Hilarious: What Would Happen If Jesus Were Born In U.S. Today?

Infant Discovered In Barn, Child Protective Services Launch Probe

Nazareth Carpenter Being Held On Charges Involving Underage Mother

12/14/06 --"Information Clearing House" - Bethlehem, Judea - Authorities were today alerted by a concerned citizen who noticed a family living in a barn. Upon arrival, Family Protective Service personnel, accompanied by police, took into protective care an infant child named Jesus, who had been wrapped in strips of cloth and placed in a feeding trough by his 14-year old mother, Mary of Nazareth.

During the confrontation, a man identified as Joseph, also of Nazareth, attempted to stop the social workers. Joseph, aided by several local shepherds and some unidentified foreigners, tried to forestall efforts to take the child, but were restrained by the police.

At one point Joseph became confrontational and delusional claiming the child was "God's child". An officer, who used a Tazer device on Joseph, stated,"The man became uncooperative. We feared for his own safety and that of the child so we used a non-lethal weapon and restrained him in handcuffs. This was the same man I detained earlier for attempting to take a donkey on a public highway. At that time he incredibly claimed a 'common right to his conveyance of choice on a public highway' explaining that his donkey only used the grassy portion and was nointerference to the faster vehicles.

He showed no identification, said he had no job and claimed to not have a social security number-laughing and uttering some non-sense that it was the 'mark of the beast'. He was cooperative at that time so I let him go with a highway warning and a charge of vagrancy. It's a trend with these types of people: We find that they start in minor trouble like traffic incidents and graduate to more acts of civil disobedience. Eventually they cross-over and break one of the many many laws of and for government. Still, I can't understand why he became uncooperative to the point that we had to use non-lethal force-after all we're just doing the job of the 'consent of the governed'. Don't these people understand that they must submit to authority that is in their best interests?"

Also being held for questioning are three foreigners who incredibly allege to be "wise men" from an eastern country. The INS and Homeland Security officials are seeking information about these who may be in the country illegally. A source with the INS states that they had no passports, but were in possession of gold and other possibly illegal substances. They resisted arrest saying that they had been warned by God to avoid officials in Jerusalem and to return quickly to their own country. The chemical substances in their possession will be tested. An officer at the scene said the suspicious enclosures for the chemical substances might constitute "drug paraphernalia". The agent for Homeland Security stated that he contacted the IRS under the suspicion that this gold might be linked to a foreign trust method of "under-reporting income".

An agent commented: "The presence of paraphernalia, chemical substances, gold, and foreign people without passports is certainly suspicious. Terrorists are known to fund terrorism activities through illegal drug trading. Or these could be part of an illegal-alien smuggling ring from Mexico. In either case the claim that these three are Kings is unsubstantiated as they are not diplomats registered with the Department of State."

The owner of the barn is also being held for questioning. The manager of Bethlehem Inn faces possible revocation of his license for violating health and safety regulations by allowing people to stay in the stable. Civil authorities are also investigating the zoning violations involved in maintaining livestock in a commercially-zoned district. The owner of the barn claimed he provided the lodging free hence the guests did not need to register.

He was noted to exclaim, "For heaven's sake, its Jesus! Can't we forego government intrusion into our lives for the Christ-child celebration?" Authorities were not amused and demanded his identification and his Inn lodging and restaurant board-of-health certification.

The location of the minor child will not be released, and the prospect for a quick resolution to this case is doubtful. Asked about when Jesus would be returned to his mother, a Child Protective Service spokesperson said, "The father is middle-aged and the mother definitely underage. This is suspicious behavior worthy of investigation." When asked who these people were and where they were from, the spokesman replied: "Both parents refuse to provide identification. Both claim no social security number and provided no marriage license.

The father claims a license from heaven as a common-law right. They have no birth certificate for the baby Jesus. In this sense they are deemed uncooperative by us and are probably members of some anti-government common-law movement group. I simply can't imagine why parents would not want to register the birth and citizenship of a baby such as Jesus!

In America everybody does this--it's for the welfare of the child. Why would they not want to register that baby Jesus as a UNITED STATES CITIZEN and hence leave his real citizenship in question? If they are not hiding something, what do they have to fear?

I tried to reason with the father. I asked the father the question as to why he never applied for baby Jesus' social security number explaining that Jesus could have earning's credit's and receive retirement benefits. The father uttered total non-sense about 'rendering unto Caesar', more religious 'mark-of-the-beast' dogma, and retirement in God's kingdom.

Frankly I'm flabbergasted by these types of people. It's a trend we wish to stop. They never volunteer and this we view as uncooperative behavior. They never apply for social security numbers, they never register the birth of their children, they refuse to register to vote for our two parties, they don't show us identification when we ask 'for their papers" kindly, they refuse to send their children to public education under a homeschool banner, they claim adherence to God's law and not man's, they claim government harassment as the reason they must be transients, and they protest filling-out voluntary-compliance government forms. Frankly, these types of anti-government people are always uncooperative. We are checking with officials in Nazareth to determine what the legal relationship is between father, mother and baby."

Joseph has admitted taking Mary from her home in Nazareth because of a census requirement. However, because she was obviously pregnant when they left, investigators are looking into other reasons for their departure. Joseph is being held without bond on charges of molestation, kidnapping, child endangerment, and statutory rape.

The local prosecutor had this to say: "I feel confident that this man is either suffering from a psychological problem or is hiding his uncooperative, anti-social and anti-government viewpoints under the disguise of religious dogma. Everybody is entitled to a viewpoint but the defining line is statutory criminal activity and possible terrorist threats. We will weigh the evidence collected and then decide the extent of the charges and whether to prosecute."

A spokesman for the court said this: "We always consider the welfare of people first. If this case is brought to trial we will judge it on the basis of social welfare for the child and criminal activity in violation of law for government. If brought to trial they will be allowed court-determined due process before a jury of their peers to present factual evidence on their behalf. Rest assured, they will NOT be permitted to express their view of the law to the jury-even though they claim to operate under God's law and not man's. This could 'unduly influence' the jury.

They will be appointed an attorney free of charge as attorneys are always for incompetents only. Rest assured that even though our incarceration rate is the highest in the world, the People still claim our courts and judges are the fairest in the world. We respect their religious viewpoints however, they will be judged and prosecuted to the full extent of our government statutory law and we will not allow their religious viewpoints to interfere with our government statutory law in the administration of our justice."

Mary was taken to the Bethlehem General Hospital where she is being examined by doctors. Charges may also be filed against her for endangerment. She will also undergo psychiatric evaluation because of her claim that she is a virgin and that the child is from God.

The director of the psychiatric wing said, "I don't profess to have the right to tell people what to believe, but when their beliefs adversely affect the safety and well-being of others - in this case her child - we must consider her a danger to others. The unidentified drugs at the scene didn't help her case, but I'm confidant that with the proper therapy regimen we can get her back on her feet."

A spokesperson for the governor's office said, "Who knows what was going through their heads? But regardless, their treatment of the child was inexcusable, and the involvement of these others frightening. There is much we don't know about this case, but for the sake of the child and the public, you can be assured that we will pursue this matter to the end."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15906.htm

0

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I think this needs a few changes.

This story got me thinking a bit, but a comparison to the biblical accounts of Christmas raises a few questions.

First of all, Joseph wasn't unemployed -- he seems to have owned his own carpentry business. The story could make use of the fact that artisan type trades, whilst honourable, were very low in the social scheme of things in ancient Israel.

Second, it seems strange that Joseph wouldn't apply for a Social Security number but happily 'registered' for the government census. Points of interest -- Joseph probably wouldn't have had to leave Nazareth without good reason, as this story points out. However, that only happens in the Gospel of Luke. In the Gospel of Matthew Joseph and Mary married before Jesus' birth and lived in Bethlehem all along. It is likely that the relationship would be illegal in most Western countries today.

The story is a little inaccurate when it portrays Joseph as some sort of anti-Government whack-job. In Luke's gospel Joseph and Mary are really quite conscientious about having Jesus circumcised and subsequently presented in the Temple as the Law required. These would have been the contemporary equivalents of registering the child's birth (remember that religion and government weren't as separate as USAians have come to expect!)

The story here could also have made use of what the Bible (at least, Matthew's Gospel) says happened. When the King found out that someone claimed to be the King of Israel had been born he had all the young children in Bethlehem put to death. Jesus only survived because Joseph had been warned in a dream to escape. And escape they did -- across the border to Egypt, where they lived as refugees for several years. Once the political climate settled the family returned, but to the northern areas of Israel. So not only was Jesus a bleeding heart liberal, he was also a refugee peacenik who refused to hang round for what was comin' to him.

Still, thanks for posting it. Whilst the details will need to be changed to suit the situation here in .au this may turn up in my Christmas sermon!
--
A tidy house is the sign of a stolen computer.

I think this needs a few changes.

you make plenty of good points, but I will disagree with one: the circumcision and presentation of Jesus. The Law which requiered that was the Jewish law, but not the one of the Roman occupiers. However, it was the Roman law which Jesus addressed, at least externally as an illustration, in his "render unto Cesar". So while indeed religion and law were not separated, Mosaic Law and the Roman occupation government were totally distinct to the Jewish faithful and patriots. This is also the reason why tax-collectors were seen by most Jews as not only as corrput officials, but as collaborators to the pagan occupiers.

Lastly - the logic of this story is not that the accusations made by the government officials or reported by the reporter made are true, but that in fact they are ridiculous. This is why the Mother of God is called delusional for claiming to be a virgin (which she definitely was, as prophecized by the prophet Isaiah whose text when translated into Greek in the so-called Septuagint version of the Bible was translated by Jews living about 2 centuries before Christ as "parthenos" which clearly refers to a virgin and not to a "young woman" which the Hebrew "alama" might mean. Their choice of a highly precise Greek word indicating physiological virginity cleary points to their understanding of the meaning of the text of Isaiah. Besides a 'young woman' giving birth can hardly be called a "sign" of anything).

Happy Christmas to you and your congregation!

VS

Motto: chown -R linux:GNU world
Distros: Debian, Kanotix, Frenzy, Damn Small Linux

I think this needs a few changes.

One more thing just crossed my mind. You write that Jesus was a bleeding heart liberal. I am not sure about that. The categories of liberal vs. conservative are really meaningless of most non-USAians (good expression) such as myself as they refer to two groups which are reflective of a USAian reality. Take for instance this:

Would Jesus agree with homosexual marriage? With abortions? With no-fault divorces? With secular education? With free sex? I really don't think so. So He would be a moral conservative? I don't think that either. The likes of the hate-filled Evangelicals here (think Robertson) or conservatives (think Gingrich) would been sternly condemned by Him. While He definitely would categorically oppose US Imperial wars a la Iraq and while he would *not* support Zionism, neither would He admire the secular/socialist governments like Cuba.

I believe that Christianity, at least in its historical reality and traditional sense, cannot be either conservative or liberal. The liberals want to go "left", the conservatives "right", but Christ showed us the way "up". Also remember the words about the devil's name being "legion" (meaning "very many"). That shows that evil has many expressions, including seemingly opposed camps (such as communists vs. nazis vs. capitalists etc.).

Finally, "liberalism" and "conservatism" are definitely of "this world" whereas while Christians of *in* this world, they are not *of* this world. All Christians have their citizenship in Heaven (Philippians 3:20) and they all renounce the world at their baptism by pledging three times to “renounce Satan and all his deeds, and all his angels, and any service to him, and all his pride”

Cheers!

Motto: chown -R linux:GNU world
Distros: Debian, Kanotix, Frenzy, Damn Small Linux

Hmm...

Whoops, I think you misunderstood me slightly there -- I myself wouldn't consider Jesus a bleeding heart liberal. And you're right in that the categories of 'liberal' and 'conservative' are that useful, even for USAians. They are far too broad and vague, especially when there are many different things they can refer to -- morality, ethical system, economics, political position and so on.

I agree with your idea that Christianity defines its own position on these things and doesn't need to use the world's categories. A false dichotomy only serves to polarise, divide and ultimately conquer. Just like modern politics!

I think this is best demonstrated by the group that Jesus chose as disciples. We don't know a lot about many of them, but we do know that there was a member of the 'Zealots' -- a terrorist anti-occupation group -- and another was a tax collector, who represented the worst kinds of collaboration with the Romans. My those long walks through Judea must have been interesting...!

Jesus also had tradesmen in his group. He ate with prostitutes and other sinners, yet he also associated with Pharisees, centurions, synagogue leaders and so on. The only distinguishing feature was Jesus chose to associate with them and they chose to associate back.

Which brings us back to the Christmas story, where the angel tells the shepherds that the advent of Jesus is 'good news for all the people.' Even the people God revealed the advent to were a strange bunch, at least considered by the rest of society -- shepherds, foreigners who practised pagan religions, and unmarried mums. Of course, God considered them differently.

Once again, God does things the way he wants with no regard at all for the dichotomy the world would impose.

By the way, in which particular tradition were you baptised? My own tradition is a little strange in that we don't practice water baptism, and I'm not familiar with the words you used in your other post.

--
A tidy house is the sign of a stolen computer.

Hmm...

A non-hostile personal question? I think I will make an exception and answer this one ;-))

I was baptized in the Orthodox Church and I still am a practicing member of its traditional (meaning: Old Calander & Patristic) part (-: although one forum member believes me to be a convert to Islam :-)

My turn for a personal one here: how can you have a non-water baptism when the word baptism (from the Greek "baptizmo") means "to be immersed"?

Kind regards & many cheers!

VS

Motto: chown -R linux:GNU world
Distros: Debian, Kanotix, Frenzy, Damn Small Linux

Ah, thought so

I thought it might have been Orthodox, but in rural Australia towns you normally get one Catholic church, six forms of Protestant churches and Jehovah's Witnesses. It's been a while since I've been near anything Eastern, if you don't count Chinese food!

On the non-water baptism -- easy! We don't baptise at all. I belong to the Salvation Army, which in most respects is as Protestant as the come (my theological training has been via Baptist, Anglican and Uniting Church [Australian conglomerate of Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational churches] colleges.)

The main difference between the Army and most other Protestant churches is in regards to the Sacraments (ie Eucharist and Baptism.) Whilst we recognise them as legitimate means of grace we don't see them as being strictly essential to the Christian life. They were originally part of the Salvation Army's practice, but were stopped in response to two problems.

First, there were many people within the Salvation Army who understood them to be the essence of God's grace, not symbols of a spiritual reality. The result was that people would take the Sacraments and ignore the inner work of the Spirit. People assumed that because they had taken part in particular ceremonies their growth as Christians was complete. The only way to get people to concentrate on the 'real work' was to remove the symbols and the confusion with it.

That's the 'official' reason. The second reason was something of a catalyst. The Salvation Army commissioned (i.e. ordained) women as officers (ministers) from very early on (mid to late nineteenth century). However, this caused a scandal amongst other churches -- they were happy for women to preach and do religious work, but they would not stand by while women administered the Sacraments! The obvious solution (at the time) was to prevent women doing this work. However, that implied that women were inferior to men, and so the answer was to stop everyone -- including men -- doing it. It wasn't expected, but it solved two problems in one.

Since then the Salvation Army has developed its own theology of the Sacraments, and goes to pains to point out that it is not non-sacramental. Rather, the life of the Salvationist is a sacrament. Baptism is by the Holy Spirit, in the sense that he comes upon us as promised by Jesus in John 14 and exemplified in Acts 2 (although we're not a 'Pentecostal' church in the modern sense of the term.) In this sense we are fully immersed, just not by water.

Eucharist is a life of thanksgiving and sacrifice. This is expressed best in the hymn of Albert Orsborn:

My life must be Christ's broken bread,
My love his outpoured wine,
A cup o'erfilled, a table spread
Beneath his name and sign.
That other souls, refreshed and fed,
May share his life through mine.

My all is in the Master's hands
For him to bless and break;
Beyond the brook his winepress stands
And thence my way I take,
Resolved the whole of love's demands
To give, for his dear sake.

Lord, let me share that grace of thine
Wherewith thou didst sustain
The burden of the fruitful vine,
The gift of buried grain.
Who dies with thee, O Word divine,
Shall rise and live again.

Albert Orsborn (1886-1967)

I get the feeling I've opened a can of worms here...!
--
A tidy house is the sign of a stolen computer.

Ah, thought so

Thanks for the most interesting explanation. In my boundless ignorance about so many things I did not even know that the Salvation Army was a separate denomination! Thanks for clarifying this for me. Your view of the Eucharist in very interesting and while I very much agree that an "immersion" into a "life in Christ" is essential, I would, as I am sure you have guessed, have some objections to the rejection of the baptism by water. First, Saint John the Baptist and Christ Himself were baptizing/baptized by water even though their lives were also lives "immersed" in God. Furthermore, the "Sacraments" (as used in Western parlance) were called "Mysteries" in the original Church (whose main theological language was Greek). What kind of "mystery" would there be in simple baptismal water, or wine and bread? None indeed. When Christ said "this is my body" and "this is my blood" He was pointing not at His limbs, but at the bread and wine of the Passover Seder table was He not? So there, indeed, would be a "mystery": wine and bread actually becoming Body and Blood of the Messiah and this over and over again in the timeless (literally, as in "outside time" as a natural phenomenon of matter and gravity) Church. I strongly believe that this was the understanding of these events and issues in the original Church and the consensus among the Church Fathers ("consensus patrum"). Why change? ;-)

Anyway - just ignore these ramblings of mine if you prefer. I have a passion for comparative theology and Church history, but I have no right to expect others to want to share this with me!

Kind regards,

VS

Motto: chown -R linux:GNU world
Distros: Debian, Kanotix, Frenzy, Damn Small Linux

Quite understandable!

You're not the only person to have misunderstood the ecclesiastical identity of the Salvation Army. It's something of an issue for us, because we're far better known for our charity work than our evangelical work. There is even debate within our ranks as to whether or not we are a church. We started as a paradenominational mission society in the nineteenth century, and even as late as the 1960s we told ourselves 'we are not a church -- we are a permanent mission to the unconverted.'

That's not such an issue anymore. Yet we still need to keep reminding ourselves of the reason God saw fit to raise us up as a movement.

On the issue of the sacraments: it's probably not quite right to say we have rejected them, because we haven't. We still understand their usefulness, but we simply don't observe them. As I mentioned before the Salvation Army is primarily concerned with evangelism. It is equally concerned with holiness (in the neo-Methodist sense). As such we sometimes have to make a choice -- if these particular rites and rituals (which are good) get in the way of people's salvation and holiness we would rather do without.

In the early days Sacramental observance did impede our work in these areas. People understood Christianity in terms of the rituals they saw the church performing and didn't look beyond that to the spiritual reality being enacted. So when the issue of women administering the Sacraments arose the decision was made to simply cease their use.

I don't quite agree with your view of what Jesus meant when he instituted the Eucharist. I believe his words were a simple metaphor. I'm not also sure that John the Baptist and Jesus intended baptism to be observed for all time, although it's a deeply symbolic and meaningful way of welcoming someone into the Church. But given my paucity of experience with these matters I'm not going to get into an argument about it!

Still, the Army won't deny anyone the right to partake if they choose. Indeed, if I'm visiting another church and the Eucharist is celebrated I'll quite happily join in, if appropriate. Neither will we prevent anyone being baptised. We simply won't administer these things officially. We do believe the Reformation doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, which means (to us) that there is no reason why we as believers can't administer the Sacraments. This means that if someone happens to bring some bread and grape juice to a Bible study at my house there's no reason why we can't break it, give thanks and ponder the meaning of Jesus' death.

There you go. If debates were decided on the amount of rambling in a post I'd be winning!

--
A tidy house is the sign of a stolen computer.

Quite understandable!

Dear friend,

Thanks a lot for all your very interesting explanations. I got to read up more on the Salvation Army's history as it seems quite fascinating.

I wish you a joy and peace filled Christmas!

Kind regards,

VS

Motto: chown -R linux:GNU world
Distros: Debian, Kanotix, Frenzy, Damn Small Linux

Are you sure you're right?

"Either Christianity is true or it's false. If you bet that it's true, and you believe in God and submit to Him, then if it IS true, you've gained God, heaven, and everything else. If it's false, you've lost nothing, but you've had a good life marked by peace and the illusion that ultimately, everything makes sense. If you bet that Christianity is not true, and it's false, you've lost nothing. But if you bet that it's false, and it turns out to be true, you've lost everything and you get to spend eternity in hell."
Blaise Pascal

Are you sure you're right?

I have never liked this famous "bet" (in French: le pari de Pascal) in which he seems to reduce much of the experience of faith to a "rational hell-avoidance strategy" of some kind. However, he also wrote much deeper things about the faith. After his death, the following note was found sewn into the lining of his coat:

*******
Memorial

In the year of grace, 1654, on Monday, 23rd of November, Feast of St Clement, Pope and Martyr, and others in the Martyrology. Vigil of St Chrysogonus, Martyr, and others.

From about half past ten in the evening until about half past twelve.

Fire!

God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob,
Not of the philosophers and scholars.
Certitude. Certitude. Feeling. Joy. Peace.
God of Jesus Christ.
"Thy God and my God."
Forgetfulness of the world and of everything, except God.
He is to be found only in the ways taught in the Gospel.
Greatness of the Human Soul.

"Righteous Father, the world hath not known Thee,
But I have known Thee."

Joy, joy, joy, tears of joy.
I have separated myself from Him.
"They have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters."
"My God, wilt Thou leave me?"
Let me not be separated from Him eternally.

"This is eternal life, That they might know Thee, the only true God,
And Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent."

Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ.

I have separated myself from Him:
I have fled from Him,
denied Him,
crucified Him.
Let me never be separated from Him.
We keep hold of Him only by the ways taught in the Gospel.
Renunciation, total and sweet.
Total submission to Jesus Christ and to my director.
Eternally in joy for a day's training on earth.
"I will not forget thy words."

Amen.
*******

Beautiful words to express the unexpressable!

VS
Motto: chown -R linux:GNU world
Distros: Debian, Kanotix, Frenzy, Damn Small Linux

Syndicate content