Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) bashed former President Trump online and said Christians who support him ā€œdonā€™t understandā€ their religion.

ā€œIā€™m going to go out on a NOT limb here: this man is not a Christian,ā€ Kinzinger said on X, formerly known as Twitter, responding to Trumpā€™s Christmas post. ā€œIf you are a Christian who supports him you donā€™t understand your own religion.ā€

Kinzinger, one of Trumpā€™s fiercest critics in the GOP, said in his post that ā€œTrump is weak, meager, smelly, victim-ey, belly-achey, but he ainā€™t a Christian and heā€™s not ā€˜Godā€™s man.ā€™ā€

  • btaf45@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    Ā·
    8 months ago

    but instead he said itā€™s ā€œdifficult.ā€

    He didnā€™t say itā€™s merely ā€œdifficultā€. He essentually said it is almost impossible. That doesnā€™t mean only 1 in every 5 rich people can go to heaven. That means 1 in every 5000 or 1 in every 50000.

    No, ā€œCaesarā€ was the family name of the ruling family, as in the dynasty name.

    Nope. Not a dynasty name. It was the name of the heir to the throne. But yes ā€œCaesarā€ was symbolic of the government itself.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      Ā·
      8 months ago

      almost impossible

      No, he used the word difficult.

      From what I understand, the wisdom at the time was that money was an indicator of favor from God, and Jesus went against that. However, I donā€™t think he meant that money was the issue, but merely a symptom of interests not aligned with Godā€™s. Many wealthy people care more about their wealth and fame than God or those around them.

      Not a dynasty name

      If you just said ā€œAugustus,ā€ people would think of Octavian, not the current emperor, so ā€œCaesar Augustusā€ wouldā€™ve been used to uniquely refer to the emperor. After Tiberius, emperors typically had both titles, and the heir apparent just had ā€œa Caesar,ā€ so it acted as a dynastic name, even if the heir wasnā€™t a blood relation (e.g. Tiberius himself was adopted). So both the emperor and heir held the title ā€œCaesarā€ and only the emperor also held the title ā€œAugustus.ā€

      It seems odd for Jesus to be referring to the heir apparent here, he would be referring to the emperor. To add to it, Julius Caesar was deified, so ā€œCaesarā€ here likely has a double meaning to show the difference between a self-proclaimed god and the true God. Heā€™s not saying you should pay taxes to benefit others, heā€™s saying you should pay taxes because thatā€™s your legal obligation.

      And yes, ā€œCaesarā€ was symbolic, but Iā€™d assume most would refer to the government as ā€œRome,ā€ not ā€œCaesar.ā€

      • btaf45@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        Ā·
        8 months ago

        No, he used the word difficult.

        Initially. Then he realized he needed to be more blunt. So he gave a metaphor making it clear it was almost impossible, and even bluntly said ā€œwith man this is impossibleā€. The reaction of the disciples also prove it had nothing at all to do with any ā€œgateā€.

        23Then Jesus said to his disciples, ā€œTruly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.

        24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.ā€

        25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, ā€œWho then can be saved?ā€

        26Jesus looked at them and said, ā€œWith man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.ā€

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          Ā·
          8 months ago

          Who then can be saved?

          They were astonished because, at the time, wealth was considered to be a sign of favor from God. Jesusā€™ statements at the time went directly against that, and thatā€™s what surprised them. There was similar surprise at his statements that the meek and humble would inherit the earth and go to heaven.

          The scandal wasnā€™t that rich people in general probably wouldnā€™t go to heaven, but that seemingly righteous people wouldnā€™t go to heaven.

          Who then can be saved?

          With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

          I think heā€™s referring to salvation generally here. Man cannot save himself, so no amount of wealth will be helpful. God can save man, and he is the one that makes it possible.

          So whether itā€™s a gate or a literal needle isnā€™t really relevant, God controls who gets to heaven, and Godā€™s expectations are at odds with people who love money. The message here is that wealth doesnā€™t indicate favor with God and it cannot save you, so you should focus on what can save you. You can have wealth and those attributes, but wealth attracts selfish people, and those selfish attributes will prevent you from entering heaven.