Why do so many evangelical Christians support former President Donald Trump despite his decades of documented ungodly behavior?
An in-depth report from The Economist shows that it has a simple explanation: They believe that God personally appointed him to rule the United States.
In fact, the report cites a survey conducted by Denison University political scientist Paul Djupe that around 30 percent of Americans believe Trump “was anointed by God to become president.”
100% of this 30% hasn’t read their Bible.
And have long term brain damage due to lead poisoning.
💯 I believe this is why they’re abhorrently stupid
100% of Republicans haven’t read it, or they wouldn’t be Republicans.
Was talking to my masseuse and when she heard I went to catholic school, she asked “so you’ve read the whole Bible prolly right?” And I was like…“ya, more than once. Is that not common for your side of the aisle?” She just chuckled. She is by no means a fervent believer, but her circle is and she still found it uncommon that I read it.
Not all Protestant denominations are guilty of this, but a huge number of them are basically just cults of personality that follow the guy who stands up on the podium and tells them who and what to hate.
As a kid I actually read the Bible. And found outright contradictions all over the place, either within the text itself, or with what was espoused by the Pastors.
Then, the logic they used to justify some views on why to follow or not follow some verse was contradictory and didnt make any sense itself.
Lots of people are unaware that the Bible actually condones abortion and explains how and when to perform it.
Oh and my favorite, none of us are supposed to be wearing mixed, hybrid fabrics in out clothes.
Or get tattoos.
Jesus does say we are not supposed to change one jot nor one tittle from the Old Testament, so all that stuff is still in play.
all that stuff is still in play
Not really, at least not in the sense of needing to follow the commandments and whatnot given to ancient Jews. Jesus came to fulfill the law, that means the law that existed is still important for edification, but he established a new law to take its place.
So the value of the old testament is mostly to understand how God delivered his people and expects obedience. Jesus has the same message, but the new law is simpler:
- Love God
- Love your neighbor
There are some new observances expected (e.g. baptism, taking the bread and wine, etc), but those are merely part of the two great laws (you’ll obey God if you love him, you won’t kill a neighbor you love, etc).
The old laws of sacrifice, passover observance, etc are all fulfilled and replaced with a simpler law, which is possible because of Jesus’ sacrifice. The old law isn’t changed, it’s replaced in it’s entirety.
That said, there are additional proscriptions in the new testament, such as obesity, drunkenness, etc (see 1 Cor. 6:12-20) because your body is a temple. But again, that circles back to the first law, God gave you your body, and mistreating it disrespects him (e.g. how would you feel if you gave a gift to a friend and they destroyed it?).
Jesus doesn’t seem to expect the old law to be enforced (see the prostitute that Jesus forgave instead of carrying out the Jewish law of stoning), but instead replaces it with a more flexible law, but that law carries greater personal responsibility because you’re judged by your intent, not the actions themselves.
A lot of denominations just skip to the interesting parts, like pulling random verses to demonize their enemies and justify their actions. That misses the whole point since the entire gospel is about love to God and your fellow man.
Look I am not going to argue theology with you, especially when you just ignore the points I made and pretend they dont exist.
The fact of the matter is the Bible is so full of vague and contradictory statements that it can /and has/ been used to argue basically for or against pretty much every position imaginable.
So I guess have fun with your particular cherry picked version of Christianity: They’re all logically inconsistent if you examine them seriously, and I do not care to prove this to a person who explains their position by just ignoring contradictions that are inconvenient for them.
Yes, there are contradictions, but the one you pointed out is easily explained by pretty much every Christian understanding of the relationship between what Jesus taught and what’s in the Old Testament.
So pulling something from Leviticus is irrelevant because that’s “the old law” that Jesus came to fulfill. That’s like Christianity 101 and one of the few things most denominations agree on.
My personal explanation for the rest of the inconsistencies are losses in translation. The New Testament was preserved by monks transcribing documents by hand, and those monks had a set of existing theological beliefs, so it’s highly likely they would prefer a certain wording based on those beliefs. However, I highly doubt things were particularly organized in that translation process, hence the weird inconsistencies (e.g. are Jesus and God the same being, or different?) that tends to result in different branches of Christianity (most today hold the doctine of the Trinity, but many reject it, e.g. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists, etc). Many reject my belief that the Bible is a hacked together mess that passed through far too many hands and insist it’s infallible (and everything in between).
My point here isn’t to push my view of Christianity, but to demonstrate that your comment over-simplifies the issue.
100% of that 30% don’t want to and will call you a Demon-crat or a RINO for even pointing it out.
Yeah, who do you think we are, priests/pastors/etc? My church leader tells me what I need to know…
I know you are being sarcastic. You seem level headed. If you wish it to be more clear please include a /s.
Nah, I like the idea of the reader never quite being sure.
deleted by creator
There’s no use using logic to argue someone out of a position they didn’t arrive at by logic in the first place.
They just hand wave anything away as “this is a test of faith in this life, but it is only the eternal afterlife that matters.” There’s literally no arguing with it.
Simply confirmation that we are in “End Times,” I’m afraid.
It’s a closed loop.
To be fair, a shocking number of Americans are, at best, complete dumbasses.
I’ll bet that number and your number are pretty close.
Even better. Another headline utterly destroying the study it allegedly reports.
30% of POLLED people who answered phones…
Not “of Americans” fuck this click bait shit.
Fuck the op, fuck the news sensationalizing this fucking lunatic shitgibbon
Howabout fuck you, read the actual cited academic study that I’ve posted links to and come back with an actually valid criticism.
He would prefer to think it’s just the media reporting that a sizeable percentage of the country not only disagrees with him but would probably smile as the person you’re responding to was jailed or harmed.
Can’t totally blame him. “OMG u fuktard itz tthu mediaz making cheeto poplar!!1!” is much easier to deal with than reckoning with the fact that a) he was elected once, and b) based on current polling, he’s likely to be elected again.
It’s quite literally the same problem of the right, just reversed. The media are the problem, let’s not look at the reality that is quite apparent all around us because it’s scary.
Rawstory is not the media you want to stake a hill out for. This is sensationalist on its face. And the study actually concluded that ~~~28% of Americans ~~ 21 percent of weekly church going Protestants believed he was anointed to win the 2020 election. That was all. Not that he’s some kind of modern day Moses.
Edited because I found the author talking about the study.
Well if we are going based on what they said, its likely they havent read the actual source material and/or they have a problem with polling methodology.
Again, I am looking forward to a substantial statistical and or methodological criticism of the polls and studies referenced.
Its always fun watching people who have no idea how statistics or polling or scientific studies work try to criticize such things.
EDIT; Your explanation is possible as well. A lot of people have kneejerk reactions to things that clash with their worldview. See uh, nearly all of the entire history of politics and societies for all of history.
So I do tend to find these kinds of claims sensational, so I decided to look into the article and it’s sources. First the article quotes an economists article which is referencing a survey from a Poly Sci associate professor from Denosian (sp?) Univeristy. That’s not a good start, quoting a quote.
Sadly the economist article was paywalled, but I was able to find this article based off of the facts in the posted article https://religioninpublic.blog/2019/11/25/was-donald-trump-anointed-by-god-are-all-presidents-anointed-by-god/. This article seems to be what is being quoted, but not 100% sure (actually it’s an updated post to what looks like the original survey). In this article, by the professor being quoted in the posted article, we see that they surveyed 1000 Protestant Christians and found 30% of those surveyed, that went to church weekly, believed that Trump was appointed by God.
So really not a good article at all. Not only are they not quoting original sources, but they get the facts horribly wrong. On top of that the original survey doesn’t post information about how they conducted their survey, so not even a good job by the original source.
Lmao, it’s always some far more reasonable slice of society than the sensationalist headline says.
deleted by creator
Or, and this is a radical concept I know, you could read the paywalled book and quote the relevant parts. Then we could decide if we want to purchase said book for ourselves.
Because this isn’t a study. This article is a sensationalized reprint of an Economist article which usually treats books pretty softly. Almost like it’s an advertisement. But I would never accuse such a respectable magazine of doing that. (Lol, I even like the Economist, but it’s a bad habit of theirs)
It is a study, not a book.
My link works, learn how to internet.
I am not going to waste my entire day explaining to you an unsurprising result of the work of a team of Academic scholars because you demand that me, some person on the internet who does not get paid to do academic research, all of the ins and outs of a specific piece of academic research.
Get over yourself.
Maybe if you contact Cambridge University Press or the author of the Economist article or the Professors who wrote it, and ask politely, they can answer your questions.
If you read it already then surely it’s no problem to find the operative section? And Cambridge Press, (a publishing company for academic books) is selling it. They aren’t going to give a copy away for free.
And it would be very surprising to find out 63 percent of religious people in the US see Trump as a God anointed president after having lost the election. Especially since the actual study is among weekly church going Protestants and cites 21 percent.
Also it’s hilarious that you complain I’m asking you to do research when you’ve supposedly already read the material and then you tell me, “learn to Internet”. I suspect I was figuring out Basic in DOS before you were born.
Read the actual study. And also, like… look around you, if/when you go outside, and actually pay attention. Have you not noticed?
You guys are looking at this all wrong. 43% of Americans were found to believe that God helped Tim Tebow throw touchdowns link while only 30% believe Trump was chosen. We can thus conclude that Trump has lost a significant portion of Touchdown Jesus evangelicals.
I’d say the number of people who believe in sky wizards caring about touchdowns is much higher than the number of people who think the sky wizards want the Cheeto in power
lol, I don’t think I fault this conclusion. Perhaps I’ve tried to extrapolate too much here >.<
I don’t know about him but I did. And it maths to about 6 percent of all American Adults. (21 percent of weekly church going Protestants).
The article is sensationalist. As usual.
I find your reasonable and informed comment insulting.
I’m not sure you’re aware of how polling works. It would take many years to contact all 350 million Americans.
Polling has long since left phones behind. Anything that’s pure phones is heavily skewed towards conservatives and older people.
Go read up on the concept of a representative sample.
Yup. I’ve answered one political call, and it was about whether to dredge our local lake to put in more housing (they make it sound nicer than that). I’ve blocked the rest.
Both the RawStory and The Economist articles are quite vague about what specific 2021 Pew poll they’re talking about. I’m very skeptical of this 30% number. The Economist article itself made no such claim.
In fact, the report cites a survey conducted by Denison University political scientist Paul Djupe that around 30 percent of Americans believe Trump “was anointed by God to become president.”
Not a Pew Research Poll.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/abs/full-armor-of-god/2B21DC6F17E88C6DF7275F45A66DF104
I’ll see if I can find it on open scholar or something similar.
EDIT: Here we go!
https://annas-archive.org/md5/da76eb110551fd4028c9c0a8e185f0ce
You can thank Cambridge for paywalling scientific knowledge for why the article is so hard to find.
I mean it took me about 10 minutes, but I guess most people do not know how to do research on the internet.
Thanks!
So I dug into this, and the following excerpt is the only piece of information related to the claim in question:
In the run up to the 2020 election, religious conservative public figures – for example, Rick Perry – claimed that Donald Trump was anointed by God; Perry called him “the chosen one” (see Djupe and Burge 2019). The head of Trump’s Evangelical Advisory Council, Paula White, went a bit further: “To say no to President Trump would be saying no to God, and I won’t do that.” In May 2019, 21.4 percent of Protestants believed Trump was anointed by God to be president, as did 29 percent of evangelicals, and a majority of Pentecostals (like Paula White). Belief in Trump’s anointing increased considerably closer to the 2020 election (Djupe and Burge 2020; Edsall 2020).
Here are the original sources of the claim:
I’ll keep editing this comment as I get further into it.
Edit 1: added archive link for Edsall 2020
Edit 2: fixed the link for Djupe and Burge 2019
Edit 3: Here is an archive link to the Economist article.
Edit 4: relevant quote from the Economist article:
In a survey conducted by Mr Djupe shortly before the election, three in ten Americans believed Mr Trump “was anointed by God to become president”.
Edit 5: Conclusion
It seems as though the Economist article, and therefore the Raw Story and various other articles referencing it, are not correct. I’ve looked through a couple dozen resources at this point, and I cannot find any publications from Djupe or Burge substantiating this “30% of Americans” claim. However, I did find
However, I did find this:
Other surveys have shown similar results. A 2020 Pew Research Center survey asked Americans, not just church-attenders, about God’s role in recent presidential elections. They found that 32 percent of the more than 6,000 respondents, a sizable minority, believed Trump’s election must be part of God’s overall plan—though only 5 percent of those respondents believed God chose Trump because of his policies.
So maybe the 30% finding was from Pew after all? I’m going to send all this to the Economist to ask for clarification.
I was able to find what I think is the original source: https://religioninpublic.blog/2019/11/25/was-donald-trump-anointed-by-god-are-all-presidents-anointed-by-god/
It was a survey of 1000 protestant Christians (in 2019) and they found that 30% of those surveyed, who went to church once a week, thought Trump was appointed by God. So terrible reporting all around.
Why I believe this is the original source is the article in the link is by the professor referenced in the original article/economist.
This source linked under “Djupe and Burge 2019” in my original comment :-)
It is also cited directly in Djupe’s Cambridge publication that OP posted.
Ah, I didn’t see that initially. However, it doesn’t change the fact that the study was terribly misquoted, and when looking at the original publication I didn’t see the same stats shared in the blog post that were being quoted. Overall, it seems like a game of telephone was played with wrong numbers and implications being published.
Yeah, that’s my conclusion as well. I suppose we’ll see what the editors have to say.
My mom believes it and told me at her Bible studies they all talk about how God put Trump on Earth to protect America. So there’s that. It’s mostly old ass Christians, but unfortunately for us America is mostly old ass Christians because the Baby Boomer generation was FUCKING HUGE. Hats off to the leftist Christians who actually understand Jesus’ teachings
Divine right of presidents theory would also make all the Democrats appointed by God. But this shit is evangelical personal relationship with God nonsense, so I guess God told them personally that he appointed Trump to be president.
Knowing how Evangelicals are, they’d claim that the dem presidents are Satan deceiving people or, like in the case of Obama, are potential Antichrists. They need Satan to be powerful enough to fear and they use anything they can to reinforce that.
So either their god is powerless to stop this single fallen angel, or they don’t love their creation enough to care.
deleted by creator
Probably still just nuts hearing voices.
Yes, but theres something like 50 million of them.
Have you seen a can or jar of nuts lately? They tend to come in large supply.
They also all have guns.
Gun Nuts, you might say.
30% of americans are idiots it seems…
More like %30 of the 50 people they interviewed in some Alabama Walmart parking lot. Polls like this are blatant propagandist horseshit.
Again, not a single random bullshit poll. These articles from raw story and the economist are based on multiple different polls done in a statistically valid way by well known amd respected pollsters, and a comprehensive academic study of the matter. Ive linked the main study elsewhere in this thread.
No they aren’t. They specifically reference the one professor and the one work. It’s a book advertisement dressed up as an article.
I know I’m going to step in it by commenting, but the polls are usually accurate. It’s how they’re reported that’s not. The data from polls themselves often say how limited in scope they are, but that doesn’t make a good headline and never makes it into the story. It takes a real nerd to be interested in stats and real stats are boring.
Oh yeah, from the study author in 2019 when the poll ran.
We put a survey into the field in May of 2019 that assessed the opinions of just over 1,000 Protestant Christians. We asked two questions regarding the anointing of presidents by God.
The first asked if all presidents are anointed by God, while the second asked if Donald Trump was specifically anointed by God to win the 2016 election. In our sample, just 21.4% believed Donald Trump was specifically anointed by God to be president, but that figure increases among groups who believe in modern day prophets and a God who is active in the daily affairs of the world.
Slightly more white evangelicals (29%) agreed that Trump was anointed by God, but among white Pentecostals, like Paula White, that figure shot up to 53%.
The actual study is far more reasonable. The reporters ran away with it, as usual.
Hey, that’s an improvement! That’s down from the typical “a majority of Americans”.
Tbh, most things that cite “a majority of americans” tend to actually be talking about a vocal minority of Americans.
And when a Democrat is elected? The same group denies, denies, denies.
If God is all powerful, why did your guy lose?
Either God isn’t all powerful, or he’s not your guy after all…
We are so fucked.
If Trump wins, he is literally at this point stating he will be a dictator, that he wants to get rid of vermin people, and that he is very concerned about the purity of the blood of the nation.
If he loses, these deranged imbeciles have /a lot of guns/ and I am convinced they will basically figure out how to top 9/11, either in one concentrated burst of insanity, or more likely exceed it in body count in something like a few weeks of domestic terrorist attacks around the country.
The possibly even more terrifying thing is that roughly similar numbers of Americans believe in all or a substantial amount of the QAnon nonsense, and the Venn Diagram between QAnon adherents and Trump is God’s President people is practically a circle.
50 million delusional angry armed psychopaths.
I sure hope I can get into Canada within a few years.
50 million armed, delusional, and angry, but have you SEEN them? ;)
Any serious resistance and they run off like the giant babies they are.
and that he is very concerned about the purity of the blood of the nation.
If blood is too “pure”, it breaks down.
But that he still can be a candidate, seems like the US is close to dictatorship anyway.
Something something mysterious ways
“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”
― Steven Weinberg
I’m guessing that goes in reverse too, no? Provided “fame” is a religion too, because rich people love seeing their names in the news and hence give a lot to charity.
Statistically my opinion doesn’t even count because I’m not American.
But i get the 30% crowd on this. For that buffoon of a human being to become president. Maybe there was divine intervention. But whatever God exists, is fucking with us for entertainment.
divine intervention
*Russian intervention
At this point it seems clear to me that if there is a God, it is basically the insane God of Madness from the Elder Scrolls, Sheogorath.
“Blessed is the Madgod, who tricks us when we are foolish, punishes us when we are wrong, tortures us when we are unmindful, and loves us in our imperfection.”
As a plague?
Saw this unhinged video on the old site about a week ago. Woman being interviewed was going on about how much the shitbag cares about USA and how much he cares about us. These people cannot reason about anything logically. He gives no fucks for anyone but himself, yet this asshole was saying he gives a fuck about his supporters / USA citizens. I hate stupidity. I hate gullibility.
I had a sociology professor who stated that we hate most in others what we fear most in ourselves. Checks out.
And that same group thought that Obama was put in power by Satan. They used it as an excuse to ignore laws. “I follow gods law, not mans” and other such stuff that flagrantly violated the very rules established by their god.
Romans 13 1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Exactly, though to be fair this is Paul’s words, not Jesus’, though it echoes what Jesus taught when he said, “give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, give to God that which is God’s.”
Note, this doesn’t say anything about Jesus’ perspective on what the ideal government looks like, it only says we are morally obligated to follow the law.
I don’t think there was a historical Jesus but had there been one and the rest of the sorry basically correct I doubt he would have said that in historical context.
The issue came down to the cult of the emperor. People in the empire were supposed to worship the emperor. Jews were given an exception provided that they offer daily donations in their temple for his health. The issue was the face of the emperor was on the coins. The majority of Jews at that time and place were okay with that but agreed that in the temple area you needed to change the money. A small zealot group was not and demanded that Jews use different coinage. In the story Jesus is asked to take a side on this debate and he leans towards it being fine. Then a scene later he is all angry about it. Very odd. Especially since he had the same followers in both scenes. Talk about wishy-washy leadership.
Here is the thing: we first hear this supposed argument made by a Roman decades later. A Roman familiar with Paul’s prosperity gospel system. For Jesus to have said it was not fine would have been a major financial and legitimacy blow to the church.
If it had happened we would have had a zealot who suddenly decided to take lax opinion and moments later change his mind. People don’t typically work that way. We have a group and we go along with everything the group thinks and we don’t make rapid changes on our viewpoints in front of others and lose face. Especially when we are ruling solely by charisma.
Tl:Dr Jesus didn’t exist but had he existed the story couldn’t have happened the way described and was clearly an effort to keep the church money flowing.
angry
My understanding is that he was angry about people seeking profit in the temple, not the donations. The temple should be a place to worship God, not make money. Those moneychangers were distracting temple worshippers from the reason they were there and thus needed to go.
If those same moneychangers were outside the temple, I don’t think he would’ve been angry.
Paul’s prosperity gospel system
Can you be more specific?
I know a lot of prosperity gospel evangelists point to Paul’s use of “sowing and reaping” to justify their stance, but I think they miss the point. Here’s an article that goes into depth, and while it’s not quite what I believe, it’s close enough for this context. Essentially, the article says you give to get, so you can give even more, not to improve your lifestyle.
As for why Paul focused so much on money, I think it was because there was likely a humanitarian need, so he was fund-raising to help the poor. In fact, this passage almost sounds like he’s trying to refuse gifts for his personal use, just based on the wording here.
My understanding is that he was angry about people seeking profit in the temple, not the donations. The temple should be a place to worship God, not make money. Those moneychangers were distracting temple worshippers from the reason they were there and thus needed to go.
Text doesn’t say that. Read what Mark wrote not what your preacher said. I have made a point to bring up issues that were argued about at the time (thanks Josphius), can you return the same? Please show a historical figure who pointed out the profit making actions of the moneychangers. It is far more likely that a person would pick a side with a contemporary issue than an issue that was invented 1700 years later as a post hoc justification.
If those same moneychangers were outside the temple, I don’t think he would’ve been angry.
The temple was not a single building it was a complex sprawling out over a small town sized area. The layout was the moneychangers towards the outer parts for exactly the reason I stated. At that time (thanks again Josphius) Jews thought it was okay to use the money but not in the temple itself.
Can you be more specific?
Sounds like you already know based on your next sentences. Paul talked about people who didn’t give enough dying and how what you gave would be invested. We also know he was funneling money to the Jerusalem community.
I am not clicking your article. If you have a point please make it.
As for why Paul focused so much on money, I think it was because there was likely a humanitarian need, so he was fund-raising to help the poor. In fact, this passage almost sounds like he’s trying to refuse gifts for his personal use, just based on the wording here.
Right Paul told us what he was using the money for. And if there is one person we should trust it is a person whose pay depends on us believing him. No one would ever lie, especially about matters of money. Btw can you give me a hundred bucks? I plan to donate it all to like whales or orphans or cancer research whatever.
Josphius
Josephus is awesome, but he isn’t a particularly trustworthy source because his motivation was highly political (get respect from Romans and Greeks for his people), so he often exaggerates and distorts the truth. He certainly wouldn’t mention something that wouldn’t fit his narrative.
So he’s a great resource, just a little unreliable, but there’s really no other options.
The text doesn’t say that
Let’s look at the text then. I’ll include the relevant portions from each of the four gospels:
Matthew 21:12-13:
And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons.
He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers.”
Mark 11:15-18:
And they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons.
And he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple.
And he was teaching them and saying to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.”
And the chief priests and the scribes heard it and were seeking a way to destroy him, for they feared him, because all the crowd was astonished at his teaching.
Luke 19:45-48:
And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold,
saying to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a den of robbers.”
And he was teaching daily in the temple. The chief priests and the scribes and the principal men of the people were seeking to destroy him,
but they did not find anything they could do, for all the people were hanging on his words.
John 2:14-16:
In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there.
And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables.
And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.”
They’re remarkably similar accounts, and in each he points out that the issue is that they’re making the temple a house of robbers (i.e. they’re profiting from something that should be a gift to God). And it wasn’t just the moneychangers, but the people selling sacrificial animals as well, the probably is buying and selling stuff in the temple, not donations to Rome.
To me that’s pretty clear, Jesus cared far more about the people trading in the temple than whoever’s face was on the money. These were in the original accounts (as much as the current Bible is “original”), not a fabrication 1700 years later.
And yeah, using the money is fine, Jesus didn’t seem to have an issue with the money itself, he just had an issue with profiteering from items used in temple ceremonies within the temple complex itself.
We also know he was funneling money to the Jerusalem community.
Why not click the links?
Regardless, I mostly made my point. For the “reap what you sow” message, my personal opinion is that it isn’t literal. I don’t think he’s saying they’ll get wealthy with worldly money if they donate money (i.e. charity as an investment), but that they’ll receive spiritual blessings for putting others ahead of themselves (i.e. if you sow love, you’ll reap love).
The reason for moving money to Jerusalem was likely two-fold, a famine in Egypt likely impacted Judea more than other regions, and Paul wasn’t well liked in Jerusalem, so he worked extra hard to get money to those suffering in Jerusalem to help solve both problems. He was a prominent figure in the church, hence why repairing that relationship is important. That sounds like a pretty reasonable explanation, but we obviously have limited information here. He likely also raised money for local congregations, but there wouldn’t be as much of a point to dwelling on that in a letter that’s intended to build faith.
No one would ever lie
Well, given that he’s dead and we don’t have many accounts of his life, I can’t really speak to his trustworthiness. There are people I absolutely trust to use money appropriately, and there are those I don’t. Supposedly he gained the trust of certain groups and not others. We don’t know how he used the money, we just know he thanked people for donations, at least in certain cases.
So any statements about his character are going to be baseless.
Right so where does it say what you said? It doesn’t. Your preacher made it up. You can infer that if you want but you can infer anything if you try hard enough. Since we only have one base account we can only use that and at no point is there a mention of making money being the issue.
They’re remarkably similar accounts,
That tends to happen when people copy each other. Like how Bruce Wayne was an orphan in my different media. John copied off the three others, Luke off Matthew, and Matthew off Mark. So of course if Mark had it the other ones would. Where Mark got it is a muddy. Chances are he made it up based on the news of the Temple’s destruction in 70AD.
Why not click the links?
I don’t enable human intellectual laziness.
Regardless, I mostly made my point. For the “reap what you sow” message, my personal opinion is that it isn’t literal. I don’t think he’s saying they’ll get wealthy with worldly money if they donate money (i.e. charity as an investment), but that they’ll receive spiritual blessings for putting others ahead of themselves (i.e. if you sow love, you’ll reap love).
Ok? I don’t care. It doesn’t change the fact that he was telling people to give him all their money.
The reason for moving money to Jerusalem was likely two-fold, a famine in Egypt likely impacted Judea more than other regions, and Paul wasn’t well liked in Jerusalem, so he worked extra hard to get money to those suffering in Jerusalem to help solve both problems. He was a prominent figure in the church, hence why repairing that relationship is important. That sounds like a pretty reasonable explanation, but we obviously have limited information here. He likely also raised money for local congregations, but there wouldn’t be as much of a point to dwelling on that in a letter that’s intended to build faith.
And? He bribed people to like him. Not really an original idea.
Well, given that he’s dead and we don’t have many accounts of his life, I can’t really speak to his trustworthiness. There are people I absolutely trust to use money appropriately, and there are those I don’t. Supposedly he gained the trust of certain groups and not others. We don’t know how he used the money, we just know he thanked people for donations, at least in certain cases.
He said that he was not lying between 5-10 times in “his” 13 letters. If you want to trust a person who is often telling you how trustworthy they are, instead of showing it, be my guest. Me personally I know what projection is, I know we always catch the anti-gay politician with a rent-a-boy and the guy who constantly tells me how I should trust him is the one I shouldn’t.
Ever notice how in all his letters when he talks about himself he is always the badass and the victim at the same time? Might want to read up on grandiose victimhood and how common it is with people who have Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
He bribed people to like him
That’s certainly one take. How about I provide another. Let’s say I offend you and I work hard to make it up to you to show that I’m genuinely sorry and want to make restitution. Is that also bribery? No, it’s a demonstration of genuine care for you.
Couldn’t that also be an explanation for Paul’s actions here?
He said he was not lying
You’ll have to point out the passages.
Here’s one that appears clear (2 Corinthians 12:16, from one scholars agree that he wrote):
Be that as it may, I have not been a burden to you. Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery!
If we read the surrounding context, it doesn’t sound like someone who is manipulative (14-19):
Now I am ready to visit you for the third time, and I will not be a burden to you, because what I want is not your possessions but you. After all, children should not have to save up for their parents, but parents for their children.
So I will very gladly spend for you everything I have and expend myself as well. If I love you more, will you love me less?
Be that as it may, I have not been a burden to you. Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery!
Did I exploit you through any of the men I sent to you?
I urged Titus to go to you and I sent our brother with him. Titus did not exploit you, did he? Did we not walk in the same footsteps by the same Spirit?
Have you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to you? We have been speaking in the sight of God as those in Christ; and everything we do, dear friends, is for your strengthening.
Yeah, he throws a bit of a fit before this point, but he also points out that he didn’t take money from them and he doesn’t intend to, because he cares more about their well-being than money. His goal here seems to be to compare himself to other “false Apostles”, who presumably were trying to compete with his authority.
Now, I don’t personally think this is a very effective way to go about it, but we also don’t know what those “false Apostles” (2 Cor. 11:13) were doing. Maybe they were extorting people and Paul wanted to show that he didn’t do anything like that, so he’s different. Idk, maybe this was a legitimate way to clarify things and not a weird humblebrag-fest. Regardless, what I see is a message of love, with some weird self-aggrandizement that may or may not be explained if we had more context.
Considering he was angling to become the king of Judea, I’d say Jesus probably preferred theocratic monarchies.
No, he’s their spiritual king, not temporal.
Given the priest structure in the old testament, I’d guess he’d prefer Theocratic Federalism, with each of the twelve tribes being states and governed by a council of priests with one acting as head of state. Or in the new testament, the Apostles taking the place of the priests and one (Peter) being the head of state. But honestly, I don’t think Jesus particularly cares, his focus is the next life.
I’m not surprised, just disappointed.
