In the Christmas story I remember from Matthew and Luke - no, His earthly family wasn't seeking refuge; they were seeking a place to stay for the night. His earthly parents were on a specific journey, for a specific reason. It wasn't until later, after the wise men, that God told them to go to Egypt.
I understand what this pastor is trying to do; but it's a poor parallel.
Russell Moore of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission has declared that:
"This is a gospel issue. First of all, our Lord Jesus himself was a so-called “illegal immigrant.” Fleeing, like many of those in our country right now, a brutal political situation, our Lord’s parents sojourned with him in Egypt (Matt. 2:13-23)."
But that is not Christmas - that is AFTER.
I've seen people post what is on the sign elsewhere (mostly Facebook) and when I mention WHY they had to have the baby in the stable (in their hometown), things get pretty quiet.
Yes, they had to escape murder from a frightened politician but that was not the Christmas story but afterwards.
We read in Luke 2 "And all went to be registered, each to his own town."
You don't remember? It was you and your dictionary versus J.I. Packer, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Anne Graham Lotz, John MacArthur, John Piper, Ligon Duncan, Joni Eareckson Tada, etc...
I have NO clue what you are speaking of.
What I said in what you quoted was that Christmas is the remembrance of the birth of Christ and is likely not on the actual day of the birth of Christ.
The OP was saying that the term Christmas should be in the Bible to justify using Easter in the Bible even though Easter didn't exist at the time - nor did Christmas as we celebrate it today.
But what the OP is speaking of has nothing to do with the birth of Christ but what occurred AFTER He was born and more than likely after he was over a year old.
So the whole Bethlehem/no room at the inn/birthing in a stable have nothing to do with being a refugee since they were in their own hometown.
THAT is the subject we are addressing.