JESUS birth story

December 12, 2008

Although, just because Herod sent them to Bethlehem does not mean they went to Bethlehem.

There is no source and no scholarship that suggests otherwise. A plain reading of the text also indicates that they went to Bethlehem. If Jesus was some place else

They did follow the star after all, and not Herod. It could be that Herod would have heard about the babe born in the manger from someone in Bethlehem or would continue to look for children born in that time frame, and would therefore continue to search for JESUS. Indications from the story are that they were looking for the child even after killing all the babies in Bethlehem.

With all respect, you are really reaching.

Matt 2:1 in the NKJV says they came after JESUS was born.

Yes, but it does not say "two years after he was born." That completely unlikely.

Also, verse 21 states that they did not return to Judea but went straight to Galilee.

Luke 2:39 says they went to Jeruselm after returning and then after dedicating Jesus returned to Nazareth/Galilee.

I could have believed this post until I re-read the part about them traveling to Egypt and back in less than 30 days with a newborn and a mother who just gave birth.

Nothing unbelievable about it all.

Actually, further revue reveals that Herod also ordered the children in the surrounding provinces to be killed as well which indicats that the wise men may not have gone to Bethlehem and the child may not have been there.

It refers to the surrounding villiages. It not a widespread attack. It was quite local, and it likely, that the house they had was either in Bethlehem or one of the surrounding villages. The fact is, they were not up in Nazareth, they were in the immediate area and were close enough to threatened by Herod's attack force.

More study and prayer.

December 12, 2008

So far, the simplest answer seems to be the best. The wisemen came to a house that was not in Bethlehem.

Yes, Herod told them to go to Bethlehem, but they followed the star.

This allows for the fulfillment of the laws of GOD, the immediate return to Nazareth, the flight into egypt and returning to Galilee without going to Jerusalem.

It seems to have no real holes in it.

What say thee?
Except that if Herod sent the troops to Bethlehem and they were ein Nazereth, why flee?

Ummmmm cause God said so?????

Nazareth is in the North. If Jesus were two years old, they would have already been back in Nazareth, and not threatened in the least. Herod was only concerned with a certain town and its immediate suburbs. Jesus would have been in no danger, as no Messiah was prophesied to come from Nazareth, so Bethelehem would have been the only place attacked.

December 12, 2008

As for the chronology of when the wise men visited, Focus on Family did an 'Adventures in Odyssey' story once in which the wise men showed up directly after the dedication and visited the family at a (rented?) house. Joseph had the warning dream, and the family took off for Egypt, using the wise men's gifts to finance the journey.

Luke says they returned to Galilee after the Dedication:

And when they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth. And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom. And the favor of God was upon him.

(Luke 2:39-40)

kross · December 13, 2008

Although, just because Herod sent them to Bethlehem does not mean they went to Bethlehem.
There is no source and no scholarship that suggests otherwise. A plain reading of the text also indicates that they went to Bethlehem. If Jesus was some place else

They did follow the star after all, and not Herod. It could be that Herod would have heard about the babe born in the manger from someone in Bethlehem or would continue to look for children born in that time frame, and would therefore continue to search for JESUS. Indications from the story are that they were looking for the child even after killing all the babies in Bethlehem.
With all respect, you are really reaching.

Matt 2:1 in the NKJV says they came after JESUS was born.
Yes, but it does not say "two years after he was born." That completely unlikely.

Also, verse 21 states that they did not return to Judea but went straight to Galilee.
Luke 2:39 says they went to Jeruselm after returning and then after dedicating Jesus returned to Nazareth/Galilee.

I could have believed this post until I re-read the part about them traveling to Egypt and back in less than 30 days with a newborn and a mother who just gave birth.
Nothing unbelievable about it all.

Actually, further revue reveals that Herod also ordered the children in the surrounding provinces to be killed as well which indicats that the wise men may not have gone to Bethlehem and the child may not have been there.
It refers to the surrounding villiages. It not a widespread attack. It was quite local, and it likely, that the house they had was either in Bethlehem or one of the surrounding villages. The fact is, they were not up in Nazareth, they were in the immediate area and were close enough to threatened by Herod's attack force.
More study and prayer.

There is no indication in the Luke scriptures that they left and came back.

But, it is really just one of those doubtful things that is not worth a lot of debate.

December 14, 2008

There is no indication in the Luke scriptures that they left and came back.

I never said they did.

Botz · December 14, 2008

I think you have to understand the two narratives in the context of different time zones...Jewish biblical writing often consolidates events to such an extent that we are prone to mis-interpret what is written because we look for the minutiae when we have been given a broad synopsis....this is particularly true in the gospels, where one writer might leave out much that another writer includes, and it can be confusing trying to correlate them.

In the case of the birth of the L-rd Jesus the difference becomes clear especially when you consider Luke 2:41 Now His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover.

Matthew focuses on an event that occured when Mary and Joseph had again come up to Jerusalem, not for the Census at Bethlehem their tribal town, but for a celebration of the Passover...just like Jews from all over Israel and the surrounding nations would come and stay in Bethlehem and other nearby towns that had close access to Jerusalem.

Matt2:1 Now afterJesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, 2

December 14, 2008

In the case of the birth of the L-rd Jesus the difference becomes clear especially when you consider Luke 2:41 Now His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover.

Matthew focuses on an event that occured when Mary and Joseph had again come up to Jerusalem, not for the Census at Bethlehem their tribal town, but for a celebration of the Passover...just like Jews from all over Israel and the surrounding nations would come and stay in Bethlehem and other nearby towns that had close access to Jerusalem.

Yes, but that is 12 years after the birth narrative, so what does that have to do with that subject?

The little word 'after' gives another clue, at least in the context of this passage, and is an example of 'time' being 'concertinared'.

I believe it is significant that Herod attempts to kill all those children of 2 and under, as it takes in what the Magi have revealed to Him, and also supports the different scenario, and different time frame.

Yes, but the assumption is that the Magi told Herod that the start appeared two years ago. The Bible does not say that. Most people based the view that the Magi appeared two years after the birth based on what Herod, an irrational psychotic madman did.

RebekahDavid · December 14, 2008

I think you have to understand the two narratives in the context of different time zones...Jewish biblical writing often consolidates events to such an extent that we are prone to mis-interpret what is written because we look for the minutiae when we have been given a broad synopsis....this is particularly true in the gospels, where one writer might leave out much that another writer includes, and it can be confusing trying to correlate them.

In the case of the birth of the L-rd Jesus the difference becomes clear especially when you consider Luke 2:41 Now His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover.

Matthew focuses on an event that occured when Mary and Joseph had again come up to Jerusalem, not for the Census at Bethlehem their tribal town, but for a celebration of the Passover...just like Jews from all over Israel and the surrounding nations would come and stay in Bethlehem and other nearby towns that had close access to Jerusalem.

Matt2:1 Now afterJesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, 2

Botz · December 14, 2008

Hi Rebekah...glad it helped.

Shiloh...they went to Passover at Jerusalem 'every year'. I don't know why you skip to 12 years..I did not say or imply that.

It is not just a question of basing the two years on what Herod is recorded as saying either, although it has relevance whatever his state of mind...one can fairly presume that even an irrational psychotic madman can with the aid of those in his pay...make a fair guess to what the Magi were on about. To me it is as though he is taking no chances and killing any child that seems to fit the bill....they might have said it was a year ago...therefore Herod is fairly confident that by killing all the children of two and under Jesus will not be overlooked.

Matt2:3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 Gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born.

It was not just Herod who feared an end to his kingship...it was also the corrupt leadership that surrounded him....and he got advice from the wisest of them.

December 14, 2008

Shiloh...they went to Passover at Jerusalem 'every year'. I don't know why you skip to 12 years..I did not say or imply that.

I did not say you implied that. I am making the point, that Luke 2:41 is not part of the birth narrative. Jesus most likely born during Succot. I skip to twelve years because Luke 2:41 begins there.

To me it is as though he is taking no chances and killing any child that seems to fit the bill....they might have said it was a year ago...therefore Herod is fairly confident that by killing all the children of two and under Jesus will not be overlooked.

I agree. It is important to note though that in ancient Israel, a child was considered a year old at birth. Meaning, that "two years old" would not be the same as we reckon such today.

It is more likely that the wisemen visited Jesus within the same week of His birth, not two years after He was born.