GOD and the black hole

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Docfeelgood
If a scientist admitts to beleiving in GOD are they looked down on by there peers?

I am a scientist who believes in God and I am most certainly not looked down on by my peers. In Europe I would sya that the proportion of physicists believing in God was slightly higher than the general public. In the US it seems to be somewhat lower - not because a lower proportion of physicists believe in God, but because a higher proportion of the general public do (or appear to do).

I have a few comments. I agree with Boris (was it Boris? ) that God has nothing to do with science. This is not a statement about God, but a statement about science. Since the whole idea of science is to make predictions one cannot include an intrinsically non-predictive phenomenum like God. In other words, scientists make the assumption that God isn't going to interfere with their experiments.

On the other hand, I think that atheists who look down apon people who believe in God are being a little bit naive. Everyone believes in something which cannot be proven, and the scale of the faith does not matter - it is still faith. I would challenge the atheists to make a model of the universe which has no assumptions in it.....

On the propability of life on other planets: this is impossible to quantify because we are missing any knowledge on one of the parameters - the probability of going from a planet which is capable of sustaining life but has none to a planet with life. We have no concept of what this probability is.

Imagine there were 10^40 planets in our galaxy capable of supporting life (I have no idea of the actual number). Now, if the probability of life having been created spontaneously on one of these planets were 0.1 then there would be 10^39 planets with life on them. However, the probability could be 10^-40, meaning that we would only expect one planet in our galaxy to have life (ie. us).

On fitting stuff into black holes: remember that all the fundamental particles are point-like. They have no spacial size (or to be more accurate, their position eigenstates have no size). Their manifestation of size is due to the forces they experience, so the electron appears to have size because electromagnetism creates a cloud of particles around it. But in a black hole, gravity is stronger than any of these forces, so the particles can be squeezed together as much as you like (actually this is how a black hole forms - it is a very dense star which keeps attracting in more and more matter until eventually the gravitational pressure becomes strong enough to overcome the strong nuclear force and it collapses).

[Jack the Bodiless]

This could get to be a rather large topic!

GENEOLOGY:

One branch traces Mary's geneology, and the other through Joseph. Both sides are from the tribe of Judah, and both eventually lead to King David. No inconsistency here.

Genealogies were not traced through the female line, and there was supposedly NO descent through the male line. Also, one of the genealogies has been rather obviously tampered with to make three sets of exactly fourteen generations (Abraham to David, David to the Exile, Exile to Jesus), but not the other. They contradict not just each other, but also parts of the Old Testament.

JOHN vs. SYNOPTICS

John is dated between AD 85-90, while the synoptics are usually dated from the late 50's to early 60's.
Therefore, John would have been familiar with the Gospels. His purpose focuses on theological and doctrinal issues rather than a biographical documentary.
There is no requirement that he parrot the Gospels in order to be divinely inspired, as there are many different genres in the bible.

...Dated by whom?

The earliest known copy is from 325 AD. Mark preceded the other synoptics, Matthew and Luke copied from Mark. One fragment of John has been dated to about 125 AD. All were anonymous, and none were ascribed to their now-traditional authors until well into the 2nd century. There is no reason to assume that any gospel was actually written by an eyewitness to the events described, and Jesus himself left no writings. There is no reliable "earliest" date. They are usually assigned dates from "about 70 AD" onwards.

BETHLEHEM

No inconsistency between the Gospel accounts. Matthew refers to the prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.

There was no prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem: the one cited by Matthew clearly refers to a different person born centuries earlier. And John states that the Messiah would not be born anywhere in that region.

MANGER BIRTH

No inconsistency. No Gospel contradicts the account of Jesus being born in the stables.

Well, only one gospel mentions it. But it didn't happen that way anyhow: no census that fits, no Herodian massacre, no Star of Bethlehem in astronomical records, contradictory dates (Herod died a decade before Quirinus was appointed), and so on. It's a mess.

AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURES, INFALLIABILITY

Revelation from God is not merely dictated to the authors. The authors' vocabulary and writing styles all express the revelation, though the teachings of the revelation will remain unchanged.

Thw writing style of "Matthew" indicates that he did not understand Hebrew.

And so it goes...

[Jack the Bodiless]

If you're really interested in arguing these issues further, I suggest using the Biblical Criticism & Archaeology board on Internet Infidels.

[problem_child]

That the universe exists is proof that god does not.

[Robert]

Genealogies were not traced through the female line, and there was supposedly NO descent through the male line. Also, one of the genealogies has been rather obviously tampered with to make three sets of exactly fourteen generations (Abraham to David, David to the Exile, Exile to Jesus), but not the other. They contradict not just each other, but also parts of the Old Testament.

Jewish genealogy goes through father or mother.
In law parents are concidered to be genealogical parents as well. Jewish genealogy does validate skipping some less important names. (3x14 thing)
there is no contradiction with the old testament for that reason.

...Dated by whom?

By the number of copies being found in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century. Of course we don't own those 1st / 2nd century copies anymore, but we have many records of those copies from those centuries by people like Augustinus.

You either doubt that all christian scriptures were faked for the past 2000 years or you accept that the gospels were actually written between 50-100 AD.

They are usually assigned dates from "about 70 AD" onwards.

they're dated '70ad+' by sceptics that don't want to believe that Jesus really forsaw the destruction of Jerusalem. For that reason they say that it must have been added later, and thus it must be older than 70AD.

A very very very interesting way of thinking.

There was no prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem: the one cited by Matthew clearly refers to a different person born centuries earlier.

you have any arguments to back that up?
Who are you refering to?

And John states that the Messiah would not be born anywhere in that region.

He does? where?

Well, only one gospel mentions it. But it didn't happen that way anyhow: no census that fits, no Herodian massacre, no Star of Bethlehem in astronomical records, contradictory dates (Herod died a decade before Quirinus was appointed), and so on. It's a mess.

what do you mean with 'no herodian massacre'?
The killing of children in Bethlehem? or this: http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/uprising.html#massacre (Josephus)

about quirinius:

The difficulty then arises that Sentius Saturninus and not Quirinius was governing Syria from 9 - 7 BC., and Quinctilius Varus from 6 - 4 BC.

A clue to a solution lies in an inscription which suggests that P. Sulpicius Quirinius governed Syria twice. [Lapis Tiburtinus (CIL, 14.3613) - when he (name of officer mutilated) became imperial legate of Syria he entered upon that office for a second time. ] It is clear from the inscription unearthed that a Roman soldier could be governor of an area more than once. This would mean 2 officers could govern the same area in the same period.
W. M. Ramsay suggests that Quirinius was in control of the foreign relations of Syria during the war with the Cilician hill tribe of the Homonadenses in 6 AD. This is consistent with the term used, and with Roman policy. An enrollment in Herod's kingdom would thus be supervised by him.

And so it goes...

keep them coming, and please don't come with more of these questions that were explained for decades already. One simple google search gives you the answers already.

You might not like them, fine. But there are answers.

CyberShy

[Laertes]

Originally posted by Docfeelgood
Im missing something.



A scientist can except a MAGICAL bang and not except that it MAY have been created?

There is a piece of logic that you are missing. Your argument is that for the Big Bang to have occured, something must have caused it. I think your presumption from this is that God must have caused it.

However, if the Big Bang MUST have a cause, then so MUST "God" (and everything else) have had a cause.

The evidence available (by now means complete or consistent, but closer to completeness or consistency than any other evidence) suggests that the Big Bang just happened - nothing existed before it, so nothing could have caused it.

One of the weaknesses in any religious debate about the origins of the universe is that the religious viewpoint varies depending (broadly speaking) on where you were born, because of the impact this has on your religion and the creation myth that your religion proposes. (I accept of course that some countries now have a wide variety of religions among native-born people, and that some people convert - I am generalising, and this multi-culturalism is very recent, cosmically speaking). So if you were born in the US, and are a Christian creationist, Adam and Eve is the story. If you were born a Hindu in India, you have a different creation myth.

There is a strong anthropomorphic theory in cosmology, but it is not that strong as to be country-specific.

[Laertes]

deleted double post

[Jack the Bodiless]

In law parents are concidered to be genealogical parents as well. Jewish genealogy does validate skipping some less important names. (3x14 thing)
there is no contradiction with the old testament for that reason.

You are admitting that the genealogies are inaccurate!

But Mary was from the tribe of Levi, not David. So there goes the "prophesied" Messiah from David's line.

For more problems, click here. It's a topic in itself.

...Dated by whom?

By the number of copies being found in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century. Of course we don't own those 1st / 2nd century copies anymore, but we have many records of those copies from those centuries by people like Augustinus.

We have mentions of Christian writings, but we don't know what they said. We also know that several "gospels" have been discarded. The text of the books we now call "the gospels" cannot be traced back into the 1st century.

they're dated '70ad+' by sceptics that don't want to believe that Jesus really forsaw the destruction of Jerusalem. For that reason they say that it must have been added later, and thus it must be older than 70AD.

A very very very interesting way of thinking.

True, but there's no reason at all to assume they were written before 70 AD. And they "predicted" the first wave of destruction in 70 AD, but not when the same thing happened all over again in 125 AD.

Christians prefer to believe they were written earlier, because they want to "prove" that a prophecy occurred.

A very very very interesting way of thinking.

There was no prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem: the one cited by Matthew clearly refers to a different person born centuries earlier.

you have any arguments to back that up?
Who are you refering to?

Matthew 2:5-6 is a mangled reference to Micah 5:2, prophesying the imminent birth of a military leader who will defeat the Assyrians. And not from the town of Bethlehem, either: from the tribe of Bethlehem Ephrata.

And John states that the Messiah would not be born anywhere in that region.

He does? where?

John 7:42-52: The crowd thought the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, but Jesus was born in the Galilee area: "out of Galilee ariseth no prophet". That was why they didn't want to accept him.

what do you mean with 'no herodian massacre'?
The killing of children in Bethlehem? or this...

The killing of the children. Plenty of historians were keen to record Herod's misdeeds, but they ALL missed that one.

Killing babies to try to kill your prophesied enemy is a common story, older than Christianity. They would have heard it from the Greeks, among others.

W. M. Ramsay suggests that Quirinius was in control of the foreign relations of Syria during the war with the Cilician hill tribe of the Homonadenses in 6 AD. This is consistent with the term used, and with Roman policy. An enrollment in Herod's kingdom would thus be supervised by him.

And why would anyone make such a suggestion? Let me guess...

You have Sentius Saturninus from 9-7 BC and Quinctilius Varus from 6-4 BC. You need to explain why Quirinus would step down after only one year and then come back a decade later, AND why nobody would consider this worth mentioning, AND why an author writing years later who deliberately mentions the governorship of Quirinus to date his tale would not bother to mention WHICH governorship he meant!

It's as if an author writing about an event in the early 80's said "during the Presidency of Bill Clinton". Not only is there no reason to assume that Clinton HAD briefly been President then, but even if this was true, no historian would call this brief period "Clinton's Presidency".

A desperately contrived tale. And a very very very interesting way of thinking.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Fergus Horkan
The evidence available (by now means complete or consistent, but closer to completeness or consistency than any other evidence) suggests that the Big Bang just happened - nothing existed before it, so nothing could have caused it.

That is not quite true. It is not so much that there was no time before the big bang, but just that the supposition of time beyond the big bang is meaningless. If the big bang were indeed a singularity, then it can have no information content. Just like if there is a big crunch then everything, including all information, will be destroyed (all sins are fogotten ). So if there really was 'something' before the big bang it can have no influence (via the laws of physics) on anything after the big bang. So we apply Occam's Razor and say that there was nothing before the Big Bang.

I recall a few years ago there were a few papers written which claimed that the big bang was not a singularity, but only a near singularity, and the universe was oscillating between expansion from a 'near big bang' and collapse back to one again. I also recall that there were papers claiming that one could quantum tunnel through the (near) singularity to the time before the big bang or after the big crunch . (I am not quite sure how the oscillatory papers got round the cosmological evidence for an open universe...)

[Docfeelgood]

This is hypocrisy from you. You complained earlier about scientists looking down on people who don't believe in God, but here you are looking down on those who do not believe in God. Pretty two-faced. Why are you allowed the double standard?

oohh thats a hard one to answer

lets just say that a scientist that does'nt
believe in GOD has a closed mind.
They can open there eyes to the possability of life on another planet but ignore the life that is on this one

This is the best I can explain,sorry
(after more thinking)
actually I really don't look down, sorta feel pity.

(after more thinking)
I understand this.
The marrage of GOD and science will take a lLloOonNngGg time to mend.
The idea of have your testicals burned off for beliveing the earth revolved around the sun has a lot to do with excluding GOD from science I bet

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Docfeelgood
oohh thats a hard one to answer

lets just say that a scientist that does'nt
believe in GOD has a closed mind.

No, he just believes differently than you. By this rationale, anyone who believes in God has a closed mind as well, since they are closed to the possibility of that not being the case.

At any rate, just because someone does not believe in God does not mean they believe God does not exist. Someone who does not believe in God may very well likely be open to the idea of his possible existence, they just do not believe in it based on what they know.

They can open there eyes to the possability of life on another planet but ignore the life that is on this one

Huh? Believing in the existence of life on other planets ignores life on this planet? What does that mean?

The existence of life on this planet does not prove God's existence. It simply proves that life exists and it is possible life can exist anywhere where similar conditions exist.

This is the best I can explain,sorry
(after more thinking)
actually I really don't look down, sorta feel pity.

So your religious beliefs entitle you to condescend to people of different beliefs? Do you have equal condescension for Hindus and Buddhists and Shintoists? Do you realize how arrogant that sounds?

(after more thinking)
I understand this.
The marrage of GOD and science will take a lLloOonNngGg time to mend.

There will never be a marriage of God to Science, because neither relies on or needs the other. As Rogan Josh explained, science must exclude God from theory, as the existence of God is irrelevant to science. How would you incorporate the will/acts of an omnipotent, unknowable and therefore unpredictable being into a formula designed to predict something? It simply wouldn't make sense.

God is a philosophic/religious issue. Not scientific.

The idea of have your testicals burned off for beliveing the earth revolved around the sun has a lot to do with excluding GOD from science I bet

Nope, it has to do with the inescapable conclusion that there is no place for discussing God in science, because doing so is absolutely useless. What exactly would be accomplished by mentioning God in, say, the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Nothing. The Law of Gravity? Nothing. Special Relativity? Nothing.

It is not an insult to God to exclude him from scientific theory any more so than it is to exclude him from, say, music theory. After all, the existence of God has no bearing on the harmonic relationship of musical notes.

[Japher]

some good points Boris

At any rate, just because someone does not believe in God does not mean they believe God does not exist.

sounds a little contradictary, but I get it.

I was actually trying to get to something like this earlier in the thread, here

You said something sorta to the contrary. Yet, different, because I was refering to the belief basis of a scientist.

Question: Would it be "bad science" for a scientist to dismiss the possibility of the existence of a god?

I do.

One must be open to all possibilities. Yet, when a scientist designs an experiment one of the first things they do is define their system in which the experiment will be performed. Guess what. No experiment that I have ever seen includes good in that system.

Thus

There will never be a marriage of God to Science, because neither relies on or needs the other.

is a good assumption as far as scientific/practicle logic and practice are currently concerned.

I take a little stand-offish stance on this, instead of saying "that is correct". Because, if one day, god becomes scientificly identifiable, then this may change. Keeping the mind open...see.

When it comes to creation theory god must be left out, as far as science is concerned, until god can be defined. Therefore, to answer the question of what came before... I good reponse, especially from a scientist, would be "I don't know". And, if someone tells them, "maybe only god" the scientist should respond, "maybe, or maybe it was the all seeing banana."

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
John is dated between AD 85-90, while the synoptics are usually dated from the late 50's to early 60's.
Therefore, John would have been familiar with the Gospels. His purpose focuses on theological and doctrinal issues rather than a biographical documentary.
There is no requirement that he parrot the Gospels in order to be divinely inspired, as there are many different genres in the bible.

Leaving the dating problem aside (Jack the Bodiless has touched upon this issue), there are contradictions between John and the Synoptic Gospels. Without diving into the details, John paints a rather different portrait than the earlier books. For example, Jesus spoke in long, involved discourses, reflected extensively on his own mission and person, had little to say about the poor and oppressed, and so forth.

Originally posted by obiwan18
MANGER BIRTH
No inconsistency. No Gospel contradicts the account of Jesus being born in the stables.

Why didn't the other gospels include these extraordinary facets, with the Star of Bethlehem, the Three Sages, and the whole works? It's a bit impressive, no?

Originally posted by obiwan18
This allows for different authors to discuss different topics, to focus on different aspects of the same ministry of Jesus, without contradiction. Stylistic differences do not make for a contradiction.

Not style, contents. As early as Genesis we have two accounts of creation that could not be reconciled "factually" (if you take what was said as facts).

Originally posted by obiwan18
The Gospel of Thomas relies on the other Gospels, and dated to 140 AD.

Unless one accepts the other Gospels, the Gospel of Thomas has no authority.

Again, according to whom? The Jesus Seminar put it to be the earlist gospel (writing style, etc.).

The Church rejected the Gospel of Thomas for Gnostic teachings, identifying salvation with possession of secret knowledge, contradicting Scripture.

Originally posted by obiwan18
Now I get to ask a question, directed at Zero-Tau as well. What makes a Christian a Christian?

What kind of Christian? An orthodox Christian?

[Ben Kenobi]

Rogan Josh and Cybershy, thanks. "Let us bear each others' burdens."

Zero Tau- you are close. While scripture helps us to maintain faith, and helps lead us to faith, it does not make a Christian. What must all Christians believe, regardless of denomination? Satan knew scripture, but it did not make him a Christian.

Urban Ranger, all of your complaints are stylistic differences between John and the synoptic gospels. None of these are contradictions. Just because one concentrates on one area of Jesus' mission does not creat contradiction. A contradiction only exists if two Gospels referring to the same event say two different things which cannot be reconciled.

Jack, I ask you to answer my question I posed.
Starting with the geneologies:

You have confused Luke 3:29, 'the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah.' with Levi, the founder of the tribe of Levi, son of Jacob, and brother to Joseph. You need to read Genesis in order to understand the 12 tribes of Israel. Read on a little further and you will see, Luke 3:31, 'the son of Nathan, the Son of David.' Matthew 1:6 refers to King David. Thus, both geneologies fulfill the prophecy of a Davidic dynasty obtained in Christ.

John 7:42-52: " The crowd thought the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, but Jesus was born in the Galilee area: 'out of Galilee ariseth no prophet'. That was why they didn't want to accept him."

Jesus was born in Bethlehem, which is NOT in Galilee. Bethlehem is south of Jerusalem, while Galilee is north. Jesus was raised in Nazareth, a town in Galilee, hench many thought he was born there. Finally, why did the people expect a Messiah from Bethlehem unless this is what Micah predicts!

Finally, Micah's prophecy of a Messiah from Bethlehem:
"But you, Bethlehem, Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from old, from ancient times."

Matthew cites, 'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler, who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.' Jesus fulfills both. He is both a 'shepherd' over the people of Israel, and has origins from ancient times, from before the world began. Nowhere do these passages insist on an immediate ruler, who will destroy Assyria, and protect the Israelites.

[Jack the Bodiless]

John 7:42-52: " The crowd thought the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, but Jesus was born in the Galilee area: 'out of Galilee ariseth no prophet'. That was why they didn't want to accept him."

Jesus was born in Bethlehem, which is NOT in Galilee. Bethlehem is south of Jerusalem, while Galilee is north. Jesus was raised in Nazareth, a town in Galilee, hench many thought he was born there. Finally, why did the people expect a Messiah from Bethlehem unless this is what Micah predicts!

The authors of the Bible moved his birthplace to Bethlehem because they didn't want him to be born in Galilee. There was NO requirement in any Roman census for people to return to their birthplace as Joseph and Mary supposedly did. The whole Nativity story was a later addition: which is why it doesn't appear in Mark, and why the details are so inconsistent between gospels.

Bethlehem had been suggested by a "midrash". The Jews were in the habit of reading multiple layers of meaning into Biblical passages (rather like modern Bible-code supporters or those who keep "predicting" the date of the Apocalypse). Micah wasn't talking about Jesus at all.

Finally, Micah's prophecy of a Messiah from Bethlehem:
"But you, Bethlehem, Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from old, from ancient times."

Matthew cites, 'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler, who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.' Jesus fulfills both. He is both a 'shepherd' over the people of Israel, and has origins from ancient times, from before the world began. Nowhere do these passages insist on an immediate ruler, who will destroy Assyria, and protect the Israelites.

Micah 5:6 "And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders."

Matthew is particularly bad at this. Here are three more examples of similar misuse of out-of-context OT quotes by the author of Matthew:

Matthew 1:22-23 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Isaiah 7:10-14 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

In this example, the word translated as "virgin" means "young woman". And Jesus was never called "Emmanuel" by anybody else: he was named "Jesus". More importantly, however, Isaiah refers to a prophecy given by God to reasure Ahaz. What use is a "sign" that won't appear for centuries? The birth was to be a sign that the Israelites would prevail over the Syrians.

Another example:

Matthew 2:16-18 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

Jeremiah 31: 15-17 Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not. Thus saith the LORD; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the LORD; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end, saith the LORD, that thy children shall come again to their own border.

Jeremiah is referring to the end of the Babylonian captivity. This has nothing to do with Jesus at all.

A third example:

Matthew 21:4-7 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, 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. 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.

Zechariah 9:9-15 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth. As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water. Turn you to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope: even to day do I declare that I will render double unto thee; When I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and made thee as the sword of a mighty man. And the LORD shall be seen over them, and his arrow shall go forth as the lightning: and the LORD God shall blow the trumpet, and shall go with whirlwinds of the south. The LORD of hosts shall defend them; and they shall devour, and subdue with sling stones; and they shall drink, and make a noise as through wine; and they shall be filled like bowls, and as the corners of the altar.

This obviously refers to a miltary leader, not Jesus. Also, this reference to "an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass" was a Hebrew idiom: it doesn't refer to two animals, it's a form of emphasis (that the colt/foal is of an ass, not a horse). But Matthew misinterprets the expression and refers to Jesus riding two animals (presumably like a circus performer, one foot on each): he doesn't understand Hebrew.