Daily Archives: February 11, 2014

An important ms from the Man Cave

We interrupt this program with a very important message brought to you by the staff here at 4GFC. Late last night while the world was in deep sleep or otherwise preoccupied by other matters, we were informed that a very important event had taken place.

GruntOfMonteCristo celebrated his 51′st Birthday!

We now return to regular programming. Thank you. – Knight :D



Filed under Family & Friends

Constitution? What Constitution?

OBAMACARE Another Day Another Delay

February 10, 2014: King Barack the Brown stroked with His Majestic Pen and created another Congress-Free Delay in His Wondrous Settled Law of Obama Cares.

2014_02 Latest ObamaCare delay

  • Tweet: If President Obama likes his health care law, why won’t he keep it?
  • Tweet: I love that part of the Constitution that says that all controversial legislation should, in perpetuity, be timed around elections.
  • Tweet: When you think about it, Obama is just liberating the executive branch from the tyranny of Constitution-lock.
  • Tweet: I remember when wanting to delay O’care meant you were a racist anarchist. Now it means you’re the president. That’s progress, I guess.


Comments Off on Constitution? What Constitution?

Filed under Barack Obama, Constitution, Obamacare

GOP: Vote with your lady smarts

DNC: Vote with your lady parts

2014_02 08 NARAL praises uterus sign

2014_02 08 Women vote with their lady parts



Comments Off on GOP: Vote with your lady smarts

Filed under Abortion, Democrats, Feminism, NARAL, Republicans

Left-wing hypocrisy: The child predator edition

As far as I can tell, there is only ONE real sin in the Leftie moral code … not being a Leftie. As long as you support abortion, bigger and bigger government, and keep shoveling big bucks into Democrat campaign coffers, the Democrat Media Machine will dismiss your silly little foibles with a wave of the hand and a cutesy excuse like “it wasn’t rape rape.”

Remember how they treated Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson for saying he believes the Bible teachings about sin? Check out two of the disgusting Hollyweird low-lifes they still SUPPORT …

Roman Polanski child rapist

Woody Allen child molester




Filed under Democrats, Hollywood

A donkey and a colt with her – UPDATED

I had another idea after posting this … the colt could’ve been walking close enough so Jesus could keep his hand on the little guy’s head. I did a rough photoshop to explain.

Triumphal entry on donkey and colt

Original post below:

I got intrigued today by the discrepancies in the four Gospel accounts of Jesus’ Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem. This is one of those places where the four accounts of the one event do not reconcile smoothly.

  • Matthew 21:1-9 says the disciples fetched “an ass and a colt with her” and is vague about which Jesus rode.
  • Mark 11:4-7 and Luke 19:30-36 both say they fetched and then Jesus rode on “a colt.”
  • John 12:14-15 doesn’t mention disciples, just says that “Jesus found an ass” and rode it.

Non-believers use discrepancies like these to support their “Christians are dumber than dirt” meme. Believers consider these discrepancies a testimony to the authenticity of the four Gospel accounts. After all, who trusts multiple eye witness accounts that are exactly the same in every detail?

Does it matter what Jesus rode into Jerusalem? Actually, it does. The Old Testament book of Zechariah (9:9) contained a prophecy about the Messiah riding into Jerusalem, “humble, and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” The Gospels of Matthew and John both reference this prophecy specifically in their versions of the Triumphal Entry.

My problem is that I don’t think Jesus coulda woulda shoulda ridden on a COLT. To explain why, I need to teach you a few donkey facts.

  • “Ass” is a synonym for “donkey”; both are non-specific to gender or age.
  • “Foal” refers to an infant, from birth to weaning, usually around six months.
  • “Colt” means a male who is not yet sexual mature.
  • Colts are separated from their mothers after weaning.
  • Donkey skeletons don’t reach full strength until long after sexual maturity.

Donkey mama and baby

Matthew’s phrase – “an ass and a colt with her” – strongly suggests the colt was just a little guy like the ones in the photos above. Putting a man’s weight onto a donkey that young would cripple it for life. Jesus simply would not have done it.

Yet Mark and Luke said He rode on the colt and Matthew and John clearly believed He fulfilled the Zechariah prophecy. So what’s the deal?

Matthew says the disciples “laid their cloaks over the donkeys and Jesus sat on them.” The theys and thems are a trifle vague here. Isn’t it possible that “their” cloaks included Jesus’ cloak, which could’ve been put on the colt as a light-weight surrogate for Himself in order to satisfy the prophecy without harming the little donkey?

St. Jerome wrote that the mama donkey represented the Jews, the Old Testament, etc., while the colt represented the Gentiles, the New Testament, etc. I really love the image of Jesus riding on the full grown mother (Judaism), while leading the nursing (Christianity) that would one day grow into a mature male.

It reminds me of Mary carrying Jesus in her womb on a donkey to Bethlehem, then again as a nursing babe going to Jerusalem to present Him at Temple. And, just as a colt eventually grows up to be bigger and stronger than its mama, Jesus grew from a wee babe into a big, strong man and the Gentile Christians grew into a mighty church that spanned millennia and covered the globe.

I’m content with this interpretation apart from one thing. Mark and Luke say specifically that Jesus rode on a colt, but neither quotes the Zechariah prophecy. By contrast, Matthew and John are very vague about the gender of the donkey Jesus rode, but make a point of quoting Zechariah.

I think I may have found the answer to this puzzle in who the writers were and who they were writing for:

  • Mark and Luke were “second generation” Christians writing to Gentiles for whom the Zechariah prophecy was not a big deal. Neither of the two authors had known Jesus while He was on Earth, so were almost certainly not eye witnesses to the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem.
  • Matthew and John were “first generation” Christians writing to Jews for whom the Zechariah prophecy was a big deal. They both knew Jesus while He was on Earth, and were not only at the Triumphal Entry, but may have actually fetched the donkeys.

You’ll notice if you look closely that neither Matthew nor John comes right out and says Jesus rode on the colt. My guess is they knew the details, but chose to gloss over the whole “Jesus the man didn’t actually ride on the colt” issue because they had seen Jesus risen from the dead and had no problem with the way in which He had chosen to fulfill the prophecy … so why get into it? As for Mark and Luke … the tradition was that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy, so that’s the way they wrote it.

It reminds me of how Pharaoh gave Joseph the right to speak in his name.  It was not an “error” or a “lie” for someone to attribute to Pharaoh an order that was actually spoken by Joseph. In fact, we have a similar cultural short-hand; we often attribute to Obama words that were actually spoken on his behalf by Carney or another of his spokespeople.

Looking at it this way, I don’t have a problem with the idea that Mark and Luke said Jesus rode on the colt when it is more likely Jesus used His cloak on the colt as a surrogate for his too-heavy body. Besides, I’m not so sure the gender of the ass in the Zechariah prophecy was nearly as important as the fact that the Messiah King would enter His capital city riding a humble beast of burden, not a horse. Nobody questions whether Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey.

(Compare Revelation 19 where Jesus will return not as the humble peacemaker on a donkey, but as the conquering warrior on a horse.)

Humbly on a donkey


Comments Off on A donkey and a colt with her – UPDATED

Filed under Christianity