Interpreting Bible scripture is a little like answering a question you made up yourself - there's no wrong answer.

>>39277
>no wrong answer
Christianity isn't Islam. It's not sufficient to say you're a Christian and that you love the Bible to be considered a faithful member of the community. There are wrong interpretations and there are less right interpretations. More right interpretations can be the product of a modern "Christian Establishment", an antiquated one, or the text itself.

Trump says he loves the Bible and that he's a Christian believer. This article indicates than his profession of faith is institutionally profane from every angle. This article also indicates that his his preference passage and his understanding of what it means is directly contradicted by the teachings of Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount.

Trump can only be not wrongif the church(s), scripture, and words of Jesus are not right.

t. Ordained minister of Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster

>>39159
>favorite passage is from the Old Testament

Because we needed more proof that Trump is all but genetically a Jew right?

>>39394
The trumper has already promised the jew the same funds if elected

Trump, religion, this Atlantic article, and anybody who ever thought that Trump might once have read a book are all stupid.

Trump's interpretation of the passage is correct, but his preference for it indicates ignorance of the Christian Bible. This article does not make the distinction clear at all, and argues that his interpretation of the passage is wrong, which it isn't.

As it exists in English-language bibles, the passage is pretty clear. It basically says "If people fight and nobody is hurt, the punishment should be a fine, but if somebody is hurt then the punishment should be physical and proportional". The article says that this is a misinterpretation, because Jews think it doesn't mandate physical punishment and that the punishment should always be a fine. The article claims that this interpretation is a good one because it's used by a religion that Trump doesn't claim to follow whose interpretation is based on a pre-translation version of the text that Trump could never have been expected to read. Unless the second half of the passage was just made up upon translation to English (which is possible, but it does not make any sense to blame Trump for that), then clearly the Jewish scheme for "interpretation" is just to pretend that the stuff you don't like doesn't exist, and it's clearly the Jewish interpretation that is an (intentional) misinterpretation of the text, not Trump's.

They have a much stronger point in saying that this exact passage was repudiated by Jesus in the New Testament. As they point out, he says pretty clearly at one point not to live your life by that exact rule, and even quotes it. Because Christians are clearly not supposed to live by this rule (and arguably not by any of the barbaric rules described by the Old Testament), Trump saying he likes it indicates that his values are not Christian values. Anybody who can read, though, can tell that he didn't misinterpret that passage.

>>39462
T. Trump

>>39462
give this man an apple

>>39462

>Blanket statement about religion being stupid

>wanting to be taken seriously

P I C K O N E
I
C
K

O
N
E

>>39394
Considering his daughter married a Jew, I'd say he's trying to make sure his bloodline becomes Jewish...

>>39912

can you explain what you are trying to say?

>>41199
If that's the case, someone should let him know Jews don't take the passage literally.