"And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, 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 if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them." (Matthew 21:1-3)
Basically, Jesus sends two of his followers into town to steal a donkey and a horse. I've heard apologists try to weasel their way out of this one by claiming they were freely given. That's the bullshit excuse Jesus tries but it does hold up to scrutiny. Notice that Jesus claims that if the followers are caught they should say the "Lord" needs them and everything will be fine. Really? Even if you blindly accept the divinity and validity of scripture this is still problematic. Already Jesus has an incredibly shitty track record at fulfilling promises and prophecies so there is no reason to assume he knows which donkey and colt the followers will come across. He also does not give any useful description of how to find these animals or any way to distinguish them from any others. Why? Maybe because he never sought permission to take them so it wouldn't matter which ones were taken or from whom? Also notice something that is implied with "the village over against you." This could (depending on version/translation) be a vague reference to directions. It may be simply saying the village you see opposite of where we are standing. It could also be Jesus saying that since that village is hostile to us we can justify taking whatever we want from them. Either interpretation is possible.
In any case, apologists excuses don't hold up. The Jesus figure felt he needed two animals so he sent his followers to take them.
Jesus is a thief.