US Evangelicals dropping Loser Christianity and doubling down on Winner Fascism.

Not exactly. Jesus spoke to the zealots, telling them that they sought to destroy an earthly kingdom, but that the kingdom Jesus represented was "not of this world."
In fact, if you read through the gospels, and what Jesus was outlining, it was a salvation from the world, and that salvation came by not being a part of this world, but being part of the world to come. It was the zealots who wanted to overthrow the Romans. That's why when it came time to choose which of them would be released from their impending crucifixions, Jesus Barabbas was let go because the crowd was mostly filled with zealots who wanted their leader back. Jesus himself didn't even put up a fight.

I'm describing what I see as the historical reality. The gospels, as I noted, have varying portrayals - subject to the evolving theology of the early church.

He is portrayed as saying that in John's gospel, by which time his followers were beginning to row back on the apocalyptic message. But that is clear as day in the earlier (more reliable) writings - and sedition against Rome is what he was actually executed for.

Of course, the dogma of your religion prevents you from assessing any of this honestly.

Only on a star trek message board could you have such in depth arguments over the cannon statements of a made up fictional guy like Jesus. Evenm if there was a jesus christ we all know every single statement attributed to him in the gospels was pure fiction created by men who never met him and might not have even been alive when he was.

Biblical cannon was one of the first instances of multiple writer fictional story arcs.

All I am saying is youi are gettting too serious about fictional characters, and this makes crazy fuckers like @RyanKCR the idea that hesus really existed as the bible said, and that the bible is anything but a complete work of fantasy fiction

People say Bronies and Furries are crazy. At least none of them are trying to take over the world based on shitty fictional cannon written by con men over a thousand years ago.

Are you saying if Christians dry-humped (or even wet-humped) a Jesus body pillow, they'd feel better?

Plus, the hats were supposed to be green.

Oh, we’ll, if we’re talking personal opinions here, I’m pretty sure if any one dude actually existed, he was probably mentally ill.

Yes, that is the charge the religious leaders brought to the Romans, but they wanted him killed because He was challenging them. Pilate, after questioning Christ, found Him innocent.

If not innocent, at least not enough evidence to convict without the demands from the mob.

It couldn't hurt

Related:
Republicans Are Ready to Declare the United States a Christian Nation | The Nation

It was to the Jews of Newport that George Washington, in his capacity as the nation’s first president, confirmed the commitment of the new republic to respect all religions and to maintain the separation of church and state that was outlined in the First Amendment to its new Constitution.
“The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy—a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship,” wrote Washington in his 1790 letter to the Newport congregation. Washington relied on Old Testament language in his message, assuring that “the children of the stock of Abraham” would, like all believers in all faiths, “sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.”
Determined to avoid the conflicts that plagued Europe, where monarchs established and maintained favored state churches, Washington made it clear that the United States would not be a land where one religion would be favored while the followers of other faiths would be dismissed as “dissenters.” “It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support,” wrote the president.
That is the American creed. It is this principle that has led presidents to go out of their way to celebrate all religions, as Dwight Eisenhower did when he dedicated the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., in 1957 and declared that “under the American Constitution, under American tradition, and in American hearts, this Center, this place of worship, is just as welcome as could be a similar edifice of any other religion.” And it is this principle that led President Ronald Reagan to use a 1984 speech at Temple Hillel in Valley Stream, New York, to affirm that
[w]e in the United States, above all, must remember that lesson, for we were founded as a nation of openness to people of all beliefs. And so we must remain. Our very unity has been strengthened by our pluralism. We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief.
Eisenhower and Reagan were Republicans, but on this issue there was a unity of understanding with Democrats such as John Kennedy and Jimmy Carter.
Separation of church and state was sacrosanct. Both parties could agree on that.
Until now.


Christian nationalism has been mainstreamed to such an extent that it is now the accepted faith of the party faithful. And Greene is not the only elected Republican promoting the ideas associated with a movement that Representative Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) decries as “the American Taliban.”
Shortly after being nominated for a second term in a June primary, Colorado Republican Representative Lauren Boebert appeared at a church in the state for a televised service, during which she announced, “I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk that’s not in the Constitution.”
The representative dismissed President Thomas Jefferson’s explicit “wall of separation” letter to Connecticut’s Danbury Baptists as “a stinking letter” that “means nothing like what they say it does.”
“The church,” said Boebert, “is supposed to direct the government.”
Boebert’s wrong, as is Pennsylvania Republican gubernatorial nominee Doug Mastriano when he dismisses the separation of church and state as “a myth.” And so is Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who is promoting a Civics Literacy Excellence Initiative that wants high school students to be taught that the founders of the American experiment didn’t really believe in maintaining the “wall of separation” that Jefferson described.
Unfortunately, the truth is not going to dissuade overt Christian nationalists and their growing cadre of allies from promoting a radical rewrite of history. Nor will their oaths to defend the Constitution lead supposedly more “mainstream” Republican Party leaders to tell their misguided electoral base that they are mistaken. That didn’t happen after Donald Trump mounted a coup attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election; Republicans in Congress deferred to Trump and Trumpism. It is foolish to imagine that those same congressional Republicans will suddenly develop spines for debates about maintaining the separation of church and state.
The good news is that the vast majority of Americans respect religious pluralism every bit as much as the founders did. By a solid 62-38 margin, respondents to the Critical Issues Poll said they opposed officially declaring the United States to be a Christian nation. That means that if the overall electorate recognizes what’s at stake in the Republican turn toward Christian nationalism, they will reject it. But for that to happen, Democrats need to start making an issue of the fact that the Party of Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Reagan is rapidly becoming the party of Lauren Boebert, Doug Mastriano, and the deconstruction of the wall of separation between church and state.

It gets into very irrelevant speculative territory, but I don't think anyone can honestly say that Jesus never said any particular thing. Even if we take it as a given that he existed and that the gospels accurately represent his words at the time, they still would present only a small fraction of his public speaking.