'Christ's family were refugees too'

[Audie]

I am infallible.

Do you do investment advice?

 

[Shantanu]

Do you do investment advice?

I live for the present moment only.

 

[Audie]

I live for the present moment only.

Right

 

[Shantanu]

Right

That attitude is to save for a rainy day and take credit when required so that I can stay alive now.

 

[Audie]

That attitude is to save for a rainy day and take credit when required so that I can stay alive now.

Ok. Even a fish knows not to just live for today.

 

[Shantanu]

Ok. Even a fish knows not to just live for today.

I do not have knowledge of fishes, I studied chickens programmed to lay 250 eggs in their productive life: I understand you know about chickens?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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 find a special level of irony in the confusion of the Trumpists in this thread on this point. In other contexts, they'll argue against birthright citizenship and complain about "anchor babies," but when it comes to Mary and Joseph, suddenly they're all "but they were born somewhere that was under the (indirect) authority of Rome! How could they not be Roman citizens?!"

What the Constitution Really Says About Birthright Citizenship

 

[Shad]

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?

Irrelevant as the Westphalia required sovereignty with no external power having any control nor oversight which Rome did.

The Herodians. Therefore, they are refugees.

Nope

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.

Ergo not a state as satellite states do not exercise exclusive control over the nation.

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

UK exercises exclusive sovereignty via the united crown.

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.

Ergo fled on an order not a threat.

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.

You tell me since you flip back and forth

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.

Wrong. If we are using international systems to establish sovereignty and statehood we are going to use the criteria of those systems. God told me is not a basis for being a refugee.[/QUOTE]

 

[Augustus]

Of a client state not an independent one, fleeing to a province under the same authority as the client state. They didn't flee to a foreign state nor from one. Herod's sole authority is via Rome.

Toss in the flight was ordered by God thus not a refugee.

Only if you use one specifically modern political definition of the term, which would be rather odd and a misguided form of pedantry.

A person who has to leave their home (seek refuge) due to war, natural disasters, oppression, the threat of these, etc. is a refugee.

Fleeing from a perceived threat makes you a refugee. It's pretty simple...

Per OED: A person who has been forced to leave his or her home and seek refuge elsewhere, esp. in a foreign country, from war, religious persecution, political troubles, the effects of a natural disaster, etc.; a displaced person.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Jesus and family were 'refugees,' Ocasio-Cortez points out in Christmas message

Ocasio-Cortez gets abuse on Twitter for saying 'Christ's family were refugees too' in Christmas message

“The émigré Holy Family of Nazareth, fleeing into Egypt, is the archetype of every refugee family.”

– Pope Pius XII, 1952, in Exsul Familia Nazarethena

“Arise, and take the child and his mother, and flee into Egypt….” (Matthew 2:13).

'Jesus was a refugee', Pope Francis says ahead of World Refugee Day

And Jesus said unto us: I am the hope for them that are in despair, the helper of the helpless, the treasure of the poor and the doctor of the sick. (The Epistula Apostolorum: Epistle of the Apostles (140 - 150 A.D.))

​

Do you remember that passage from the Gospel of Matthew, where the Holy Family are attempting to flee into exile across the border from a mad ruler...and Mary and Joseph are detained as criminals and separated from the infant Jesus, who is subsequently put in a cage in a detention centre?

Of course, the actual Nativity we are all familiar with - through endless kindergarten and school plays, and festive greeting cards - doesn't end like that. While King Herod is off slaughtering the innocents to try and kill future claimants to his throne, Mary and Joseph safely cross the border into Egypt, where they are given sanctuary far away from the Judean monarch's infanticidal policies.

But sadly, in this day and age, such a fate - separation of refugee children from their families at a border - became a stark reality, as the world looked aghast at the ugly face of the Trump administration.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - who is a practising Catholic, as well as being a democratic socialist and progressive politician - recently became embroiled in a heated media storm with Trump supporting American pundits, over a Christmas tweet in which she said that Jesus and his parents were refugees fleeing persecution - and so implicitly comparing the plight of modern-day refugees on the U.S. border and in Europe with that of the Holy Family. Apparently, this is tantamount to sacrilege and blasphemy - judging by the reaction she received from certain quarters.

Her 'crime' was to remind her twitter followers of the bare facts of the original Christmas story and what befell the family of Jesus.

I, for one, completely agree with her and found myself feeling somewhat embittered by the vitriolic claims that she was exploiting the Nativity story and the festive holiday in the interests of narrow political opportunism and just couldn't give it a break to honour the sacred day.

The fact is that in fleeing Judea for Egypt - with nursing mother and child in toe - to escape the despotism and paranoia of King Herod in Judea, as he set about murdering baby boys, the Holy Family did become prototypes for families the world over and throughout history, who are forced by war, famine, discrimination or desperation to uproot themselves and seek shelter in an alien land for their personal safety.

There is undeniable social commentary at the heart of the Christmas story and of Christianity more generally. This is is evident to everyone who studies the texts in detail.

When the pregnant Mary contemplates the significance of her role as the future Mother of the Redeemer of the Human Race, in Luke's literary narrative, with the potent words, "God my Saviour...has looked with favour on the lowliness of his maidservant...He has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts. He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty." (Luke 1:47-53), this should be a red-alert to readers that conventional societal norms are being called into question and that the Christ-child represents the birth of a hope that, while transcending this earthly world, radically inverts its values and oppressive structures.

This is the longest speech delivered by a woman in the New Testament and it has proved to be massively influential in the history of Christian thought. Mary begins by glorifying the greatness of God (Luke 1:46), acknowledges her devotion to the Lord (Luke 1:48), and then promises deliverance to the poor and oppressed through the reversal of unjust social structures, courtesy of the salvific hope she carries in her womb: the as-yet-unborn Jesus (Luke 1:50-53).

It is indisputable that the wealthy and prideful authority, alluded to in the Magnificat and foremost in the mind of the Evangelist, was King Herod.

Regardless of its historicity or lack thereof, the Nativity story as it has passed down to us is a powerful and truly beautiful parable. The Creator of the universe incarnates in the womb of a powerless Jewish peasant girl, wife to a humble carpenter. His first hours are spent in a manger intended for animal feed because there is no space for his family in the village inn or upper rooms, and his parents then, for his own safety, are compelled to flee their homeland for an uncertain future in another country to escape the clutches of a power-hungry monarch. His coming is announced first to shepherds (powerless country folk, on the peripheries of Judean society) and foreigners (the Magi), symbolising the focus of his mission as an adult to the excluded and marginalised. This baby boy, the victim of so much misfortune at his birth - the polar opposite of a royal upbringing or heroic origins, as with an ancient Greek or Roman aristocratic hero - grows up to be (according to the Evangelists) the "Prince of Peace" and true King of Kings, friend of prostitutes, sinners, the disabled, the poor, sick, the alien and the oppressed.

Yes, the Holy Family were refugees. And this is essential to understanding the intended meaning of the story. The Holy Family, denied any welcome and giving birth to Jesus in a stable, until finally given sanctuary not in their own country but in a foreign land by people of another race. The word to focus on is pheuge, “flee,” from which comes the word “refugee,” the one who flees. Thus even Matthew’s angel labels the Holy Family as refugees.

As Daniel J. Harrington, S.J., a New Testament scholar, reminds us in his commentary on Matthew in the Sacra Pagina series:

Egypt, which came under Roman control in 30 B.C., was outside the jurisdiction of Herod. Egypt had been the traditional place of refuge for Jews both in biblical times (see 1 Kgs 11:40; Jer 26:21) and in the Maccabean era when the high priest Onias IV fled there.

​

Why do some people strive to blunt the sharp social commentary-aspects of the Gospel message, yet claim fidelity to Christ?

His teaching:

'I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in...For truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me" (Matthew 25:38)
​

According to Ms Ocasio-Cortez's religion, the principles of the natural law dictate that due to the “unity of all mankind, which exists in law and in fact, individuals do not feel themselves isolated units, like grains of sand” for which reason “the nations are not destined to break the unity of the human race, but rather to enrich and embellish it by the sharing of their own peculiar gifts and by that reciprocal interchange of goods” (Pope Pius XII, 1939), meaning that "the natural law itself, no less than devotion to humanity", urges that “ways of migration be opened to people forced by revolutions in their own countries, or by unemployment or hunger to leave their homes and live in foreign lands” because “the sovereignty of the State cannot be exaggerated to the point that access to this land is, for inadequate or unjustified reasons, denied to needy and decent people from other nations” (Pope Pius XII, 1952).

Good on Ms. Ocasio-Cortez for preaching and living by these principles this Christmastime! Thank you for reminding us all of the events of the Christmas story.

We need more politicians like her.

Ok, When Joseph and Mary flee into Egypt, they were not terrorist nor looking to do anyone harm in Egypt.

But went peacefully into Egypt.

Unlike people to day that are criminals,
MS-13 gangs, Muslim terrorist, who seek to do harm to innocent people. So why should a Nation/Country not want them in their country.

So your taking that of Joseph and Mary and the child Christ Jesus trying to use it as an exuse to let anyone into their country.
Seeing how Joseph and Mary and the Christ child went into Egypt peacefully and not seeking to harm innocent people.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is a poor exuse for a politicians, of not knowing the difference between a Criminal that seeks to do people harm and those who seek to come peacefully into a Nation/ Country.

So if you want Criminals in,Why don't you open your house to them, if they are what you and Ms.Ocasio-Cortez say they are.
You show by doing it and not by Talk the talk and not Walk the walk that you talk.

Like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are against border walls, but yet they have walls around their Mansions. What's that all about.

 

[Shad]

Only if you use one specifically modern political definition of the term, which would be rather odd and a misguided form of pedantry.

We are due to the comparison being made.

A person who has to leave their home (seek refuge) due to war, natural disasters, oppression, the threat of these, etc. is a refugee.

Fleeing from a perceived threat makes you a refugee. It's pretty simple...

Perception can be wrong.

Per OED: A person who has been forced to leave his or her home and seek refuge elsewhere, esp. in a foreign country, from war, religious persecution, political troubles, the effects of a natural disaster, etc.; a displaced person.

Now use the definition used for what a nation is.

 

[Augustus]

We are due to the comparison being made.

Only in your mind. Whether you like the political point being made or otherwise, this has little to do whether or not Jesus et al. were refugees.

Perception can be wrong.

Which, again, would be irrelevant to whether or not someone was a refugee in the generic sesne. If someone fled their home because they perceived the threat of war or pogrom, they are a refugee regardless of such a war or pogrom occurring.

If one believes the Biblical narrative, they were also not wrong.

Now use the definition used for what a nation is.

A large aggregate of communities and individuals united by factors such as common descent, language, culture, history, or occupation of the same territory, so as to form a distinct people.

Why though? It is largely irrelevant when determining what a refugee is unless discussing modern legalistic notions which make little sense when applied anachronistically because such concepts didn't exist.

 

[metis]

Good on Ms. Ocasio-Cortez for preaching and living by these principles this Christmastime! Thank you for reminding us all of the events of the Christmas story.

Absolutely, as there's a parallel even if they're not exactly the same.

 

[metis]

Ok, When Joseph and Mary flee into Egypt, they were not terrorist nor looking to do anyone harm in Egypt.

But went peacefully into Egypt.

Unlike people to day that are criminals,
MS-13 gangs, Muslim terrorist, who seek to do harm to innocent people. So why should a Nation/Country not want them in their country.

Do you honestly believe it is "Christian" in any way to use stereotypes like this? Have you no compassion whatsoever for those fleeing for their lives from three countries that are pretty much being run by drug cartels?

Your post above is thoroughly disgusting, as Jesus said "Bring the little children unto me...", but what we see with your post above is the total opposite of what he taught.

 

[Shad]

Only in your mind. Whether you like the political point being made or otherwise, this has little to do whether or not Jesus et al. were refugees.

I am guessing you do not know the backstory at play here. The statement/claim itself is politically motivated.

Which, again, would be irrelevant to whether or not someone was a refugee in the generic sesne. If someone fled their home because they perceived the threat of war or pogrom, they are a refugee regardless of such a war or pogrom occurring.

Wrong, see the above

If one believes the Biblical narrative, they were also not wrong.

Belief does not equate fact

A large aggregate of communities and individuals united by factors such as common descent, language, culture, history, or occupation of the same territory, so as to form a distinct people.

Why though? It is largely irrelevant when determining what a refugee is unless discussing modern legalistic notions which make little sense when applied anachronistically because such concepts didn't exist.

Look up Westphalia definition as that is the definition used

 

[Augustus]

I am guessing you do not know the backstory at play here. The statement/claim itself is politically motivated.

Of course it is politically motivated which is why I said "Whether you like the political point being made or otherwise, this has little to do whether or not Jesus et al. were refugees."

If you want to question the legitimacy of the analogy to contemporary US politics there are many ways you could do this as most modern migrants aren't refugees.

To deny that Jesus et al were refugees by anachronistically applying the political geography and legalistic norms of the modern world to that of the ancient world is inane though.

Wrong, see the above

"Because Ocasio Cortez is making a politically motivated comment, then you can't use words according to a normal definition"

Outstanding logic.

Belief does not equate fact

So?

The point is a reference to a Biblical narrative that factually exists in the Bible.

A reference to the fable of the tortoise and the hare wouldn't require an actual race to have occurred to have meaning.

Look up Westphalia definition as that is the definition used

The definition used in a modern political sense which is completely irrelevant to the case in question, which is the idea that Jesus et al were refugees in the Biblical narrative.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Do you honestly believe it is "Christian" in any way to use stereotypes like this? Have you no compassion whatsoever for those fleeing for their lives from three countries that are pretty much being run by drug cartels?

Your post above is thoroughly disgusting, as Jesus said "Bring the little children unto me...", but what we see with your post above is the total opposite of what he taught.

If those people want to come into America, then do it legally and not by breaking the law of the country they want to enter into.

If the country that those people are leaving is that bad, then why do those people who want to enter America, are waving the flag of that country that's to be so bad.

Can't be that bad, by waving the flag of the country they want to leave, only shows their allegiant is to that country they supposedly wants to leave.

If I was to leave a country that I claim to be so bad, I sure wouldn't be waving that country's flag, that's for sure, I would be waving the American flag, showing my support and allegiant to America. That's for sure.
There's many people waiting in line to come into America and doing it the legal way and not the illegal way of breaking the laws of immigration of the USA.

 

[Shad]

Of course it is politically motivated which is why I said "Whether you like the political point being made or otherwise, this has little to do whether or not Jesus et al. were refugees."

Liking the point is relevant as my dislike or like of the point is based on my view of the argument as part of a conclusion.

If you want to question the legitimacy of the analogy to contemporary US politics there are many ways you could do this as most modern migrants aren't refugees.

I can just use UN standards.

To deny that Jesus et al were refugees by anachronistically applying the political geography and legalistic norms of the modern world to that of the ancient world is inane though.

Wrong. The injection of the modern system is done via those making the claim thus the comparison. I only force people to hold to the same standard for B as they use for A.

"Because Ocasio Cortez is making a politically motivated comment, then you can't use words according to a normal definition"

Outstanding logic.

Wrong. She is making a comparison to the present which must include the modern system being used. I only force people to remain consistent to the standards they invoke unwittingly.

So?

Ergo someone believing X does not make it true not treated as an axiom within the systems being discussed.

The point is a reference to a Biblical narrative that factually exists in the Bible.

A reference to the fable of the tortoise and the hare wouldn't require an actual race to have occurred to have meaning.

Except when applied to the modern system the Biblical view would be rejected due to lack of evidence and application of modern standards.

The definition used in a modern political sense which is completely irrelevant to the case in question, which is the idea that Jesus et al were refugees in the Biblical narrative.

Wrong as the claim is being used to make a comparison and force a moral outcome targeted at those that hold Jesus in a positive light namely Christians. Christians that also hold a negative view regarding modern refugees and immigration. The goal is to create a disconnect between values and different treatment thus merely point a moral finger at people

The fact you are oblivious to this or just ignore it is amusing.

 

[metis]

If those people want to come into America, then do it legally and not by breaking the law of the country they want to enter into.

It appears that you are unaware that we here in the States do recognize possible refugee status even for those who may come across the border illegally.

There is the recognition under American law that people may be so desperate as to travel under all sorts of terrible conditions in order to escape persecution, much like many of our founding fathers (and mothers) did when they came here without passports and visas. This is why we have courts to sort this out, but what Trump did along this line was to slow-walk these courts by refusing to hire more judges and lawyers to handle what clearly was going to be many more cases.

If the country that those people are leaving is that bad, then why do those people who want to enter America, are waving the flag of that country that's to be so bad.

Because "refugees" historically usually prefer to return when the conditions in their country hopefully improves. They don't hate their country, by and large, just the people running and ruining it. I almost left the States for Canada back in the early '70's, but that wouldn't have meant that I hate the country I call "home".

There's many people waiting in line to come into America and doing it the legal way and not the illegal way of breaking the laws of immigration of the USA.

Isn't it rather ironic that we basically stole land from the Indians and the Spanish and yet you make such a claim as above? The two children who died in custody both were of Amerindian families.

The Catholic bishops and the Pope have made it clear that we must do our best to try and deal with this situation humanely along the lines that Jesus' taught, and some other churches and Jewish and Muslim groups have also chimed in their support, but what about you and your church, assuming you have one? If what's being proposed is not "kosher" with you, what is? What would you have us do that would be compatible with Jesus' message of helping to take care of those in need?

 

[Faithofchristian]

It appears that you are unaware that we here in the States do recognize possible refugee status even for those who may come across the border illegally.

There is the recognition under American law that people may be so desperate as to travel under all sorts of terrible conditions in order to escape persecution, much like many of our founding fathers (and mothers) did when they came here without passports and visas. This is why we have courts to sort this out, but what Trump did along this line was to slow-walk these courts by refusing to hire more judges and lawyers to handle what clearly was going to be many more cases.

Because "refugees" historically usually prefer to return when the conditions in their country hopefully improves. They don't hate their country, by and large, just the people running and ruining it. I almost left the States for Canada back in the early '70's, but that wouldn't have meant that I hate the country I call "home".

Isn't it rather ironic that we basically stole land from the Indians and the Spanish and yet you make such a claim as above? The two children who died in custody both were of Amerindian families.

The Catholic bishops and the Pope have made it clear that we must do our best to try and deal with this situation humanely along the lines that Jesus' taught, and some other churches and Jewish and Muslim groups have also chimed in their support, but what about you and your church, assuming you have one? If what's being proposed is not "kosher" with you, what is? What would you have us do that would be compatible with Jesus' message of helping to take care of those in need?

Nope not at all did anyone of today stole land, maybe you can explain that seeing people of today wasn't around nor were born at that time.

Maybe before you say such a thing you need to back up and rethink that one before you go accusing people, that weren't even around or born at that time to have any control what people did back then.

It seems your having a problem of not separating people back then from people of today. As it's written in the book of Ezekiel, that the sins of the fathers can not be held against their children. So what people did back then, has absolutely positively nothing to do with people today.

As it is written in the book of Ezekiel 18:20-
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the"

Therefore no one can hold the children responsible for what their parents did.

Had you any clue or idea that when Joseph and Mary with the Christ child went into Egypt they were fulling prophecy, which has nothing at all to do with being a refugee.
Matthew 2:12-13--"And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way"

13-- "And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him"

14-- "When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt"

15 --"And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son"

Hosea 11:1--"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt"

Therefore Joseph and Mary and the Christ child were fulling prophecy. Which has nothing to do with people of to day or any other time as being a refugee.

It's totally amazing how people will take scriptures out of the bible and try to imply them in some other way that has absolutely positively nothing to do with people of to day.