This time of year, we hear many folx who use the birth narrative of Jesus as a means to advance a political agenda relating to the poor and homeless. Specifically, the claim is that Joseph and Mary were forced into the stable because they were "homeless".
The problem with this narrative is that it isn't consistent with the story.
In the story, Joseph and Mary were forced to leave their home in Nazareth and travel to Bethlehem due to a census. The reason for the census was to imposed additional taxes on the people who lived in territory captured by Rome. One could reasonably say that the "tax and spend" policies of the emperor and his subordinate government officials were the only reason why Joseph and his family were in Bethlehem. (That and prophecy)
The reality of Jewish custom is that Joseph either had, or was in the process of building a home for his family in Nazareth, when a tax hungry government forced him to visit Bethlehem temporarily.
The situation in Bethlehem wasn't that they were homeless, it was that the forced census (to tax people) had caused a temporary shortage of temporary lodging. Similar to all the hotels in a town being full during a large event.
Finally, was Jesus "poor"? Great question. The simple answer is that we don't know. It seems safe to say that his family wasn't "rich", but beyond that we really have nothing concrete on which to base any dogmatic claims. We know that Joseph was a builder, but beyond that, not much.
I don't deny that it makes a nice story, but I'm not sure the story squares with what we know.
Just in case people don’t actually read the post, I’m specifically referring to the birth narrative and the condition of Jesus family at that point. Clearly He laid aside riches and power unimaginable in the incarnation. Just as clearly, during the period of His active ministry He had virtually no earthly possessions. Those things are clear from the text. It’s the part of His life where the text is silent and fold want to impose an agenda that I’m speaking of.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Interestingly, the "homeless" couple apparently made Bethlehem their new "hometown" since they stayed there for 2 years before fleeing to Egypt before Herod could kill their child.
No one serious is arguing that baby Jesus was homeless, in that Mary and Joseph did not have a home.
We DO note the reality that in Bethlehem he had no place to stay and he was not welcome anywhere. As a stranger in the place, he u did not receive welcome and was only relegated to living in the s*** with the sheep and the cows.
We DO note the reality that adult Jesus reported having no place to lay his head. He was a homeless itinerant preacher.
We DO note the reality that Jesus specifically came to preach good news to the poor, that he gave to John the Baptist as evidence that he was the one that he was preaching specifically to the poor, that he preached that if you are not helping and siding with the poor, the marginalized, the stranger... You are not part of the realm of God.
We do note the reality that baby Jesus and his family had to run and seek refuge in another Nation because of an oppressive ruler in his home country. If the people in Egypt had refused to welcome his family and sent them back to his home, we note the reality that Jesus may well have been killed. We thank God that some Nations DO welcome strangers.
The Jesus narrative and teachings are abundantly clear in their defense of the poor, The Foreigner, the stranger, the marginalized. We simply note that reality found in the Bible.
As to the taxation point you repeatedly make, yes it was and is a problem to have a repressive taxation system the penalizes and punishes the poor. If that's your point, I certainly agree. Taxation should be paid more so from those who can afford it than from the poor.
Claiming that “no one” is claiming that Jesus was “homeless” in Bethlehem is quite a statement, it’s impressive that you have that much certain knowledge.
The problem with your equivalence is that the reality that there were no available hotel rooms doesn’t mean they weren’t welcome. It means that they were welcome to the only available place in town. To suggest that there is an equivalence between their forced visit by a tax and spend government who wanted to raise taxes on everyone) and someone who chooses to migrate is not even close to accurate.
I specifically addressed Jesus adult situation, which isn’t relevant to this post.
Let’s also point out that the flight into Egypt was from one unit of the Roman Empire to another. Not from one sovereign nation to another. It was also an attempt to gain refuge from one specific person (Herod), for purely selfish reasons, again not a good analog.
If your point is that Taxes should be as low as possible and that people shouldn’t be burdened with unrealistic tax rates and requirements, sure.
If your point is that the tax system should transfer money from the rich to the poor, then no.
My point is, that the party who adamantly insists that taxes are too low and should be raised is yours.
Of course, you’ve chosen to miss the actual point of the post.
If you figure it out, let me know.
He was seeking Refuge from the government run by Herod. It wasn't just Herod out with a billy bat trying to find baby Jesus. He had a military police behind him.
He was running from the state. He ran to another area within the state where he was welcomed and had Refuge. That is the point.
The point is not whether it was a nation state or a city or a state. The point was the Refuge that he was offered and the potential that there would be a place that did not offer him Refuge.
The point would be that if he had moved to a nation, say like the US under this Administration, where he could not seek Refuge from danger, then our savior would have been murdered. And WE would be to blame. That is the point of the sheep and the goats. When you do not do it for the least of these my children you do not do it unto me.
I hope it helps you understand.
And again, the progressive part of the nation is not advocating raising taxes on poor people. That is the conservative wing of the station. Quite likely, your church and your community of conservative people. But tell me and clarify, do you support a progressive tax system, where the burden is less upon the poor and more Pawn the wealthy? Please clarify.
The progressive part of the nation is advocating raising taxes on all people. Poor people pay gas, property, and sales taxes. Poor people will pay the “text tax” CA progressives proposed.
Of course progressives want to use the tax system for direct wealth transfers as well.
No, the government was the Roman Empire. Herod’s issue with Jesus was personal, the fact that he misused government resources for a personal vendetta, doesn’t make it official.
The point is that He ran from a governmental unit ruled by an individual who wanted Him dead, to another where the ruler didn’t.
As to “given refuge”, there is no indication that the governmental unit did anything. It’s the equivalent of someone moving from Ohio to Illinois, it’s something that isn’t regulated by the government.
What you’d like to do, is read into the text something that doesn’t exist and obligates secular government to embrace a particular policy. As you point out, you’re trying to force the story to support national borders, instead of state borders.
Still waiting for you to prove your initial claim, or you can admit that you think everything is rally about you and that you can project your opinions on others.
Yes, precisely. That's the point. The government did not do anything. They did not block Jesus from coming and seeking Refuge. They did not stop him from escaping the threat. They did not give him grief over escaping the threat. There was just the simple Liberty to move from one place to another to seek safety, as is just the basic human Liberty to do so. Or should be. It's not here in the US, unfortunately. I'd be glad if the us simply let refugees alone. They don't have to go out of their way to do anything heroic. Just get the f*** out of the way and let people have their human liberties.
As to my initial claim - that no one serious is saying that Jesus as an infant had no home - I'm saying no one serious does that. I can't prove the existence of "no one."
IF you have someone who is serious and a scholar or otherwise informed and saying that baby Jesus was homeless then cite that person.
ONE person is all you need to cite to prove me wrong.
That ball is in your Park. Until Then I'm telling you the fact is, no one serious is saying this. You are flatly mistaken. So rather than b**** about me proving the existence of "no one," why don't you just admit that you were mistaken?
In your haste to prove yourself right, you ignore the false equivalence necessary for your claim to be correct.
I realize that you made a claim you can’t prove. The point is that by me providing examples of serious people making that claim it seriously your claim becomes false.
Of course your last paragraph just invalidates your whole excuse.
Whoops, a really brief google search reveals that the pope (who seems like a pretty serious guy) actually claimed that Jesus’ family was “homeless” in Bethlehem.
Please, I look forward to you arguing that the pope doesn’t fit your criteria of “serious”.
Seems like many people would consider the Huffington Post “serious” as well.
Jesus family was homeless in Bethlehem when they traveled there for the senses. That's a factual comment according to the story. The point is I don't think anyone serious it is claiming that Jesus is infancy and childhood was spent homeless. Demonstrate that this is what the pope or even when serious is claiming and I will be glad to admit I was mistaken. But your failure to understand their point does not mean that they are making the point that you think they're making. Do you understand that reality?
“Jesus was born to a homeless family.”
You see, a rational person can understand that most likely what people mean when they say something like that is that, in Bethlehem in the story told in the Bible, he was literally homeless dot-dot. He didn't have a place to stay there in Bethlehem. I don't think that anyone is seriously making suggestion that all of Jesus childhood he was homeless. If you think that, then by all means, find some proof to support that. I'm saying bulshit, no one is making that claim. If you prove it, then I will admit I was wrong.
Thank you ever so much, this is just priceless.
1. Remember what you said about me when I made some comments using the voice feature and it didn’t transcribe well? Same to you.
2. Being unable to find a hotel room after being forced to travel isn’t analogous to homelessness in the modern idiom.
3. I guess being proven wrong really hurts your feelings. The excuses and spin is creative.
4. Maybe you should think about how it looks when you go beyond the scope of my point in trying to save your own ass on this.
That’s why you should read before you comment.
Wow. It's quite late and was just checking in before turning in. Dan's claim that Jesus, Mary and Joseph were "welcomed" in Egypt is simply another case of Dan taking liberties without Scriptural support. I don't recall any mention of Egyptian authorities, or even citizens, "welcoming" the Holy Family. They simply went there instead of staying where the search for them was taking place, where they laid low until the heat was off.
It is also ridiculous, to say nothing of deceitful, to throw around the word "homeless" in relation to the Christmas story. It is done purposely for partisan reasons...NOT to relate the tale and its message, which has nothing to do with homelessness, illegal immigration or asylum seeking.
"That's the point. The government did not do anything. They did not block Jesus from coming and seeking Refuge. They did not stop him from escaping the threat. They did not give him grief over escaping the threat. There was just the simple Liberty to move from one place to another to seek safety, as is just the basic human Liberty to do so"
A far more revealing point is the sad and dishonest attempt to draw an equivalency between migration in the time of Christ and migration now, as well as laws pertaining. There still exists liberty to move about between most nations now. The fact of laws regulating who enters what country for what reasons and the impact of doing so on the citizens of said nation do not mitigate that such liberty still exists. It has simply evolved to match the times, for the benefit of all. There is no suggestion that the Mosaic laws pertaining to immigrants is akin to unfettered liberty to enter Israel on one's own terms, anymore than such exists now with regard to entering the United States. The "sojourner" was still expected to obey God's Law within the land, just as hopeful immigrants are expected to do so now in order to enter the US.
"We DO note the reality that Jesus specifically came to preach good news to the poor,"
We note that you pervert this teaching to satisfy your marxist leanings. I've provided scholarly analysis of this topic...an analysis which you've demonstrated you've likely not bothered to read and study, and certainly that you've made no effort to provide counter scholarly analysis to refute or rebut it.
Art, of course you are correct about the “welcomed” comment. It’s one more area where Dan imposes his partisan, politically motivated opinions on something where the Bible is silent. I pointed this out in the original post, people imposing things that fit their purpose where the Scriptures are silent.
It’s also interesting that even Jesus adult “poverty” was Him choosing to live a life of focus to His Father’s mission. It’s also interesting that He laid aside His natural wealth and power temporarily while on earth, but that part gets ignored in the name of the almighty narrative.
I could, before the fact, post links to at least three churches where people I know will preach the “homeless Jesus gospel” tomorrow or Monday. This BS notion that the “homeless Jesus gospel” isn’t a “serious” thing is just ignoring reality.
Also, as you pointed out, to draw a direct correlation between 21st century homelessness (as a political issue) and the inability to find a “hotel room” temporarily is a false equivalence. I’d argue that those who continue to use it, knowing that it’s false to support a political agenda are intentionally misleading those they are supposed to be leading.
The problem here is that you two AR failing to understand so very much that becomes nearly impossible to know where to begin.
For instance, if Jesus had been a businessman making money hand over fist all his life and there was no context of all his teachings about poverty and wealth, then to pick out that in Bethlehem they had no place to stay and eventually were chased out by murderous Tyrant and his police force, then, then only, then you might have a point and bringing up the Bethlehem and no place to stay situation.
But that's not the case.
We have Isaiah's prophecy about preaching good news specifically to the poor and marginalized. We have Mary's Song about lifting up the poor and bringing down the wealthy and mighty. We have all the many teachings about wealth and poverty throughout the Bible leading up to Jesus and including Jesus.
Clearly, in the Bible, wealth and poverty are Central, pivotal issues... some of the most talked about topics in the Bible.
In that ver real context, noting that Jesus was indeed without a home or place to stay in Bethlehem is pertinent to the greater teachings of the Bible and Jesus.
And I could go on about that, but you all don't appear to even understand that much, Marshall opting to even just spiritualize Jesus teaching about poverty and wealth into meaningless and vapid bland milquetoast vomitus.
And that's just one missing point in all of y'all's comments. There just isn't enough time, nor apparent willingness to understand on your part. Or maybe it's just an inability to understand. After all, and your all's theology, you believe that some people are simply blinded and deafened by God with an inability to hear or understand. Maybe you're right. Maybe that's what's Happening Here.
I’m going to start by pointing out your continued use of voice transcription and the bizarre ways that it comes out, and you’re calling my sanity into question when I did the same thing. I know there won’t be an apology or acknowledgement of it, but I thought I’d mention it.
Your comments demonstrate that you either didn’t read the post, didn’t understand the post, or are just choosing to use the post to advance a political narrative and agenda.
We do understand what you’re trying to do. You’re trying to impose a 20th/21st century progressive political agenda on a 1st century narrative.
You claim Art is spiritualizing the comments about poverty (given the entirety of Jesus teaching it’s not unreasonable to assign some spiritual dimension to those teachings), yet you insist on stripping away any possible spiritual dimension from Jesus teaching. Send like two sides of the same coin. Although, given Jesus focus on the spiritual, I’d think that erring on the side of spiritual might not be a bad option.
Beyond that, you are illustrating the point of my post incredibly well. You are drawing conclusions, adding details, and twisting the narrative in areas where scripture is silent, in order to advocate for progressive political policies.
I also appreciate your shallow, surface level, eisegesis. Jesus chose to be/was commanded to live the life of itenerant rabbi for 3 years out of his 33 year life, therefore He is equivalent to a modern homeless person. Jesus family couldn’t find a “hotel room” after the tax hungry government forced them to visit their ancestral hometown, therefore they’re equal to modern “homeless refugees”. By choosing to ignore or discard the cultural context, and the spiritual dimension, in favor of cheap political posturing you think you score points somehow.
Thank you, ever so much. You’ll never know how much I’ve appreciated it.
That last shot about theology was interesting. Given the ample scriptural support, including the very teachings of Jesus for that position, I should be surprised that you are taking the cheap shots.
But then I look at how you tend to deal with scripture that doesn’t fit your narrative and it makes more sense.
"For instance, if Jesus had been a businessman making money hand over fist all his life and there was no context of all his teachings about poverty and wealth..."
But you ignore context in favor of your socialist agenda. I provided context in my link regarding the original language. It's akin to leftist perversion of the Constitution...and in this case I'll refer to the 2nd Amendment...as you ignore how it was understood both by those who wrote it and those who ratified it. With Scripture, you ignore how language was used when it is convenient for you to do so for the sake of your lefty agenda.
In addition, you conflate all passages that have the mere mention of the poor with those that speak to those "poor in spirit". Christ's central message was NOT about the poor among us, but about the Kingdom of Heaven and what it takes to get there. While He spoke of treating the needy well...to do so as if dealing with Him directly..., that has nothing to do with His "prime directive" in coming to us in human form. This, too, is not all that ambiguous to those who read Scripture without preconceived notions or personal agenda (aside from the agenda of learning what it teaches).
"We have Isaiah's prophecy about preaching good news specifically to the poor and marginalized."
Why do you add "marginalize"? I know of no translation that uses this term, unless there's some new socialist version upon which you rely. Thus, we can only say the prophesy refers to "the poor" and again, what did it mean by using that term and how was it understood at the time? I again point you to the link you didn't spend a nano-second to even consider reading it, much less any time actually reading it. This goes for the Magnificat as well...but you know more than Biblical scholars to waste your time reading what they say about it.
"Clearly, in the Bible, wealth and poverty are Central, pivotal issues... some of the most talked about topics in the Bible."
I addressed this as well and provided evidence to show it is untrue. You simply want it to be true because you're a lefty. Once more, while how we treat the poor is indicative of our devotion to Christ, it is not central to the teachings of Scripture.
"In that ver real context, noting that Jesus was indeed without a home or place to stay in Bethlehem is pertinent to the greater teachings of the Bible and Jesus."
Marginally, perhaps (greatness coming from humble beginnings), but not as if that's the main take-away...or even an important one...from the Christmas story. Not even close.
"...Marshall opting to even just spiritualize Jesus teaching about poverty and wealth into meaningless and vapid bland milquetoast vomitus."
I didn't "spriritualize" Christ's teachings. HE did. His concern was for our everlasting souls and their potential destination...our relationship with God made distant by the Fall of Man. You ignore it for the sake of your marxism and posturing. And if you think the Kingdom of Heaven is "meaningless and vapid bland milquetoast vomitus", then you're far less a Christian than even I gave you credit for being!
"Maybe you're right. Maybe that's what's Happening Here."
What's happening here is what happens all the time: You pervert the teachings of Christ thereby demonstrating that you don't care what those teachings are, so much as what you demand they must be.
I would also submit that what's happening can be described as your failure to support ANYTHING you prefer Scripture would say and rather than dare condescend to imagine that there exist real and serious problems with your "understanding" (a word I use VERY loosely), you attack those who continue to provide support for theirs. We understand you perfectly, Dan. Saying we don't is simply your tactic for avoiding having to justify with facts and "hard data" your leftist positions.
Post a Comment