‘God gave us Trump’: Christian media evangelicals preach a messianic message
‘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
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.
You're viewing part of a thread.
- total lack of relics
- Total lack of any contemporary records
- A timeline of events that are way too short and full of contradictions
- The ability of anyone with some basic knowledge of the texts at the time to find where each line of the NT was stolen from
- The most prolific writer about the guy admits he got his ideas from dreams not from witnesses
- No royal lineage established
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.
God reading comprehension is low.
Personal attacks, present your evidence
If that is your only criteria, you are going to find very few existing people.
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.
The amount of sources that corroborate each other,
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.
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.
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.
The text I posted gives you examples of other figures generally taken to have existed that have no other mentions by contemporary sources.
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.
The burden of proof here lies on you
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.
compounded by the scholarly work thats been published and peer reviewed on this topic, are for some reason to not be trusted.
Argument from authority again. Make your own case.
If there is a scientific consensus on something, then tha
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.
then that is what should be taken for truth unless presented evidence to the contrary.
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
Historical science is still science. People study for years about not what happened, but how to know what happened happened. meanwhile you sit there and discredit it all. What im doing is hardly an appeal to authority, i am providing you a source of why i believe what i believe. You could just as easily dismiss any referal to studies done as an appeal to authority. What you are engaging in is not critical thinking, but conspiracy.
Jesus was one of a slew of people claiming to be the Jewish messiah at that time. He was also poor, and he has more references to his existence than one would reasonably expect him to have. It is to be expected that a figure that existed 2000 years ago would have the details of their life be in dispute, but every early account agrees on his baptism and crucifixion.
Yeah yeah I suck, get in line and take a number.
Instead of telling me how amazing the people who think for you are why not just prove that your Messiah is real?
and he has more references to his existence than one would reasonably expect him to have.
Not a single contemporary one. Man is walking around a major urban center known for attracting religious piligrams throughout the empire in a civilization that did document stuff and no one saw anything.
By the way just because evidence is hard to get doesn't mean I have to accept your opinion. Quite the opposite really. It is very hard to find evidence for God that doesn't mean I have to believe in it.
but every early account agrees on his baptism and crucifixion.
How about a magic trick? I am going to say a sentence and you are never going to respond to it. Paul never once says that Jesus was Baptized. And he is not only the earliest accounts but the letters of attributed to him make up over half of the NT. In fact of the 27 books of the NT only 3 mention it and those 3 were some of the last accounts written. Additionally the Gnostic ones are silent as well. So instead of saying "all" you really should have said "none". Literally none of the early accounts, or even the possible early accounts, mention it. Everyone go check out my magic trick as this basic fact about the Bible gets ignored as inconvenient.
God reading comprehension sucks
Oh look my magic trick worked. Not going to even own up to your mistake?
Youve ignored the crux of everything ive said, and even missed the my being secular bit. No. It was no mistake. Youre not arguing in good faith. Youre sitting there saying that holding an entirely different criteria for what happened and what didnt than the whole of academia is superior to what the bulk of our knowledge of historical events/people/places up to this point is based on. You're not arguing in good faith, youre like a climate change denier arguing that their one oil funded study is well and truly superior to what everyone else knows to be true bc sometimes the little guy is right and everyone else is wrong and christianity sucks, and jesus sucks, and god doesnt exist, so jesus must not exist either.
Abracadabra.