• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

'Christ's family were refugees too'

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
To put it concisely, the holy family were not refugees. They were citizens traveling and fleeing Herod's edict. But they were always in Roman territory.

Mary and Joseph were not Roman citizens. St. Paul was a Roman citizen born in the Roman province of Tarsus. They were subjects of Herod. And they weren't fleeing from Roman law (which didn't have any direct application in Judea unless Herod's Sanhedrin passed a law under Roman urging behind the scenes) but from the law implemented by King Herod in Judea, which wasn't a Roman territory but a tributary state on the frontier of the Empire that Rome wanted to stay allied as a buffer with the Parthians.

That persecuting regime vis-a-vis the Holy Family existed in the client state of Judea but not in the Empire - hence why the Holy Family fled from Herod's Judea into the Empire.

Since Judea, if it existed today in relation to Rome, would be classed under international law as a sovereign state (albeit one dependent on a hegemonic neighbour, like the UK post-Brexit or a Soviet satellite state), they would definitely be deemed 'refugees' given that they weren't Roman citizens.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
Which uses the Westphalia definition of nation-state. Jesus is still not a refugee as Judea is not sovereign by that standard. The standard used in your quote above.

Did Judea have its own legal system grounded in Hasmonean precedents and the Torah at this time? Did it have its own government?

Yes, on both accounts.

Did it have borders protected by its own army? Again, yes.

And which legal regime were the Holy Family in flight from? Herod or the Romans?

The Herodians. Therefore, they are refugees.

If we transplanted Judea - Roman relations into the modern Westphalian framework, Judea would be viewed as de jure sovereign but de facto a satellite state.

It was not a nation thus not a country.

Plenty of states throughout history have been sovereign without being 'nations'. The UK and Spain are unions of nations and nationalities.

They fled by order to God. They fled because God told them that they were in danger from Herod, the King Read the Bible. Herod's plans were a secret. An angel told the family to flee not by an act of Herod.


When they had departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you. Herod is going to search for the child to destroy him.”* He stayed there until the death of Herod


The angel told them that their ruler intended to murder their infant son. So they fled from him to a place where he had no authority, in another country.

"God told to that my government is plotting against me. I have no knowledge of this beside through God, no evidence, etc, etc,."

????

Are we subjecting a first century story to the standards of modern investigative journalism? This is complete evasion of the simple point at hand here.

The Bible provides information no normal person would actually know as a reader. The family has knowledge no normal person would have via God.

And?

We're talking here about the order of events within the logic of the narrative and not the historicity or plausibility of the narrative itself, which has no bearing upon the moral authority of this story for those who profess to believe in the Bible as an inspired text - like Donald Trump and many of the pundits I referred to in the OP.
 

TheresOnlyNow

The Mind Is Everything. U R What U Think
Mary and Joseph were not Roman citizens. St. Paul was a Roman citizen born in the Roman province of Tarsus. They were subjects of Herod. And they weren't fleeing from Roman law (which didn't have any direct application in Judea unless Herod's Sanhedrin passed a law under Roman urging behind the scenes) but from the law implemented by King Herod in Judea, which wasn't a Roman territory but a tributary state on the frontier of the Empire that Rome wanted to stay allied as a buffer with the Parthians.

That persecuting regime vis-a-vis the Holy Family existed in the client state of Judea but not in the Empire - hence why the Holy Family fled from Herod's Judea into the Empire.

Since Judea, if it existed today in relation to Rome, would be classed under international law as a sovereign state (albeit one dependent on a hegemonic neighbour, like the UK post-Brexit or a Soviet satellite state), they would definitely be deemed 'refugees' given that they weren't Roman citizens.

This is getting silly.
Mary and Joseph were citizens of Rome. That's why they were making travel so as to meet the command to register on the Roman census.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
This is getting silly.
Mary and Joseph were citizens of Rome. That's why they were making travel so as to meet the command to register on the Roman census.

With respect, I don't think that you are aware of the limited nature of Roman citizenship at this time. It wasn't until the Edict of Caracalla (officially the Constitutio Antoniniana) in AD 212 by the Roman Emperor Caracalla, that all free men in the Roman Empire were given citizenship.

Before this, most Romans outside Italy were subjects and not citizens of Rome. That's why, when St. Paul informs the Roman guard who arrests him in Acts that he was actually born a citizen of Rome, the guard is shocked and says something to the effect of, "I had to pay a ton of money to acquire my Roman citizenship and you were privileged enough to have it from birth?"

Mary and Joseph didn't even live in a Roman province, so they certainly weren't "Roman Citizens".

Also, the flight to Egypt is in Matthew's Gospel where no census is mentioned - it doesn't feature in Luke's account.

The Census of Quirinius was a census of Judea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in 6 A.D.

Luke, for narrative purposes, places this BCE during the reign of Herod - but this doesn't feature in Matthew where the Egyptian flight is actually mentioned.

This was a literary decision on Luke's part, as no such census did or could have taken place under Herod's reign (since direct rule from Rome hadn't yet been imposed).
 
Last edited:

TheresOnlyNow

The Mind Is Everything. U R What U Think
With respect, I don't think that you are aware of the limited nature of Roman citizenship at this time. It wasn't until Edict of Caracalla (officially the Constitutio Antoniniana") in AD 212 by the Roman Emperor Caracalla, which that all free men in the Roman Empire were given citizenship.

Before this, most Romans outside Italy were subjects and not citizens of Rome.

Mary and Joseph didn't even live in a Roman province, so they certainly weren't "Roman Citizens".

Also, the flight to Egypt is in Matthew's Gospel where no census is mentioned - it doesn't feature in Luke's account.

The Census of Quirinius was a census of Judea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in 6 C.E.

Luke, for narrative purposes, places this BCE during the reign of Herod - but this doesn't feature in Matthew where the Egyptian flight is actually mentioned.

This was a literary decision on Luke's part, as no such census did or could have taken place under Herod's reign.
Where did they live?
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
Where did they live?

Mary and Joseph lived in Judea, then a unitary client state under King Herod prior to its carve-up by the Romans into different spheres of authority (Judea proper under a prefect, Galilee and Perea under the Herodian Tetrarchs). They were subjects of the Herodian Kingdom - de jure an ally and friend of the Roman people but certainly not part of the "Roman people".
 
Last edited:

TheresOnlyNow

The Mind Is Everything. U R What U Think
Mary and Joseph lived in Judea, then a unitary client state under King Herod prior to its carve-up by the Romans into different spheres of authority (Judea proper under a prefect, Galilee and Perea under the Herodian Tetrarchs).
But Judea was a Roman province.

You said:"Mary and Joseph didn't even live in a Roman province, so they certainly weren't "Roman Citizens"."
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
But Judea was a Roman province.

You said:"Mary and Joseph didn't even live in a Roman province, so they certainly weren't "Roman Citizens"."

Again, with sincere respect to you, I really don't know where you are getting this from.

I have already explained, prior posts, that Judea was not a Roman province of the Empire under King Herod - like Egypt and Syria were - but an allied client state on its frontier that served as a buffer between the Empire and its mortal enemy, the Parthians. Herod paid tribute to the in exchange for Roman protection but the Romans did not station troops in Judea because it wasn't actually part of the Empire.

It wasn't until 6 A.D. (after birth of Christ) that the Romans carved up the unitary kingdom and instituted direct rule over the Judean portion as a province under a prefect, while granting Galilee to Herod Antipas as a nominated Tetrarch rather than quasi-sovereign King as his father had been.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
**Edited first sentence to correctly state Jesus Christ's family were natives of Roman occupied land rather than Roman Nationals**

Jesus Christ's family were natives of Roman occupied land legally migrating from one Roman province to another. They were not refugees in any legal sense, and there wasn't any illegality for Jesus family to migrate from one part of the Roman Empire to another. In fact, Roman occupied Egypt had many a significant Jewish community during the time of Jesus Christ.
 
Last edited:

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
Jesus Christ's family were Roman nationals legally migrating from one Roman province to another. They were not refugees in any legal sense, and there wasn't any illegality to travel from one part of the Roman Empire to another. In fact, Roman occupied Egypt had many a significant Jewish community during the time of Jesus Christ.

Oh lordie....

Why, oh why, do folks not get that:

(a) Jesus' family were not Roman citizens, nor even were most subjects of the Empire. This was a limited, privileged status outside Italy itself

(b) They lived in a buffer state that was an allied client of Rome's but not de jure part of the Empire and certainly not an imperial province like Syria or Egypt

(c) They were fleeing Herod's rule and policies in the kingdom under his jurisdiction, not the Romans

(d) There was an actual border between the Herodian Kingdom, policed by its own army, and the Roman province of Egypt where Roman troops were stationed

I've went into great detail in this thread to no avail, so it seems.
 

TheresOnlyNow

The Mind Is Everything. U R What U Think
Again, with sincere respect to you, I really don't know where you are getting this from.

I have already explained, prior posts, that Judea was not a Roman province of the Empire under King Herod - like Egypt and Syria were - but an allied client state on its frontier that served as a buffer between the Empire and its mortal enemy, the Parthians. Herod paid tribute to the in exchange for Roman protection but the Romans did not station troops in Judea because it wasn't actually part of the Empire.

It wasn't until 6 A.D. (after birth of Christ) that the Romans carved up the unitary kingdom and instituted direct rule over the Judean portion as a province under a prefect, while granting Galilee to Herod Antipas as a nominated Tetrarch rather than quasi-sovereign King as his father had been.

But Herod, who was a Jew, was appointed king of Judea by the Romans.
If Rome had nothing to do with Judea at that time then they would have had no authority to appoint a puppet king like Herod the great.
If Mary and Joseph were not to do with Roman citizenship they would not have felt compelled to travel to the city of their birth to register for the Roman census so as to be taxed by the Roman government that controlled.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
Oh lordie....

Why, oh why, do folks not get that:

(a) Jesus' family were not Roman citizens, nor even were most subjects of the Empire. This was a limited, privileged status outside Italy itself

(b) They lived in a buffer state that was an allied client of Rome's but not de jure part of the Empire and certainly not an imperial province like Syria or Egypt

(c) They were fleeing Herod's rule and policies in the kingdom under his jurisdiction, not the Romans

(d) There was an actual border between the Herodian Kingdom, policed by its own army, and the Roman province of Egypt where Roman troops were stationed

Oh lordie....

Why, oh why, do folks not get that:

(a) Jesus' family were not Roman citizens, nor even were most subjects of the Empire. This was a limited, privileged status outside Italy itself

(b) They lived in a buffer state that was an allied client of Rome's but not de jure part of the Empire and certainly not an imperial province like Syria or Egypt

(c) They were fleeing Herod's rule and policies in the kingdom under his jurisdiction, not the Romans

(d) There was an actual border between the Herodian Kingdom, policed by its own army, and the Roman province of Egypt where Roman troops were stationed

I've went into great detail in this thread to no avail, so it seems.
Oh lordie....

Why, oh why, do folks not get that:

(a) Jesus' family were not Roman citizens, nor even were most subjects of the Empire. This was a limited, privileged status outside Italy itself

(b) They lived in a buffer state that was an allied client of Rome's but not de jure part of the Empire and certainly not an imperial province like Syria or Egypt

(c) They were fleeing Herod's rule and policies in the kingdom under his jurisdiction, not the Romans

(d) There was an actual border between the Herodian Kingdom, policed by its own army, and the Roman province of Egypt where Roman troops were stationed

I've went into great detail in this thread to no avail, so it seems.

**I've edited my post's first sentence to correctly state Jesus Christ's family were natives of Roman occupied land rather than Roman Nationals**

Do you now agree with what I've written about why Jesus Christ's family weren't refugees?
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
But Herod, who was a Jew, was appointed king of Judea by the Romans.
If Rome had nothing to do with Judea at that time then they would have had no authority to appoint a puppet king like Herod the great.
If Mary and Joseph were not to do with Roman citizenship they would not have felt compelled to travel to the city of their birth to register for the Roman census so as to be taxed by the Roman government that controlled.

Let's break this down in sequential order:

(1) Yes Herod was nominated in 40 BC as the new king of Judea (Latin: Rex socius et amicus populi Romani, allied king and friend of the Roman people) by the Senate, and Herod then orchestrated a coup to overthrow the Parthian-allied Jewish King Antigonus, who then ruled Judea and had been taking it into the orbit of the Parthian Empire. This is akin to the American secret services overthrowing the pro-Soviet Prime Minister Mossadegh in Iran courtesy of a coup in 1953, and installing the Shah in his place. The Shah was an American puppet but still ruled Iran autonomously, however in subordination to America (and within its sphere), as did Herod vis-a-vis Judea.

(2) No one has suggested that Rome "had nothing to do with Judea" anymore than one would suggest that the US had nothing to do with interfering in Iranian politics to overthrow their democratically elected, constitutional ruler and place a compliant puppet in their place. But that didn't make Iran the 51st U.S. state, and nor did it make Judea a Roman province.

(3) As I explained earlier, Matthew's Gospel - from which we derive the tale of the flight to Egypt - makes no mention of a census because none took place under King Herod. Luke mentions the Census of Quirinius, a census of Judea (not Galilee, which the Romans carved away from Judea after Herod's death) taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in 6 A.D - after Jesus's birth. Luke used this as literary device - the census actually took place after Jesus' birth when Judea did become a province (but Jesus was a Galilean).
 
Last edited:

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
**I've edited my post's first sentence to correctly state Jesus Christ's family were natives of Roman occupied land rather than Roman Nationals**

Do you now agree with what I've written about why Jesus Christ's family weren't refugees?

No, I'm afraid.

Christ and his family were natives of a Roman client state.

Judea was not technically 'occupied' at that time under Herod because Roman troops were not stationed in Judea.

Judea had its own army.

As long as Herod paid tribute, he was allowed to govern however he wished and minted his own coinage. His kingdom lived under constant threat of direct Roman rule and occupation, however, if he tried to ally his state with a foreign power or act against the interests of the Empire.

But, legally - de jure - the Herodian Kingdom was considered by Roman law to be an independent, allied state. That's why it was called "friend and ally of the Roman people" by the Senate. De facto, it was a client state.

The best modern analogue would be with the countries of the Warsaw Pact that were satellite states of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Roman Empire pursued similar geopolitics against its eastern rival, the Persian Parthian Empire. Judea was on the frontier with Parthia and had been ruled by a pro-Parthian Hasmonean King prior to Herod's Roman-backed coup in 40 BC.
 
Last edited:

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
No, I'm afraid.

Christ and his family were natives of a Roman client state.

Judea was not technically 'occupied' at that time under Herod because Roman troops were not stationed in Judea.

Judea had its own army.

As long as Herod paid tribute, he was allowed to govern however he wished and minted his own coinage. His kingdom lived under constant threat of direct Roman rule and occupation, however, if he tried to ally his state with a foreign power or act against the interests of the Empire.

But, legally - de jure - the Herodian Kingdom was considered by Roman law to be an independent, allied state. That's why it was called "friend and ally of the Roman people". De facto, it was a client state.

The best modern analogue would be the countries of the Warsaw Pact that were satellite states of the Soviet Union. The Roman Empire pursued similar geopolitics.

According to the Bible, Roman soldiers were around promptly after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. So then, doesn't that mean there probably were indeed Roman soldiers in Judea at least during a significant part of Jesus Christ's life?

"When the Centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, ‘Surely he was the Son of God!’ (MATT. 27:45-54 NIV)."

A Centurion is defined as a commander in the ancient Roman Army.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
According to the Bible, Roman soldiers were involved with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. So then, doesn't that mean there were indeed Roman soldiers in Judea at least during a significant part of Jesus Christ's life?

Yes, as I stated earlier on, in 6 A.D. (after birth of Christ) the Romans imposed direct rule on Judea for the first time. Galilee was carved out as another client state under his son, Herod Antipas, in a separate jurisdiction from Judea.

As such, from 6 A.D. on, a Roman governor or prefect administered Judea directly and Roman troops were garrisoned there but not in Galilee, where no Roman troops where stationed and Herod Antipas minted his own coinage and passed his own laws like his father had.

Jesus was crucified in Judea by the Romans because he had been arrested for a disturbance in the Temple. At first, because he was Galilean, he was sent to Herod Antipas because he was a subject of his rather than of the Romans, as Luke tells us:


Luke 23:6-11

But when Pilate heard it, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean. And when he knew that Jesus was of Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him unto Herod....And Herod with his soldiers set him at nought, and mocked him, and arraying him in gorgeous apparel sent him back to Pilate.

But Herod Antipas gave him back to the Romans to be charged there. Notice the mention of Herod Antipas's "soldiers" - he, like his father, had his own army.

In 44 A.D., the Romans abolished the quasi-self government for Galilee and incorporated all of Palestine back into Judea, this time under their direct rule. This was one of the causes of the great Jewish War of independence against Rome that erupted in 66 A.D., because the Romans had moved from partial client state status in at least Galilee to total domination of the country.

Prior to 6 A.D. in Judea and 44 A.D. in Galilee, Roman soldiers did not patrol the highways and villages as in the popular imagination. Herodian soldiers did that. After these dates, the Roman troops came in and were stationed as the Empire assumed direct rule and administration of affairs.
 
Last edited:

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
I suspect all of Jesus Christ's family did fully comply with all applicable immigration laws that they were legally bound to follow whey they were traveling from one part of the Roman Empire to another?

Do you have any reason to doubt any, some, or all of Jesus Christ's family were in full compliance with all applicable immigration laws that they were legally bound to follow?
 
You are gifted with the power of prophecy?
I don't like to think of myself as being 'gifted' with the power of prophecy. So, the answer would be no, however, what I shared is something that can be clearly understood from reading the scriptures.
If you want a prophecy, however, then the direction in which the refugees are heading today, will soon be reversed in the near future.

This you can bank on.

In peace
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I don't like to think of myself as being 'gifted' with the power of prophecy. So, the answer would be no, however, what I shared is something that can be clearly understood from reading the scriptures.
If you want a prophecy, however, then the direction in which the refugees are heading today, will soon be reversed in the near future.

This you can bank on.

In peace

I have heard many people say god guides their
Bible reading, so their take on what it means is
the correct one.

But they shy away from admitting that it is a claim
to infallibility.

As prophesy involves a reversal of cause and effect,
I am disinclined to believe anyone can do it.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
I have heard many people say god guides their
Bible reading, so their take on what it means is
the correct one.

But they shy away from admitting that it is a claim
to infallibility.

As prophesy involves a reversal of cause and effect,
I am disinclined to believe anyone can do it.
I am infallible.
 
Top