‘God gave us Trump’: Christian media evangelicals preach a messianic message
Last month Trump vowed to defend Christianity and urged Christians to vote for him
“This is really a battle between good and evil,” evangelical TV preacher Hank Kunneman says of the slew of criminal charges facing Donald Trump. “There’s something on President Trump that the enemy fears: It’s called the anointing.”
The Nebraska pastor, who was speaking on cable news show “FlashPoint” last summer, is among several voices in Christian media pressing a message of Biblical proportions: The 2024 presidential race is a fight for America’s soul, and a persecuted Trump has God’s protection.
“They’re just trying to bankrupt him. They’re trying to take everything he’s got. They’re trying to put him in prison,” author, media personality and self-proclaimed prophet Lance Wallnau said in October on “The Jim Bakker Show”, an hour-long daily broadcast that focuses on news and revelations about the end times that it says we are living in.
Jesus would be pissed if he heard this. Too bad he is make believe like his dad.
The historical existence of Jesus is not disputed.
Don't worry. These are the same people who think that reindeer and narwhals are also fictional.
Yeah, I totally meant that a man named Jesus never existed.
Really though, Jesus never turned a man unblind nor a river into wine. It's all story time in Gallilee.
Attack ideas not people please. It ought to be really easy for you to present evidence for your Messiah.
We aren't saying Jesus was a messiah or in any way divine, but he was there and did things (probably different from what Christianity claims)
You can dislike and oppose Christianity w/o denying the fact that Jesus exists.
Ok you weakened your claim. Fine, now prove your weakened claim. This really shouldn't be that difficult.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus
Don't stop reading there. Wikipedia is biased. I'm making a talk point to remove that line because it's biased and unnecessary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
And? 95% of the humans race believes in some form of God. About 66% of biblical scholars believe the Resurrection was a true historical event as well as the gospel author citations being accurate
Are you being intentionally clueless? The image specifically says "modern scholars", whereas all of your examples are of unqualified people. Moreover, most scholars of antiquity are not Christian.
Yes modern scholars. The typical modern scholar of the bible believes the events really happened and the attributions are correct.
How much longer are you going to continue to use the circular logic of something is true because it is believed to be true and it is believed to be true because people believe that it is true?
Present evidence, not arguments from authority or No True Scotsmen. I can demonstrate vaccines work by data not be invoking some doctor who said something one time.
Scholars of antiquity, not Biblical scholars?
True Scotsmen, not regular Scotsmen
Bro it's 2024. The sky being blue is disputed.
Are you sure about that?
Nobody’s “sure”, but there are enough records and accounts to be reasonably confident that among the many traveling rabbis collecting followers in Roman Judaea was one from Nazareth named Joshua/Jesus, and that he was executed for political activities.
That’s it though.
Beyond that, his story is largely a creation of his followers, some of whom were apocalyptically charismatic enough in their own right to keep an ember alive, and eventually it sort of spread among the Jewish diaspora and the military, and happened to be in (relative) ascendance with the latter when an Eastern emperor needed to rethink some political strategies.
After that, it’s largely survivorship bias, with every hint of writing about him being preserved, transcribed, recreated, or invented from whole cloth, and anything from his contemporary itinerant preachers being ignored or suppressed.
Not quite. In fact, there's a rather significant survivorship bias around the versions of Jesus. Literally the very earliest primary documents involve someone known for persecuting Christians telling Christians in an area he has no authority to persecute that they should abandon other versions of Jesus they accepted or other gospels in favor of the version he claimed based on spiritual visions of someone he never met in life.
We have nothing but fragments recorded by its critics of the Gospel of the Egyptians, for example, and the Gospel of Thomas we only have because of a single person burying it in a jar around the time it became punishable by death to possess.
The version of Jesus with female disciples that was talking about Greek atomism and Epicurean proto-evolutionary thought is actually super interesting historically given the overall philosophy, but it's barely extant and only is because of archeological discoveries after the church lost effectively mega-monarchal status to just become a mega corporation instead.
And even in the modern era discoveries the church has any purview over like the Mar Saba letter abruptly go missing before it can be further validated by scholars.
The survivorship around "other versions" of Jesus look like they were conducted by Stalin with a two millennia reach. It involved literally burning down the successor to the library of Alexandria (and with it sources potentially related to a "Gospel of the Egyptians").
May I see those records? Contemporary first hand please.
Also I was wondering if you could explain why Paul never mentions Nazareth or anyone else until Mark needs a name of smallest toen he can find in the area. Man, Mark could really set a scene well.
Yes. Was he the son of god or messiah? No. Be he was around and did spread something religious.
Prove it.
No.
The historical existence of several Jewish reformers of the era baked into a singular allegory is not disputed.
Ergo, he's make believe - just like his dad.
You don't have to deny Jesus' existence, which is overtly true, to deny that what he taught was true— or the same as modern day Christianity
It's not worth arguing with the folk that push this narrative.
If they are as poorly informed to make the argument it's likely in large part because of an affinity for the concept greater than an affinity for knowledge of any details surrounding it.
So providing a counterpoint or more details just falls on willfully deaf ears.
To be fair though, the blame falls more on proselytizers deafening so many ears with their bullshit than on the people with such an acquired distaste for the canonical Jesus that they feel the need to throw out historical Jesus with the bathwater. I definitely get the sentiment, even if the historical Jesus became one of my hyperfocus interests over the past few years.
Ha ha ha, Jesus never existed. Stop living in the Bronze Age.
You don't have to deny Jesus' existence, which is overtly true, to deny that what he taught was true— or the same as modern day Christianity
Jesus did not exist, which is overtly true.
Yeah! And neither did Pontius Pilate! \s
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_stone
Contemporary physical evidence of Pilate. Please produce some for your Messiah.
Our messiah? accepting Jesus' existence historically does not mean we are Christians
Fine you are not a Christian. Cool. Now do you have evidence of your weakened claim or are you just going to point to other people to make your argument for you?
Why would the assumption be that acknowledging the existence of Jesus makes you Christian? And how is not being Christian weakening my claim?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Copying and posting gish gallop
Two passages one talking about James which might be a fraud. The other passage mentioning Jesus and we know that one is a a complete fabrication. Also we know that you can't follow instructions now because Josphius was writing +40 years after the supposed events and I asked for contemporary.
Talks about a group called Christus (annoited ones) not Christians (followers of the Annoited one) gets the rank wrong for Pilat indicating that he wasn't even checking Roman records. Lived almost an entire century after the supposed events.
Paul reported his visions, admits that he never met the apostles or Jesus before he started preaching, and admits that his.knowledge of Jesus came from dreams not feom humans
Seriously? John copied off Luke and Matthew, Luke copied off Matthew, Matthew copied off Mark and Mark combined a few random stories from OT with some Roman literature specifically to bash the James community. There is no evidence any of the events in the Gospels occurred and we know the authors were lying about the oral traditions that they were told.
Bull fucking shit. Mark had access to the letters of Paul and possibly had heard him speak. Additionally Paul was probably dead by the time the Mark Gospel was written. For 4 decades Paul was going around Rome telling stories about his imaginary friend which is amble time for the weird sandwich stories found in Mark. We can trace an exact line between the Gospels and Paul how what he wrote had to be dealt with by later offers. They are independent in the sense that Obama and Biden are independent.
Citation needed. Please prove that no Jewish person in history used Roman records for anything.
Jesus means saviour. The odds of a saviour being named saviour are about the odds of a revolutionary leader being given the name Rebel at birth. And you haven't established any of the facts you claim not can you elaborate on any of them.
I don't give a flying fuck about a "messiah." I just don't see any good reason to deny the existence of a historical figure (in this case, a Jewish carpenter who pissed people off and got executed for it) out of pure delusional spite.
https://www.alternet.org/alternet-exclusives/is-jesus-real/
He never existed, nothing to do with delusion or spite.
There are reasons to believe the man didn't exist and you have not provided a single shred of evidence that he did exist.
From the wiki article "Historocity of Jesus" that youve carefully ignored in other replies. Emphasis courtesy of the secular individual entitled, 'me.'
"The criterion of multiple attestation looks at the number of early sources that mention, and evaluates the reliability of those sources. To establish the existence of a person without any assumptions, one source from one author (either a supporter or opponent) is needed; for Jesus there are at least twelve independent sources from five authors in the first century from supporters and two independent sources from two authors from non-supporters.[29][note 8] There are Christian sources on the person of Jesus (the letters of Paul and the Gospels) and there are also Jewish and Roman sources (e.g. Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and rabbinic tradition[which?]) that mention Jesus,[2][31][32][33] and there are also many apocryphal texts that are examples of the wide variety of writings from early Christianity. These additional sources are independent sources on Jesus's existence, and corroborate details found in other surviving sources as a "bedrock of historical tradition".[33][34] Contemporary non-Christian sources in the first and second century never deny the existence of Jesus,[35] and there is also no indication that Pagan or Jewish writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[36][37][33] Taking into consideration that sources on other first century individuals from Galilee were also written by either supporters or enemies as well, the sources on Jesus cannot be dismissed.[29][38]
[...]
Historiographical approaches associated with the study of the poor in the past, such as microhistory, can help assess what type of sources can be reasonably expected in the historical record for individuals like Jesus. For instance, Justin Meggitt argues that since most people in antiquity left no sign of their existence, especially the poor, it is unreasonable to expect non-Christian sources to corroborate the specific existence of someone with Jesus's socio-economic status.[52] Ehrman argues that the historical record for the first century was so lacking that no contemporary eyewitness reports for prominent individuals such as Pontius Pilate or Josephus survive.[53] Theissen and Merz observe that even if ancient sources were to be silent on any individual, they would not impact their historicity since there are numerous instances of people whose existence is never doubted and yet were not mentioned by contemporary authors. For instance, Paul is not mentioned by Josephus or non-Christian sources; John the Baptist is not mentioned by Paul, Philo, or rabbinic writings; Rabbi Hillel is not mentioned by Josephus - despite him being a Pharisee; Bar Kochba, a leader of the Jewish revolt against the Romans is not mentioned by Dio Cassius in his account of the revolt.[54] With at least 14 sources by believers and nonbelievers within a century of the crucifixion, there is much more evidence available for Jesus than for other notable people from 1st century Galilee.[55] Non-Christian sources do exist and they corroborate some details of the life of Jesus that are also found in New Testament sources.[33] Historian Michael Grant argues that when the New Testament is analyzed with the same criteria used by historians on ancient writings that contain historical material, Jesus's existence cannot be denied anymore than secular figures whose existence is never questioned.[56
[...]
The seven Pauline epistles considered by scholarly consensus to be genuine were written in a span of a decade starting in the late 40s (i.e., approximately 20 to 30 years after the generally accepted time period of Jesus's death) and are the earliest surviving Christian texts that include information about Jesus.[40] Although Paul the Apostle provides relatively little biographical information about Jesus[70] and states that he never knew Jesus personally, he does make it clear that he considers Jesus to have been a real person[note 13] and a Jew.[71][72][73][74][note 14] Moreover, he interacted with eyewitnesses of Jesus since he wrote about meeting and knowing James, the brother of Jesus[75][note 15][note 10] and Jesus's apostles Peter[77][note 16] and John.[79] Additionally, there are independent sources (Mark, John, Paul, Josephus) affirming that Jesus actually had brothers.[80] Craig A. Evans and Ehrman argue that Paul's letters are among the earliest sources that provide a direct link to people who lived with and knew Jesus since Paul was personally acquainted with Peter and John, two of Jesus's original disciples, and James, the brother of Jesus.[46][77] Paul's first meeting with Peter was around 36 AD.[77] Paul is the earliest surviving source to document Jesus' death by crucifixion and his conversion occurred two years after this event.[40] Paul mentioned details in his letters such as that Jesus was a Jew, born of the line of David, and had biological brothers.[40] According to Simon Gathercole, Paul's description of Jesus's life on Earth, his personality, and family tend to establish that Paul regarded Jesus as a natural person, rather than an allegorical figure.[81]
[...]
Non-Christian sources used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include the c. first century Jewish historian Josephus and Roman historian Tacitus. These sources are compared to Christian sources, such as the Pauline letters and synoptic gospels, and are usually independent of each other; that is, the Jewish sources do not draw upon the Roman sources. Similarities and differences between these sources are used in the authentication process.[82][83][84][85] From these two independent sources alone, certain facts about Jesus can be adduced: that he existed, his personal name was Jesus, he was called a messiah, he had a brother named James, he won over Jews and gentiles, Jewish leaders had unfavorable opinions of him, Pontius Pilate decided his execution, he was executed by crucifixion, and he was executed during Pilate's governorship.[33] Josephus and Tacitus agree on four sequential points: a movement was started by Jesus, he was executed by Pontius Pilate, his movement continued after his death, and that a group of "Christians" still existed; analogous to common knowledge of founders and their followers like Plato and Platonists.[86] Jesus is referenced by Josephus twice, once in Book 18 and once in Book 20 of Antiquities of the Jews, written around AD 93 to 94. On the first reference, the general scholarly view holds that the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, in Book 18 most likely consists of an authentic nucleus that was subjected to later Christian interpolation or forgery.[87][88] On the second reference, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman states that "few have doubted the genuineness" of the reference found in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James".[89][90][91][92] Tacitus, in his Annals (written c. AD 115), book 15, chapter 44,[93] describes Nero's scapegoating of the Christians following the Fire of Rome. He writes that the founder of the sect was named Christus (the Christian title for Jesus); that he was executed under Pontius Pilate; and that the movement, initially checked, broke out again in Judea and even in Rome itself.[94] The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate is both authentic and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[95][96][97]
Still coping and pasting without reading.
What part of contemporary evidence did you not understand? I want something while he was alive that says he existed.
God reading comprehension is low. If that is your only criteria, you are going to find very few existing people. The amount of sources that corroborate each other, especially in the first century after his death, is more than any poor person from that time and place would ever be expected to have. The text I posted gives you examples of other figures generally taken to have existed that have no other mentions by contemporary sources.
The burden of proof here lies on you to find a reason why the body of sources that do exist, compounded by the scholarly work thats been published and peer reviewed on this topic, are for some reason to not be trusted. If there is a scientific consensus on something, then that is what should be taken for truth unless presented evidence to the contrary.
Personal attacks, present your evidence
Ok? First off I didn't say that was my only criteria secondly I am fine with a high standard of evidence. It is ok to not know something. Are there unicorns? I don't know but I highly doubt it.
Proof of popularity of an idea isn't proof that the idea is true. It is proof of popularity. Every source we do have was copying from earlier sources until we get to one guy who admits he was getting his information from dreams. Really no different than any other fictional character. Batman has been going for 85 years on so many formats and they pretty much all agree with each other.
Except he wasn't a random poor person. Even a minimum historical Jesus was extraordinary and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As I pointed out to you he was a Messiah figure and we should have seen him have a dynasty. Which we don't see. We should see relics from the 1st century or at least records of relics and we don't. We should have seen a single one of his followers who saw him get a scribe and write down what they saw but we don't. Christianity should have preserved the Roman records of his trial but it didn't. There should be a tomb you can point to where he was entombed and yet none of the early writers even mention the tomb until Mark borrows it from Roman literature as useful. Basic freaken details are messed up like how Paul is referring to a group of 12 which includes Judas as active in the church.
We also can't explain how he was able to launch a movement so quickly, so powerfully with no resources or education. And how that movement gave birth to three new movements in mere months.
The only way the evidence makes sense is if James was a cult leader making up stories about a non-existent brother and over decades the stories were altered and appropriated.
A. If historical methodology is incorrect pointing to more incorrect conclusions doesn't make it work. If I challenged a technique used in forensic science you can't point to guilty convictions as evidence.
B. Again extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Arguing that we can't prove the existence of a Socrates doesn't matter. It is reasonable to conclude that a philosopher existed in the golden age of philosophy in the center of philosophical thought. Claiming Socrates existed is on the level of claiming that a computer programmer existed in SV California in 1999.
C. The situation is still not the same because for all the people usually cited we still find more evidence. Alexander the Great, we have a contemporary inscription mentioning the refugees he caused because of his wars. The one good book we have on him cites his sources. None of this is true of the Bible.
Paul cites dreams and explicitly says he is getting it from on high not from people. Mark cites no one. Matthew cites no one. Luke admits he is gathering various sources but doesn't name them or explain where he got them. Same for John and John admits he culled a lot of them out.
Nope. Any claim of existence of a thing requires evidence of the thing. I don't have to prove that there isn't an orbiting teapot.
Argument from authority again. Make your own case.
It is history not science and it wouldn't matter if it were science. Proof is not dependent in science on authority or majority. It is dependent on evidence.
Repeatedly have pointed out the evidence to the contrary. Basic biographical details are in disagreement and the total lack of things that should be there but aren't.
Edit: formatting
Given that you just saw someone dispute it, you know that isn't true.
Obviously there are fringe cases. His existence (not his role as Messiah— you seem to be conflating the two) is not disputed by modern scholars of antiquity.
Argument from authority
exactly. no one is delusional enough to think he was real.
You don't have to deny Jesus' existence, which is overtly true, to deny that what he taught was true— or the same as modern day Christianity
extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof by those making the claim. good luck.
How is "some guy existed and said something about religion but idk what he said" extraordinary?
Very well. Explain where all the traditions about his acts and sayings came from. There is evidence of attestation and you should be able to address that.
Because the whole thing is a con explanation does address that. They were running a grift and that was it. Of course the stories and sayings are all mixed up, liars need amazing memories. And of course the Jerusalem church was doing well they could draw in the crowds each week with yet another amazing adventure of Jesus.