe! ❤️

[@nazorean]

Also Bart tends to ignore Daniel 9 by constantly making claims that there were no prophecies about the suffering Messiah. But Daniel 9 explicitly uses the term "Messiah".

[@timothycossette4192]

Matthew's first century Jewish-Palestine reader-audience would have gotten that (see previous comment), as opposed to smart olde twenty-first century Western us with our Twitter and H-Bombs. Such is the measure of our hubris. Charles C. Torrey got it principally right: "It is astonishing that so much has continued to be built on so little." (Charles C. Torrey, The Apocalypse of John, 1958, pg. 78).

[@John14-6...]

I understand some people might struggle with their faith and need answers for what may seem like contradictions in the scriptures but I will never understand how someone like Mr. Ehrman who dedicates their live trying to destroy people's faith

[@shanehanes7096]

It seems about 90% of the time the atheist only read other atheist Bible exegetes like Bart Erhmen. They don’t like scholarships which is more charitable to the text.

[@waitwhat2144]

But your solution is wrong because the clothes are already on them. So since there are two disciple, there are two clothes, and they're put on both animals. Let's say I'm wrong. Why did Jesus want two animals? 2. Why the clothes were placed on THEM?

[@ApostolicZoomer]

Does the text say that there were exactly two cloaks? The only information given is that there was a plural. I can imagine multiple cloaks providing much better cushioning to sit on the donkey than one. Even if that’s not the case, the cloaks are introduced as a plural anyways, so referring to the cloaks as “them” still is plausible. And as Testify said, it could have kept the colt calm in the midst of the crowd, or it was a literary addition to the story by Matthew to leave no doubt about Jesus’s actions being a callback to Zechariah 9:9, given the interpretation some had of Zechariah referring to two donkeys

[@journeyintothebible]

Ever notice how the New Testament never quotes the next verse? Zechariah 9:10 And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the horse from Jerusalem, and the bow of war will be broken. It's not quoted as a proof text, because it didn't happen!

[@johnmann8659]

Journey Into The Bible The Bible doesn’t read 100% correctly until the Messianic age. - Compare Daniel 12 to the rest of Daniel. - Compare the last ten chapters of Ezekiel to the rest of Ezekiel.

[@mrJety89]

For whatever reason, there are strange doublings in the gospel of Mattew. AND the parallels are not double. Maybe the donkey fit the same pattern of thought. 8:28 When Jesus arrived on the other side in the region of the Gadarenes,f He was met by two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. Parallel: (Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-39) 9:27 As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed Him, crying out, “Have mercy on us, Son of David!” 28After Jesus had entered the house, the blind men came to Him. “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” He asked. “Yes, Lord,” they answered. 29Then He touched their eyes and said, “According to your faith will it be done to you.” 30And their eyes were opened. Jesus warned them sternly, “See that no one finds out about this!” 31But they went out and spread the news about Him throughout the land. Parallel: maybe (Mark 7:31-37) 20.29 As they were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed Him. 30And there were two blind men sitting beside the road. When they heard that Jesus was passing by, they cried out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!” 31The crowd admonished them to be silent, but they cried out all the louder, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!” 32Jesus stopped and called them. “What do you want Me to do for you?” He asked. 33“Lord,” they answered, “let our eyes be opened.” 34Moved with compassion, Jesus touched their eyes, and at once they received their sight and followed Him. Parallel: (Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-43)

[@TestifyApologetics]

That's 3, which is hardly a real strong sample. See Lydia McGrew's comments in this video about that kzbin.info/www/bejne/o6anZJaGr9KIpJo

[@mrJety89]

@@TestifyApologetics What if it's an easter egg. You don't need more than three for that

[@TestifyApologetics]

You don't build a hypothesis on a small sample size and what if's and easter eggs.

[@mrJety89]

@@TestifyApologetics If it is real, then it will have an explanation somewhere -- because the bible explains the bible.

[@louisacapell]

This argument is a stupid as the one that says " jesus is a horse thief , and you know what they do to horse thieves" . It makes your head explode.

[@Ansatz66]

So there really were two donkeys, and the fact that this makes it look like someone took a synonymous parallel literally is just an unfortunate coincidence?

[@samuelhunter4631]

That was awesome.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Thanks. If it's good, it's grace.

[@samuelhunter4631]

@@TestifyApologetics Thanks a lot, mate. Your channel is an inspiration.

[@samuelhunter4631]

@@TestifyApologetics Concerning your older videos, you mentioned some Manuscript fragments and their dating. Specifically Papyrus 6 (you dated it 2nd century AD,) I think it may be in error, as most online articles I've found date it to 4th century AD. Are there sources to affirm your date?

[@jessedphillips]

I didn't even know about this objection it is so silly.

[@michaelsowerby8198]

And the takeaway is: know your scriptures.

[@mikeyant2445]

Yeah....this is Paulogia's mentality. I'

[@jamesmcallister9645]

I wouldn't worry about people trying to manipulate the truth of the gospels, Jesus christ is coming back and this time he aint going to be riding no donkey 😁😁😁😁😁😁😁

[@steventylerplumlee5417]

Short and sweet. "Inspiring philosophy" KZbin channel was wayyy to long winded.

[@bendecidospr]

I still have a question about this. Even granting that the “sat on them” is a reference to the cloaks, the question remains: what cloaks? The answer is in the text itself: the cloaks that were put on the donkey and the colt. So, even though common sense might say to us that Jesus could not have sat on both, the text itself implies that Jesus did indeed sit on the cloaks that were placed over the donkey and the colt. Hence, why some, like Ehrman, point out the silliness of this affirmation. How, exactly, is this explained?

[@TestifyApologetics]

Couldn't there easily be more than one coat on each of the animals?

[@bendecidospr]

@@TestifyApologetics But, does not the text imply that the cloaks on which Jesus sat are the very cloaks that were “put on them”? It I say, “I put all of my clothes in the washer, and then folded them,” clearly what I folded was all of the clothes that I put in the washer. The fact that there are more than one item of clothing doesn’t change the implication of my wording. In the same way, if they put the cloaks on both animals, and then Jesus sat on the cloaks, this implies He sat on both animals. The wording seems to lead to this interpretation. Mind you, this is only a problem if this is the correct translation. NIV doesn’t say Jesus sat on the cloaks, but only that they, “placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on.” This translation does not require Jesus to have sat on both animals, but only that He could have, it He wanted to.

[@toomanymarys7355]

@@bendecidospr That's not how any person writing in Greek would have imagined the scenario in the first century based on what was written. Your argument, such as it is, amounts to, "Greek wasn't used in the first century in the way that I would use English today, to avoid even the stupidest ambiguity. Therefore, the stupidest ambiguity is clearly the way to read it.". Written language used to frankly ask much more of the reader. Not only was there literally no concern for obtuse readings, but lacking all punctuation and even spacing between words, the writer relied much more on the reason abilities of the reader.

[@bendecidospr]

@@toomanymarys7355 I’m just commenting on the way its translated in the video. If there is a better way to translate it, thats fine.

[@TestifyApologetics]

I get what you're saying but it just feels like what someone does when he catches someone in their words if they don't say something exactly right. Matthew didn't say things as clearly as we would like, and it's like we are playing a game of aha! I knew you were a doofus! There's a perfectly fine explanation that has been held by commenters like France, Keener, Carson, Ellicott, and others. Even the NASB uses the word coats. We have reason to think Matthew understands Hebrew perfectly fine, his usage isn't that odd compared to his context, and if we use a little common sense, charity, and imagination rather than looking for a gotcha. Multiple cloaks on each animal leave no issue here. It doesn’t say Jesus sat on every cloak.

[@DawahResponse]

A colt is also a young donkey read below. Why a young colt ,the reason is when a king passes his kingdom to his son the son rides his fathers the ex kings donkey/mule(1 King 1:33) Jesus rode an animal that was never ridden as He was always the King of Isreal no passing of the symbolic baton here Why did the mother accompany the young animal,because it was very young and if you understand young donkeys follow their mothers and don't necessarily do what you want,this ensuring the young colt was so young never ridden yet it was quiet, calm and confident because it's mother was by it"s side and still fulfilling the prophecy Zec 9:9 12 disciples picked up two animals 3/4 miles outside Jersusalem the final destination.Both animals were laden with clothing. Jesus sat on the mother all the way ,until He made His entrance into Jersusalem He rode both the adult donkey ,as a symbol of lowliness and servitude ,and the young foal because nobody handed Him the kingdom like from a previous king,Jesus was always the King of Isreal so there was no passing of the baton or donkey in this case 1 kings 1:33. He rode the adult till the entrance and at the entrance sat on the colt to fulfill the prophecy,mother and foal walking side by side Is a colt a baby, horse, or donkey?  The Definition of "Colt" Strictly speaking, a colt is an uncastrated (intact) male horse, pony, donkey, or mule younger than four years of age. Glossary of donkey termsColt: A colt is a young male donkey which is less than four years of age What does colt mean in Hebrew? עיר - foal, colt (donkey, male) - Hebrew conjugation tables.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

Pauly does have a donkey complex when thinking about the Bible and Christianity.

[@yippee-ki-yay9925]

It is also possible that Jesus did ride both animals. He could have rode one part of the way and then switched to the other. In either case, it is a pretty silly argument to make against the story. Bart is intentionally misleading people on a trivial topic.

[@zahydierodriguez1529]

Wow this video is blowing up we might even get a response from Paul if this hits 2k views

[@TestifyApologetics]

Mike Winger shared it, so that's why there have been more views.

[@zahydierodriguez1529]

@@TestifyApologetics oh well that’s nice but as I said it could be very possible that Paul responds to this

[@tieskedh]

So Jesus put a coat on two donkeys and rode on those coats. How does that solve the issue? I don't really understand that part

[@hiddenrambo328]

Zechariah 9:9 Is giving distinct criteria: humble and - 1) afflicted, humble, lowly, needy, poor riding on a donkey - 2) Donkey here is the Hebrew word chamor: a male ass = Riding a Male donkey on a colt - 3) ayir: a male donkey that is young = not just a male donkey but a young male donkey the foal of a donkey. - 4) athon: a female donkey = Young male whose mother is also a donkey. What's the best way to prove/show you are humbled, riding a young male donkey, and it's mother is also a donkey? Simple, ride the young Male son next to his mother! That's evidence of being humbled his riding a donkey not a horse or chariot. Evidence they can see it is a young male donkey. Evidence for the mother "the female donkey" is right next to the son. (All of which could have been challenged at the time and Luke 19:39-40 shows they didn't object to the evidence but to the fulfilling act. They didn't point out issue with the colt or female donkey or age or riding, no such objections were made. Luke 19:35 also says plainly Jesus is placed on the colt no mention of the female, the focus is on the colt.) That fulfils scripture and even now it's written evidence for us to use. Others say that Zech 9:9 is misunderstood by Matthew but Matthew's writings show they understood it wasn't two donkeys to ride let alone ride both at one time like some joke but only one donkey was ever valid to ride as only one donkey is a young male and Matthew recites the criteria from the Zech 9:9 to remind us of it, and provides evidence to show that this event meets that precise criteria foretold in Zech 9:9, this is not a joke this is solid testimony.

[@jessra3529]

Can you respond to Tovia Singer videos?

[@TestifyApologetics]

I'm only a little familiar with him, I would have to dig in. Michael Brown deals with lot of his style of objections in his 5 volume set Jewish Objections to Jesus.

[@jessra3529]

@@TestifyApologetics I believe Dr Michael Brown is Charismatic and speaks in tongues therefore I venture to doubt his interpretations.. could you maybe recommend anyone else?

[@natebee4445]

@@jessra3529 maybe N.T Wright? 🤔

[@TestifyApologetics]

I hate to disappoint you, but I'm a charismatic, too. Craig Keener is also a charismatic but he's considered to be a top notch scholar. Same for Gordon Fee. And Wayne Grudem. And JP Moreland is a great Christian philosopher who is charismatic. And there is a host of other biblical scholars, philosophers and apologists who are charismatic. I don't see how his answers to Singer would be wrong, if they were correct and Biblical. I read atheists like Tim O'Neill when he's responding to Jesus mythicism. Truth is the truth no matter who is saying it.

[@jessra3529]

Man ... I turned to apologetics to escape charismatic teaching. I just can’t see how it’s reliable to base the denomination on personal interpretation of scripture of some men and women 100 or some odd years ago by Going and back and only focusing on small parts of the Bible for new age personal revelation . The founders all recount days long experiences with Jesus and it’s all mysticism . I’m not saying the experiences don’t feel real or personal but what I believe is it is opening ourselves to a spirit world we don’t actually understand and the feeling we allow to take over our body to speak in tongues(the angel language one) is not of our God. It’s calculated meditation. Getting emotionally worked up.. chanting a certain verse over and over .. dimly lit room and then spontaneous reaction to a very real heightened state of mind. We are only human and we can’t trust our hearts. I think it is damaging to teach to children that they are spiritually mature enough to operate in “gifts of the spirit” while also acknowledging that children are not even mature enough to chose their bedtimes . I don’t mean this to be rude or offend.. it’s the way I have evolved to understand where I was , what I’ve seen and what I’ve learned since then .

[@timothycossette4192]

The disciples put their cloaks on both animals because Jesus was going to use both animals - but NOT at the same time! Jesus left Bethphage riding the mother-donkey. When they crossed over to the western slopes of the Mount of Olives and approaching Jerusalem, Jesus stopped, dismounted the mother-donkey, and finished his pilgrim-trek into Jerusalem on the younger donkey. Why the switch? Because according to local Jewish custom, and during pilgrim-feasts, when one nears Jerusalem on a burden animal, one dismounts and completes the pilgrimage into the holy city on foot (Mishnah Hagigah 1:1; see also Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the time of Jesus, pg. 59). By going from one animal to another - and NOT going into the city on foot- Jesus was making the conspicuous point that he is the fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9, the King-Messiah coming to Jerusalem on a colt to bring salvation to the people. Not the two animals at the same time-but the two animals in succession! Oy Vey!

[@nothingbutthetruth613]

Am I missing something? Do the makers of this video actually think they have answered this blatant lie? There is nothing in this video that answered anything. First they say that all those questioning the authenticity of Matthew's account are simply reading this wrong. When it says he sat on "them" it very possibly could mean the cloaks and not the donkeys. I'm not sure how they could fool anyone with this absurd answer. What difference does it make what "them" is referring to? The cloaks were on BOTH ANIMALS so either way you read it he sat on both donkeys. HELLO? Is anyone thinking? Then they try to do the usual argument. Instead of showing evidence that they are right, they simply quote "scholars" who agree with them. How does this answer anything? Who cares what a bunch of biased authors claimed? Where do you see anywhere with even one example that Matthew is more careful with the original hebrew writings? And even if this were true, how do you understand what he wrote about jesus riding on 2 animals? You could assert all you like how Matthew was legitimately relating the truth and the word of God but the bottom line is he still wrote this ridiculous verse which appears to have caught him red handed and exposed his nefarious intentions. This is not only not an interpretation of this colossal dilemma, it shows even more how desperate the church is to cover this up and try to excuse it with any nonsensical explanation it could think of.

[@TestifyApologetics]

There are two antecedents. One is a common sense way of looking at it. One is just trying to make Matthew out to be a doofus. Multiple cloaks on each animal leaves no issue here. It doesn’t say Jesus sat on every cloak. Dale Allison is a liberal scholar who doesn't believe Jesus was bodily raised from the dead or that the Apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel according to Matthew, so he could hardly be looking to run cover for the author of Matthew.

[@nothingbutthetruth613]

@@TestifyApologetics It's one thing to read into something what you want based on your agenda when it isn't obvious that this is what it means. However, there is no way to explain this except that he did this on purpose. Nobody is trying to unjustly paint Matthew as a fool. He clearly did it himself. There's no ambiguity here. It says "them". They sat on them. It's pretty clear. He put cloaks on them and sat on them. The only way around this is to say he put 2 cloaks on each and then sat on them being only the 2 coats on one of them. You do understand that to say I am being generous with this explanation is a huge understatement. This is almost certainly not what it means. Remember we are already taking this out of the obvious way to read this as him sitting on the donkeys to him sitting on the cloaks so to further stretch this would be rather silly. Even if you think he didn't sit on both of them you still have the problem of both of them being there. The other gospels only had one animal there. What was the second one doing there if not to ride on it? The whole thing is just so odd. To bring these so called scholars is superfluous information. You first need to show how Matthew could have possibly meant something else and this is almost not possible. However, there's always a way for a skeptic to legitimize whatever he wants to believe and if you don't want to see the obvious hoax going on, you won't. Not sure if you have videos on this but you do know that Matthew has a history all throughout his gospel of distorting scripture and manipulating what it actually says to further his agenda. Isaiah 7:14, Hosea 11:1 are his first 2 lies and he just keeps going.

[@TestifyApologetics]

In the description there is a link where I deal specifically with Isaiah 7.14 in detail. You're just re-asserting the same argument while saying that bias is a reason to dismiss an argument. Bias cuts both ways and that's just an ad hominem argument, arguably to push your agenda. If you haven't read Gundry, Davies and Allison or Keener, how do you know I'm cherry picking or that they're biased? But keep implying I'm dense in the comments I guess. It only helps me with the algorithm.

[@nothingbutthetruth613]

@@TestifyApologetics If you can't explain why I'm wrong, you can't say I am the one making an ad hominem argument. It's absurd to think I can't argue something because I didn't read every book that every guy wrote on a subject. If you have a specific reason to uphold Matthew's integrity from these scholars, then go right ahead and show me. However, you haven't shown anything except there are scholars who say... That's not an argument. And I never said anyone is dense or any derogatory words. I'm not interested in bashing anyone. I'm just looking for honesty. I'll take a look at the link for Isaiah 7.

[@nothingbutthetruth613]

@@TestifyApologetics Any interest in my comments on your blog about 7:14? I didn't see any videos about this. If not, I won't bother you.

[@georgiagirl1961]

Wrong. He asks his them to bring both donkeys from by the shed a donkey and a colt. He doesn't mean he rode them both at one time.

[@lientforjuve8118]

If I write "I throw a punch with my right hand" , will dr Bart think that my hand literally flying from my body? So called scholar, can't even using common sense to read a text. 😅

[@ocmiente]

So, we shouldn't take the everything in the Bible literally then, right? For instance, john 3:16 might not really mean that belief is sufficient for salvation. I mean, that defies common sense, right?

[@plonkster]

Context. Sometimes we don't know the exact context, unfortunately, but context means a lot. When I tell you that my entire family went fishing on Saturday, then you instinctively know that my 2-year old likely went along for the trip but didn't do any actual fishing. I don't have to tell you that, it is implied by the context. Similarly, when the Psalmist says that he was knitted together in his mother's womb, that does not mean God literally showed up with some needles and wool, it is clearly poetic. Similarly in this case, a little bit of common sense dictates that it doesn't matter all that much how many donkeys there were, he probably rode just one of them for the simple reason that that is how you ride a donkey. :-) Of course context isn't always available. Another example: A Roman jailer and his whole household is baptised by Paul. Does the household include or exclude the children? The writers didn't think it was necessary to be specific, because everyone knew what that meant. Yet here we are 2000 years later arguing about infant baptism, for precisely the same reason.

[@ocmiente]

​@@plonkster I was more interested in the reference to common sense, rather than context. Common sense says that if a book has a passage referring to: * A donkey that talks * A man living in a fish under the sea for days * A man walking on water * People rising from the dead Then that book is a work of fiction. Yet Christians believe all of these things. Testify wants us to use common sense to interpret scripture in this specific case, but is that a general principle, or is it only to get around this one odd thing in the Bible. If it's more general, then everyone needs to step back and ask themselves whether many significant things in the Bible really happened. Common sense says they did not.

[@ocmiente]

@JD Apologetics With all due respect, that is the entire issue. The big picture is that people believe what is written in this book is true. Spoiler: a lot of it is not true. I am disputing the historical credibility of any book that states miracles as fact. If things don't happen naturally, how do they happen? Supernatural events are not real - not even in the slightest. Do yourself a favor and google 'One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge'. No one could do so much as levitate a feather to claim a million dollars from 1964-2016. The only way thing happen in this world is naturally. Use your common sense, please, as the video poster expects us to.

[@ocmiente]

@JD Apologetics If God exists, then anything is possible. Never has a more logically true statement been written. If I can fly, then I can avoid automobile traffic. Yup, that works too. We seem to be in violent agreement, actually, that common sense does not lead to belief. If common sense doesn't apply, then how do we know that the antecedent, 'If God exists', is true? If Allah exists, then the Christian God is false. How do we now that 'If Allah exists' is false? It's the same old question again and again, with no good answer except the common sense one - this is all human invention.

[@ocmiente]

​@JD Apologetics Pretty sure my observation is not incompatible. Claiming that common sense does not lead to belief, then claiming that common sense goes further and leads away from belief, i.e. that the Bible is human invention, is consistent. The double standard - and I won't claim Testify is explicitly doing this, but this is true of many Christians including you from what you've written - is that common sense is used as a tool when it supports your argument, but common sense is denigrated when it doesn't. e.g. The world was created in 7 days and the Bible appears to claim that the universe is around 10,000 years old (give or take). There is overwhelming scientific evidence that the universe is more than 100,000 times older than that. Common sense says maybe our improved understanding of the world based on experimental observation is more accurate than Biblical claims. Some Christians, on the other hand, say that the Bible is right regardless. Science must be wrong. This is not only a double standard, it's harmful to society.

[@chicken_punk_pie]

Carll 👍

[@TestifyApologetics]

You're the first to recognize him.

[@sislertx]

Lloyd de jongh channel is also.really good.folks...a hidden gem. HE.was raised islamic and JUST LIKE CHRISTIAN PRINCE AND THIS GUY BUSTS ISLAMISTS BIG TIME...AND WITH THEIR OWN WORDS. HIS.DEEDAT SERIES IS PRICELESS...AND OFFERS AN INSIGHT INTO THEIR MENTAL ILLNESS...WHICH IS AKIN TO CHARLES MANSON. .

[@eonxl]

I'm not so sure this is a very convincing refutation. They put the cloaks on both animals (the first "them"), so if Jesus sat on the cloaks he would still be sitting on both animals by logical necessity. It doesn't matter if the last "them" was referring to the cloaks or the animals, the absurdity that Jesus was straddling both animals remains.

[@Nameless-pt6oj]

This is one of those occasions where you just have to use common sense in the Bible.

[@eonxl]

@@Nameless-pt6oj You mean the common sense idea that Matthew was obviously trying to tailor his narrative to match a misinterpretation of a verse from the Old Testament?

[@watchgoose]

it does not say 'and' the foal of a donkey.

[@francisaltitude9763]

Nice vid !!

[@allenheydari356]

Yea I am sure we need several phd professors to explain Mathew mistake. Could it be that mattew did not understand the verses and catered the passages to his thealogical believes. Lets stop intellectual gymnastics here to prove that someone was not worng.

[@TestifyApologetics]

Seems like the mental gymnastics can go both ways.

[@allenheydari356]

@@TestifyApologetics I am sure if someone else in antiquity would write something similar, we would say he misunderstood the old testament passages and changed the text to his thealogical belives. Why not apply the same standard to Mathew?