Sara Benincasa, as an evangelical Christian myself, I agree with most of what you wrote, especially with your overall message. I don’t think Jesus would have voted for Trump. At the same time, I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t vote for Clinton, either.
I do want to disagree with you on some of your points, however. In no particular order:
You mention the Bible was “edited over and over again by countless folks”. This is far from the truth. The original Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek texts are remarkably unchanged over time. Just recently an old copy of part of Leviticus was found that dates back 2000 years and was identical to currently used manuscripts. And the documented process for copying scripture was very careful to preserve the original without change. If you’re talking about *translating* the Bible, then yes, it has been handled many times for different translations, but even that is much more limited than your comment would suggest. The modern translations commonly used in English-speaking churches (ESV, NKJV, etc) are still only a couple of generations removed from the original languages. And the older translations can be used in comparison with the others when coming up with new translations. So if anything, today’s Bible-reader can get a lot closer to the truth on his/her own than every before (for English readers, that is). I’m not an expert in this area, but it has interested me quite a bit in regards to arguing with the group of Christians who believe the King James Version is the only version that is accurate or inspired or good (which I disagree with for a number of reasons, but find humorous because Jesus didn’t quote the KJV when he quoted the Old Testament).
You said “he never said a word about men who fall in love with men or women who fall in love with women.” He never mentions incest, but I don’t suppose you would assume that means he was okay with it, do you? :) But besides that, I disagree with your statement. Jesus quoted the Old Testament in Matthew and Mark (same story told by different authors). In Matthew 19:4–6, Jesus quotes Genesis and then adds further comment: 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (The Mark passage is very similar.)
Now to be fair, Jesus was not specifically addressing homosexuality here. The context of this passage is that he was speaking of divorce. But the Genesis text Jesus quotes mentions a male and a female, not 2 males or 2 females. This by itself may not be convincing, I know, but other New Testament writers were more clear on this topic. I absolutely agree that Jesus would still treat homosexuals with love and compassion, though, and I would be as opposed to people using violence or hate speech against a homosexual as you would be.
You say Jesus was not a conservative. I don’t disagree with you on that, but I would disagree with what you think that means. Abraham Lincoln was not a conservative either, but I think he would be opposed to gay marriage, males/females using the locker room of their desire and not their biology, abortion for sure, and many other current liberal viewpoints. The terms “conservative” and “liberal” are relative. Comparing today’s liberals and conservatives to any other time in history is useless — they’re apples and oranges. Yes, Jesus disagreed with and scolded and corrected the conservative religious leaders of his time (the Pharisees mostly). But just because he was not as far right as they were does not imply that he would be far left, either. He wasn’t liberal for liberalism’s sake — he was liberal because the conservatives of the time were in error.
Lastly, a couple of minor points. Jesus did not “protest against a colonial occupying power”. In fact, he was very clear that His followers should obey the laws of Rome and respect the authority over them. And Him healing people and not asking them to pay for it is not the same thing as advocating for free healthcare for all (I’m not saying it argues against it, but it does not imply that all healthcare should be free).