[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

Matthew 21:7
“And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.”

Bible says Jesus rode the ass but he did not bring the ass.

[MitzaLizalor]

Originally Posted by Dr. Anthony J. Toole

Matthew 21:7
“And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.”

Bible says Jesus rode the ass but he did not bring the ass.

John 12
12 On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,
13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.
14 And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written,
15 Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt.

I'm confused; are you saying that Jesus found the ass's colt and sat on it but that it was brought along by someone else?

[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

Originally Posted by MitzaLizalor

John 12
12 On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,
13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.
14 And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written,
15 Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt.

I'm confused; are you saying that Jesus found the ass's colt and sat on it but that it was brought along by someone else?

Don't be confused Sister - that's precisely what The Bible says. Jesus rides ass (preferably young ass, or a colt as they say in olden times). Others bring a selection of ass or colt for Jesus, then Jesus mounts one or both of them and goes to town (Jerusalem in those days). It's a sacred thing. Obviously nowadays the ass is replaced with other methods of transport (like Uber) but the principle still applies, Jesus does not bring the ass. Others bring the ass to Him.

[MitzaLizalor]

I see. The procurement of asses was team handed. You have also addressed another point, that of mingling.

Deuteronomy 22:9-11 Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled. Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

(Moses is reposting God's commandment on the topic)

Leviticus 19:18e-19 I am the LORD. Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

The examples given are not exhaustive and we can imagine what was going on. "Aha," someone would notice. "It says a garment mingled of linen and woollen so I'll make a nice outfit using cotton and fox and swan around in that!" which apart from anything else would be difficult to spin so probably quite expensive. Similarly the cattle. Obviously in Leviticus gender is a transitive verb and I'm happy to link Webster's for reference:

In the reiteration (Deuteronomy) it's made plain that the examples are just that. Examples: as of woollen and linen together does not mean only woollen and linen together. The principle of mingling couldn't be more clearly presented, especially in the light of having to evict all the squatters perched there in The Promised Land who would be pulling out all their cunning stunts to pollute The Israelites. God did not want that. God did not approve of mingling.

In later years Jesus would have an equivalent mission, to transfer His promise from the Scribes et al., across to Christians and recind the covenant He'd made because of their faithlessness. And nitpicking over narrow definitions of words. Their choice, I suppose.

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Did the principle of mingling still apply? Well yes, in the sense of trying to cross-breed a warthog and an ossifrage (as Webster's explains) or when cultivating the soil. No when making a triumphal entry, History's Unique Event.

Matthew 21:1d-7 (excerpt) Then sent Jesus two disciples, saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.….and the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them, and brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

He had already found the creatures, the disciples just had to collect them. These were not two different kinds, they were not being used for agriculture, it was prophesied by Zechariah and Jesus is God.






https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/engender

[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

No, you're getting so confused. Let me explain it even clearer to you. What I said was: Jesus, He rides the ass. The ass. Jesus. Is it clear enough? Jesus rides the ass. But He doesn't bring the ass. Did you see that? Shall I go through it one more time?

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

I don't understand where the question of cattle gendering with a diverse kind even comes into this. Asses are not cattle. Nor are they miscegenated, like some sort of Mexican.

But to address your original question, Brother Dr Toole, Sir, the answer is quite obviously no, as you so wisely point out in the thread title. If Jesus were with us today, it would be a sad state of affairs if He ever had any dealings with Uber, even as a passenger. I am sure He knows that He can rely on us to provide Him with a comfortable limo and a uniformed driver when the time comes.

[MitzaLizalor]

Originally Posted by Dr. Anthony J. Toole

No, you're getting so confused. Let me explain it even clearer to you. What I said was: Jesus, He rides the ass. The ass. Jesus. Is it clear enough? Jesus rides the ass. But He doesn't bring the ass. Did you see that? Shall I go through it one more time?

Yes, I see. So what was the colt doing? Matthew is explicit that there were two animals. I am aware of the poetic tradition of restating a line phrased differently for emphasis but we know Zechariah was not employing that device because when the prophecy was fulfilled not only were there two animals but they were different sexes.

EXAMPLE 1

Psalm 77
5a I have considered the days of old,
5b The years of ancient times.

The author is contemplating history.

EXAMPLE 2

Proverbs 30
15a The horseleach hath two daughters, crying, Give, give.
15b There are three things that are never satisfied,
15c Yea, four things say not, It is enough.

A progression of numbers used for poetic effect. Obviously if there are four things there are also three things. The poet could just have written "Four things are never satisfied" but that wouldn't be poetry. The meaning remains unchanged.

ZECHARIAH'S PROPHECY (cited by Matthew)

Zechariah 9
9a Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion;
9b Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem:
9c Behold, thy King cometh unto thee:
9d He is just, and having salvation;
9e Lowly, and riding upon an ass,
9f And upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Zechariah could be saying that the colt upon which Jesus will ride is the foal of an ass (which obviously it must be) for similar effect. Clearly any colt born from an ass will be an ass itself – unless it's a hinny, but miscegenation is not mentioned here.

MATTHEW'S TESTIMONY

Matthew 21
2a [Jesus speaking] Go into the village over against you,
2b And straightway ye shall find an ass tied,
2c And a colt with her:
2d Loose them, and bring them unto me …
4o This was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,
5a Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee,
5b Meek,
5c And sitting upon an ass,
5d And a colt the foal of an ass.

No question here, the ass is female. There is also a colt. We know exactly what Zechariah foresaw: two animals. Unless you're suggesting that Matthew was attempting to write something in Greek to look like a prophecy had been fulfilled but didn't actually know what had been prophesied? At least not in its original language? That would be rather disingenuous on the part of Matthew.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Originally Posted by Dr. Anthony J. Toole

Matthew 21:7
“And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.”
Bible says Jesus rode the ass but he did not bring the ass.

I find that people are more bothered by
"and put on them their clothes"

(I will refer to both as horses, and assume a plurality of horses, as I do not wish, at this point to wade in with authority.)

The problem is with "them". Does "and put on them their clothes" mean
(i) they (the disciples) laid their (the disciples') clothes upon both horses,
(ii) they dressed the horses in their (the disciples') own clothes,
(iii) they dressed the horses in their (the horses') clothes. (bridle/saddle, etc.),
(iv) They laid their clothes on the ground and put the ass and the colt on them,
(v) They felt certain that the ass and the colt were perfect (This verse is said to be the origin of “To put your shirt on something”, which is an expression used in horse –racing.), or
(v) something else.

The understanding is not helped by the next verse:
M't:21:8: And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strawed them in the way.

Here, the referent of “their” is clear: it is “a very great multitude”, and they all put their clothes on the ground. You can see why this might be – the streets of the town were similar to those in a Detroit ghetto, so the clothes would smooth the surface and the horses would not falter. But there would have been no need for the Disciples to put clothes on the ground if all Jesus had to do was get on a horse.

The final mystery is whether the multitude consisted of men only, or men and women. I mention this as you will remember that there are verses speaking against “seeing someone’s nakedness.” Or perhaps they had brought along some spare clothes.

[MitzaLizalor]

If the colt had never been ridden before it would be unlikely to have "clothes" (saddle, bridle) so human clothes are more likely. The crowd would still be throwing their garments down in any event. Isn't it fairly warm in Jerusalem?

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Originally Posted by MitzaLizalor

If the colt had never been ridden before it would be unlikely to have "clothes" (saddle, bridle)

But Sister Mitza, even a newborn babe, who is born naked (if you'll excuse the vulgarity) is given his clothes. I would assume that, even if the colt had been previously un-ridden, the necessary accoutrements would have been available?

The crowd would still be throwing their garments down in any event. Isn't it fairly warm in Jerusalem?

But surely nobody would wish to smother a colt in the discarded raiment of the mob, for fear of over-heating the animal and thus causing it to collapse? This would very much have disrupted the proceedings.

[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

The mystery deepens.

John 2:6
"He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked."

Obviously not literally, if ass is available (or a colt, respectively). But Jesus is literally wanting us to be like Him. That means we should seek for others to bring us the ass. Am I stuck on the ass gag too long? So, it appears Jesus is telling us: take it but don't bring it. But then who among ye will bring the ass?

There's more - can't speak right now.

[MitzaLizalor]

Originally Posted by Joanna Lytton-Vasey

surely nobody would wish to smother a colt

I'm sorry, I may not have been clear.

verse 8 And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strawed them in the way.

The multitude threw their clothes down on for the creatures to walk on then thronged around celebrating Jesus. Unless they brought extra clothes for the purpose, the garments spread out (like a sort of red carpet effect) would not be worn during the celebration.