As Donald Trump increasingly infuses his campaign with Christian trappings while coasting to a third Republican presidential nomination, his support is as strong as ever among evangelicals and other conservative Christians.
“Trump supports Jesus, and without Jesus, America will fall,” said Kimberly Vaughn of Florence, Kentucky, as she joined other supporters of the former president entering a campaign rally near Dayton, Ohio.
Many of the T-shirts and hats that were worn and sold at the rally in March proclaimed religious slogans such as “Jesus is my savior, Trump is my president” and “God, Guns & Trump.” One man’s shirt declared, “Make America Godly Again,” with the image of a luminous Jesus putting his supportive hands on Trump’s shoulders.
Many attendees said in interviews they believed Trump shared their Christian faith and values. Several cited their opposition to abortion and LGBTQ+ rights, particularly to transgender expressions.
Nobody voiced concern about Trump’s past conduct or his present indictments on criminal charges, including allegations that he tried to hide hush money payments to a porn actor during his 2016 campaign. Supporters saw Trump as representing a religion of second chances.
Jesus was an anti-war, anti-capitalist, inclusivity-preaching socialist who gave free healthcare and food to the poor and hungry. Maybe they should crack open that book they always talk about.
If “anyone can talk to god, you don’t need all the ceremony” can turn into the Catholic Church et al for 1,900+ years, I don’t think they’re gonna read for comprehension on inclusion.
That’s really close to why the Protestant Reformation happened, out of which all sorts of other lunacy has sprung. I’m not defending the Catholic Church by any means, but this particular criticism might not hit as hard as you intended it to.
You left out the apocalyptic zombie cannibal cult part.
That came later, really just all the blame on Constantine.
John the Baptist was an apocalyptic Jew. I think it was there from the beginning. The apocalyptic Jewish sects make sense when you consider that they started their religion during the tail end of The Bronze Age collapse. They had just watched all the major powers implode, and tons of knowledge went with them. Makes sense that they would think the world was about to end.
The problem is it’s got a lot of convenient contradictory statements in it.
For example:
This part isn’t in Marcion’s version of Luke, which is probably the earliest extant version. But it is in the canonical version.
Something very convenient given it reversed the ban found across the Synoptics on carrying a purse when ministering, which necessarily prevented taking people’s money.
Just a bonus that it also allowed for the church to take up swords too right around before the time they start executing people for ‘heresy.’
There’s plenty of problematic passages added in over the years:
So inclusive.
Why did you stop at verse 26?
Because the woman calling him master and him then giving in is irrelevant to her being called a dog compared to children beforehand.
The author of Matthew has a clear agenda, and the passage excerpt stands on its own.
You really don’t think the context of the woman correcting him, Jesus accepting the response of a canaanite woman, admitting fault, thanking her for her faith, and then rewarding her doesn’t change the context of “Jesus compared a woman to a dog” just a little bit?
He didn’t admit fault. He said she had enough faith to justify his taking action. But nothing about his own initial answer being unjustified. You are reading that into the text when it isn’t there.
Yes… I wonder what that agenda might be, when a few chapters later, Jesus/revelation-by-spirit suddenly says that his disciples should go to the gentiles and minister to them rather than the jews, because the jews rejected him.
…Almost like there was a specific arc being set up to contrast one position with the next in a dramatic fashion.
What is up with people reading things into the text that aren’t there?
Where in Matthew does Jesus have a revelation-by-spirit where he says not to minister to the Jews because they rejected him?
I don’t know where he got that RATHER than the Jews from the book of Matthew, since I read that as more of an AND, but the rest is from the end of the book of Matthew.
Now please go be a teenage atheist edgelord somewhere else. We’ll be here when you want to have a discussion in good faith, but for now, go sea-lion somewhere else.
Yes, at the end of Matthew is a declaration to go out to the world, but absolutely jack shit about a refusal towards the Jews, undermining the point the commentator was making about the very strong pro-Jewish attitudes in Matthew being part of a reversal arc.
As I said, they were reading things into the text that weren’t there.
Lol. Last I checked this was /c/news, not /c/Christianity.
And being specific around the texts in question and the contexts they arise in isn’t sealioning dude. I spent several years participating every day in /r/AcademicBiblical and just very much give a crap about accurate vs inaccurate representations of the material.
You can think you are circling the wagons to defend the scriptures, but I’m not the one in this thread misrepresenting them and the intentions of the respective authors. And while you can be free to do you, there is a certain wisdom regarding not blindly following the blind that extends to blind faith (and before you counter with doubting Thomas and the benefits of faith unseen, just know that the entire history of Thomasine Christianity and its relationship to early canonical Christianity is the topic I’ve spent six years studying in depth, so you will definitely get a mouthful back on that invocation and its post-30s CE historical context).