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.”
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Let’s look at the text then. I’ll include the relevant portions from each of the four gospels:
Matthew 21:12-13:
Mark 11:15-18:
Luke 19:45-48:
John 2:14-16:
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don’t enable human intellectual laziness.
Ok? I don’t care. It doesn’t change the fact that he was telling people to give him all their money.
And? He bribed people to like him. Not really an original idea.
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.
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?
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):
If we read the surrounding context, it doesn’t sound like someone who is manipulative (14-19):
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.