tO CLAN UP MY ITALICS/BOLD MESS...

Critics of Christyainity, be they Pagan, Atheist, agnostic, or "Liberal" Christain, enjoy attmpting to tear down the faith of beleivers by siting errors or probelms witht he beleifs of a typical Chritain.

One suhc claim tjat ires me seems to have its origin on the Religious Tolerence webste, but has made its rounds on he Internet, and shall be addressed belwo. This incedent is the entrance into Jerusalem, where Jesus alledgedly steals a Colt, or rather, orders a theft, thereby makign him a theif, and thus a sinner.

Supposeldy, their are two lines of thought on this, the Liberal and conservitive lines, according to Rleigiosu Tolerence. The Liberal side accpet that Jesus wa a man, and on occassion sinned.This they can prove through citing scruptures, liek his Colt theft.

The OCnservitive side beleives, at leats accordign to Reliigous Topelrnece, that since Jesus was God he coudl not sin, therefore an action done by a man that woudl be sinful is not sinful if done by God, theroefroe jesus;s theft fo the Colt was nto a sin because he is God.

The Conservitive argument, of urse, admits Jesus sinned f held to human standards. If held to human acocuntability, jesus was a sinner, and the only absolution for his was thta he was God.

I wil dispence withhtis argment, and accept the objective standards, thus, if Jesus commited adultery by seepign with a married woman, I woudl nto say " hes God, he cant sin", I owudl admit Jesus snned by commitign adultery.

Now, that said, I must, acocridng to our critivns, conceed That Jesus sinned, for though we have no record of adultery beign commited, we do have a record of his theft of a Colt.

They alledge that he stole a colt, because the aimal was not his and he took it, the very basis of theft.

However, was this incedent theft? If he was granted permission for the use of the Animal , it is not theft. Thus, for Jesus to hav sinned, he woudl ahv had to take the animal without permission of the nimals Master.

Let us see if this is how the Bibel records the incedent.

Mathew Chapter 21

1. And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples, 2. 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.

{It is at this poin the critcs say " See, Jesus orders a theft", but the story goes on.}-Zarove 3. And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.

{Important red flag note: If soemone asks, tell him Jesus asked for the animals and he will send them. If he man willignly sends his animals, it is not a theft. Critics overlook this.}-Zarove 4. All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, 5. Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. 6. And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them, 7. And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

The next account they likewise overlook.

Mark Chapter 11

Mark 11

1. And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, he sendeth forth two of his disciples, 2. And saith (Jesus) unto them,Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring him.

{Here, the Critic, like Trio, claims Jesus ordered the theft of th Colt frememner, thefi is talign soemn elses property without pwrmission. So, did Jesus take the olt without permission?}-Zarove 3. And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither. 4. And they went their way, and found the colt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met; and they loose him. 5. And certain of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt? 6. And they said unto them even as Jesus had commanded: and they let them go.

{Please note the last part of Verse 6. "And they let them go." IF the owner o the Colt let them go then how is it theft? If I entered into a car lot, and started a car, and the owner said Why are you doign this?" and I said "Stan needs the car" and they said "OK, go on then." Then its not theft. Theft requires the takign of a possession wihtout permission. This was clearly done with ppermisison.

Here is where the OWNERS came up and talked withhte disiples. Notice, the OWNERS came up and started speakin to them. thus, if thee OWNER denies permission to take the animal, it is theft, and the critic wins, and Jesus is a sinner. Notice: Important: This is critical totheir case!!! Note, I am not saying " Becuase hes God theft is OK, but if he had nto been God it woudl be sin>" I am saying " If Jesus was NOT God this si still not sin.}-Zarove

7. And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him.

The next acocunt is the last, it is in Luke.

29. And it came to pass, when he was come nigh to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount called the mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, 30. Saying, Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither.

{Here Jesus tells them to brign a Colt. Now, acordign ot he critics, hsi is clealry an order of theft. why they lack the resonign capacity to think "Maybe Jesus prearranged the use of the Colt earlier." I don't know, tot hem its obviosuloy heft, and clesalry the verses below that tate the animal was taken withhte permisison of the owner is omited so Jesus coudl be sinful.

Note, they like saying "Religiosu Conservitives" turn a blind eye to such pasages,w here they ar einsetad guolty of turngin a blind eye and leaping to conclusions to prove hteir points.}-Zarove 31. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him.

{Notice: Important: Jesus aid " If anyone aksks, tell them i need it." Thsi si in all three accounts. It doesn't soudn much liek theft to anyone at this poin except the critics.This palys a crucial role later.}-Zarove 32. And they that were sent went their way, and found even as he had said unto them. 33. And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt?

34. And they said, The Lord hath need of him.

{Same wihhte above, the owners spoike tot hem. The owners had everty oportunity to stop them In thefirts two acocunts they flatly gave permisison, and here they say and do nothing. }-Zarove

35. And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon. 36. And as he went, they spread their clothes in the way.

-----------------------------------------------------

Now that this has been covered, I agreed above to sick to objective standards. Thus, iw oud not iuse the " Since he is Go its not sin, but if he had no been God it woudl be sin" Line of reasoning.

I ask now though, sincerley, did Jesus stealthe Colt?

The ciritc says Jesus stole the Colt and is thus guilty of the sin of theft and thus is not sinless.

The problem is, in two acounts the owner gave permission for the use of the animal, an din the thirs no record of any comment. None record any objection tot he takign of th animal.

Instead of asusming Jesus stole the Colt, which is imposisble since he clealry had permssion, maybe its mor elogical to assume he had prearranged the use of the animal.

Critics won't think that way, as they are confedent Jeuss is a colt theif, and think that the only way around htis is the "Hes God, he cant sin, but woudl be sin for a normal person" arment.

Clealry the Critics, like Trio, cannot think.

Sorry, this account, in both Mathew and MArk, clearly record the owner of the colt offerign permission for the use of the animal, thereby destoryign the theft arguemt.

Jesus did nto steal the colt, nor is his theft negated by him beign God. Jesus was allowed to sue the animal by the owners, rahte rhtis wa sprearranged, or rather they just relaly rpsected Jesus, matters little, since their is clealr proof int he pasages themselves that he didnt steal the Colt. Only an idiot cn read this and think it is theft.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 29, 2004

Answers

Response to JESUS THE COLT THEIF, amended.

Bump

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 29, 2004.

Excellent job, Zarove.

For visitors, etc., this thread is an answer to the question found here: Someone purer than Jesus?

-- (helping@hand.com), April 29, 2004.

I agree that it is not theft.

If anyone is to re-post this argument, link to it, or access it, you really need to slow down your typing and spell check the result. Much of your good scholarship is wasted by the less-than-professional result.

The real problem I had with this passage is with the Gnostics -- it lends crediance to the belief that Jesus had a collection of agents or followers that could go in advance to set things up, or who were resources for things that he did. It is known that he did have more than just the apostles. But this passage opens up the gnostic can of worms.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), April 30, 2004.

As explained, it isnt speed that henders my words, it is dyslexia,as I have offered many times already.

Liekwise, I do not hink Gnostism is a concern hre either. In addition to the fact that Jesus may have personally arranged or the Colt, and simpley sent his disiples, the fac that he had many followers who coudl eaisly have arranged this incedent does not relaly negate any miracles he performs.

Indeed,it woudl be no diffeent today is we had a notible celebraty. If tsaid celebrity sent one of his assistance to procure a vehicle, this woudl neiher negate their talents in other area's, nor woudl it nesssisarily be innappropriate.

Jesus coudl have simpley had this arranged hroh soem tird party agent, or els coul have personally arranged it, without relaly delving nto Gnostism.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 30, 2004.

Dyxlexic? So am I.

I can read sense into most words, even if it is not there. So I can not spell check. So I ctrl-a to select all, ctrl-x to delete to storage, ctrl-c to copy to Word, spell check it, and use the same process to transfer it to the answer, especially if i want it to be good. This did not have tht process done to it.

Actually there are many knids of dylexia. what is yours like? and many level of severity.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), May 03, 2004.

I was once told I owudl nt be able to read above a fifth Grade level. I also have issues on putting coherent words into print. ( Thus my delays in mailing som peopel who email me.)

I can read, but I usuall ahev to chat an use speed reading teqniques. this way i can get throuh the text more as a whoel than go word-by-word.

I tried spell checkers before, but since I canot see when its mispelled, the spell checker hat cleans up automaticlaly sometomes does weird things ot the text.Would ather the word be mispelled than perfeclty sekled and ill suited tothe entnece.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 04, 2004.

Zarove,

Well you are not the worst that I have seen. One was in a play by mail diplomacy game: her units moved irratically. the whole diplomacy game world was rocked when she won: everybody hated one player and surrendendered to her.

There are ways with spell checkers to turn off the auto-respell. for MS Word97, Tools, Options, Spelling and Grammer will get you there. then you wil have to hit f7 to get a spelling check.

Basically it can be done, and for your most important work, should be doen. for just comments, well enought is good enough.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), May 05, 2004.