The Two "Christmas" Stories

[37818]

1) Luke 2:11-12, For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

2) Matthew 2:9-11, When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

 

[Charlie24]

1) Luke 2:11-12, For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

2) Matthew 2:9-11, When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

Do you think maybe it took a considerable amount of time for the wise men to find Christ, being that He was now in a house (maybe Nazareth) and not the stable where He was born.

 

[37818]

Do you think maybe it took a considerable amount of time for the wise men to find Christ, being that He was now in a house (maybe Nazareth) and not the stable where He was born.

The house was in Bethlehem. And Jesus was then a young child.

Matthew 2:16, Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.

 

[Charlie24]

The house was in Bethlehem. And Jesus was then a young child.

Matthew 2:16, Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.

The Scripture doesn't say they found Him in Bethlehem.

The "Star of Bethlehem" that led them is in much controversy.

 

[Charlie24]

The Scripture doesn't say they found Him in Bethlehem.

The "Star of Bethlehem" that led them is in much controversy.

I know it's hypothetical, but Joseph left Nazareth to go pay his taxes.

Why would he be in a house in Bethlehem with a young Jesus when his home was in Nazareth?

 

[Scarlett O.]

1) Luke 2:11-12, For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

2) Matthew 2:9-11, When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

Why are there two stories? I see one. One chapter with the shepherds. The second chapter with the Wise Men.

 

[Deacon]

How much of the story we remember is Scripture and how much is tradition?

Matthew 2:1 - The text refers to wise men from the east (number unknown)...

Matthew 2:1-2 - ....seeing his star which rose [in the east - TR].

...and the star going before them and then stopping somewhere, behavior uncommon for stars.

Matthew 1:9 - The only reference to the star going before them comes as they traveled from Jerusalem to Bethlehem and stopped over where the child was. It remains a mystery how they knew precisely where to look.

The magi were not there to see the newly born infant child - - for the family left hurriedly to Egypt after the visit of the magi.

Before leaving to go to Egypt, Jesus had to be circumcised (on the eighth day) and the family visited the Temple (after Mary's ritual of purification) [more than a month] (Luke 2:21-22).

Then you have Herod killing children under two years old. Jesus may have been two years old when the magi came.

Rob

 

[JonC]

Luke 2:8-12 In the same region there were some shepherds staying out in the fields and keeping watch over their flock at night. 9 And an angel of the Lord suddenly stood near them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them; and they were terribly frightened. 10 And so the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people; 11 for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12 And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

Matthew 2:7- 12Then Herod secretly called for the magi ...After hearing the king, they went on their way; and behold, the star, which they had seen in the east, went on ahead of them until it came to a stop over the place where the Child was to be found. 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. 11 And after they came into the house, they saw the Child with His mother Mary; and they fell down and worshiped Him. Then they opened their treasures and presented to Him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. And after being warned by God in a dream not to return to Herod, the magi left for their own country by another way.


I don't know that @37818 was presenting these as conflicting accounts but simply as different stories - one was the shepheard (who were tending their flock nearby) and the other the magi (who traveled from afar).

 

[Charlie24]

Luke 2:8-12 In the same region there were some shepherds staying out in the fields and keeping watch over their flock at night. 9 And an angel of the Lord suddenly stood near them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them; and they were terribly frightened. 10 And so the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people; 11 for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12 And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

Matthew 2:7- 12Then Herod secretly called for the magi ...After hearing the king, they went on their way; and behold, the star, which they had seen in the east, went on ahead of them until it came to a stop over the place where the Child was to be found. 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. 11 And after they came into the house, they saw the Child with His mother Mary; and they fell down and worshiped Him. Then they opened their treasures and presented to Him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. And after being warned by God in a dream not to return to Herod, the magi left for their own country by another way.


I don't know that @37818 was presenting these as conflicting accounts but simply as different stories - one was the shepheard (who were tending their flock nearby) and the other the magi (who traveled from afar).

I wasn't sure that he was doing that either.

I was just pointing out the time frame between Luke and Matthews accounts.

 

[Ben1445]

I know it's hypothetical, but Joseph left Nazareth to go pay his taxes.

Why would he be in a house in Bethlehem with a young Jesus when his home was in Nazareth?

Matthew 2:22
But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:

Why would he consider going to Judea had he not come from there?
Joseph was of the house of David. Bethlehem is his inheritance. He had every reason to stay until he was warned to leave.
And it was fitting that the Son of David be raised in the king’s city. It fulfills prophecy in a stronger sense. Jesus was not an anchor baby, being born in a location just to claim the benefits. He is the Author of the benefits. He had stronger claim to the throne than Joseph. Joseph’s family was told that they were removed from the throne in the exile to Babylon.

 

[Walter]

Well, Cathode is having tech problems logging on to the BB, so until that is resolved you only have one Catholic to kick around for a while, lol.

Here is a Catholic answers perspective about two stories that seem contradictory:

Matthew's Gospel (Joseph's Perspective)

• Key Figures: Joseph, Magi (Wise Men), Herod.
• Events: Angel visits Joseph, warns him, Magi visit, flight to Egypt, return to Nazareth.
• Focus: Jesus as the promised King, fulfilling prophecy, a Jewish Messiah.

Luke's Gospel (Mary's Perspective)

• Key Figures: Mary, Elizabeth, Shepherds.
• Events: Angel visits Mary (Annunciation), Visitation to Elizabeth, Census, Birth in Bethlehem, Shepherds visit, Presentation in Temple, Jesus' early life in Nazareth.
• Focus: Jesus as the humble Savior for everyone, emphasizing Mary's role and faith.

Catholic Answers' View on the Stories

• Complementary, Not Contradictory: They are different literary accounts highlighting various truths, not meant to be a single historical timeline, notes Catholic Answers.
• Reconciling Details: The Magi found Jesus in a "house," while Luke mentions a "manger," but these events aren't necessarily simultaneous; art combines them for simplicity, says Catholic Answers.
• Theological Depth: Both narratives reveal the profound mystery of the Incarnation and Jesus' identity, with Luke's details, like Mary pondering events, offering unique insight.

 

[Charlie24]

Matthew 2:22
But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:

Why would he consider going to Judea had he not come from there?
Joseph was of the house of David. Bethlehem is his inheritance. He had every reason to stay until he was warned to leave.
And it was fitting that the Son of David be raised in the king’s city. It fulfills prophecy in a stronger sense. Jesus was not an anchor baby, being born in a location just to claim the benefits. He is the Author of the benefits. He had stronger claim to the throne than Joseph. Joseph’s family was told that they were removed from the throne in the exile to Babylon.

Let me explain what I didn't want to get into from the very beginning of this. But now I have no choice it seems.

I do not believe the traditional account of Christ being in a house in Bethlehem when the wise men found Him.

The Law of Moses required a young Jewish boy to be presented before the Lord in the temple at a certain time.

In Lev. 12, if the woman had a male child, as Jesus was, she was declared unclean for 7 days, and the days of her purifying would be 33 days, totaling 40 days for a male child. But a total of 80 days for a female child.

Now let's read Luke 2:22

"And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;"

Christ is 40 days old when this took place.

When they finished this presentation of Christ before the Lord, we read in Luke 2:39,

"And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth."

At less than 2 months old Christ was living in Nazareth.

 

[Ben1445]

Let me explain what I didn't want to get into from the very beginning of this. But now I have no choice it seems.

I do not believe the traditional account of Christ being in a house in Bethlehem when the wise men found Him.

The Law of Moses required a young Jewish boy to be presented before the Lord in the temple at a certain time.

In Lev. 12, if the woman had a male child, as Jesus was, she was declared unclean for 7 days, and the days of her purifying would be 33 days, totaling 40 days for a male child. But a total of 80 days for a female child.

Now let's read Luke 2:22

"And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;"

Christ is 40 days old when this took place.

When they finished this presentation of Christ before the Lord, we read in Luke 2:39,

"And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth."

At less than 2 months old Christ was living in Nazareth.

not by necessity. If you look at the next verses, Jesus is 12 and not able to be called a “young child.”
Since we are not discussing whether or not the trip to Egypt took place, it is reasonable to conclude that the options include the trip to Egypt after 40 days but before Nazareth, or after 40 days and, as you have put forward, after moving to Nazareth.

Considering Nazareth, it is unlikely that they had a home and established residency in Nazareth because they didn’t come together as a wedded couple till after the birth of Christ. I don’t mean that they didn’t get married. I mean that she was found to be with child and then in less than nine months they bought a house in the suburbs and were established??
Jesus was born less than nine months after they were married, the extent of their relationship is given in the book of Matthew. I am not up to date on marriage traditions in Nazareth at the time, but I would be surprised if they didn’t gather up all their belongings and leave for Bethlehem. We are a far more materialistic culture globally than they were. All Joseph needed was to take his tools. The material for his work would be acquired on location.
Summary, I don’t see anything that they left behind beside friends, who likely traveled with them given what I have heard about the people who settled in Nazareth. When their fellow travelers returned, they had the opportunity to separate themselves from date counters. To go back to the community they had been married in would announce the birth of Jesus to be an early illegitimate child.

The second main point from Luke is the absence of Egypt entirely. It is still true that when all the things pertaining to the Law were accomplished, they returned to Nazareth. Matthew says they returned to Nazareth after Egypt. If you review Matthew 2 and try to put a move to Nazareth in there, it doesn’t make sense for Herod to send the wisemen to Bethlehem. It doesn’t make sense for the wisemen to find Jesus in Bethlehem. And they did.

 

[Charlie24]

not by necessity. If you look at the next verses, Jesus is 12 and not able to be called a “young child.”
Since we are not discussing whether or not the trip to Egypt took place, it is reasonable to conclude that the options include the trip to Egypt after 40 days but before Nazareth, or after 40 days and, as you have put forward, after moving to Nazareth.

Considering Nazareth, it is unlikely that they had a home and established residency in Nazareth because they didn’t come together as a wedded couple till after the birth of Christ. I don’t mean that they didn’t get married. I mean that she was found to be with child and then in less than nine months they bought a house in the suburbs and were established??
Jesus was born less than nine months after they were married, the extent of their relationship is given in the book of Matthew. I am not up to date on marriage traditions in Nazareth at the time, but I would be surprised if they didn’t gather up all their belongings and leave for Bethlehem. We are a far more materialistic culture globally than they were. All Joseph needed was to take his tools. The material for his work would be acquired on location.
Summary, I don’t see anything that they left behind beside friends, who likely traveled with them given what I have heard about the people who settled in Nazareth. When their fellow travelers returned, they had the opportunity to separate themselves from date counters. To go back to the community they had been married in would announce the birth of Jesus to be an early illegitimate child.

The second main point from Luke is the absence of Egypt entirely. It is still true that when all the things pertaining to the Law were accomplished, they returned to Nazareth. Matthew says they returned to Nazareth after Egypt. If you review Matthew 2 and try to put a move to Nazareth in there, it doesn’t make sense for Herod to send the wisemen to Bethlehem. It doesn’t make sense for the wisemen to find Jesus in Bethlehem. And they did.

The accounts of Matthew and Luke do not cover everything in one account and must be taken in mind of the time frame they are speaking in.

What I have shown is not proof that the wise men found Christ in Nazareth, take from it what you will.

 

[Ben1445]

The accounts of Matthew and Luke do not cover everything in one account and must be taken in mind of the time frame they are speaking in.

What I have shown is not proof that the wise men found Christ in Nazareth, take from it what you will.

The wisemen were sent to Bethlehem. They found Jesus in Bethlehem. If they had moved to Galilee, there had been no need to go to Egypt. The children that were killed were from the area around Bethlehem, not Galilee.
I think that it may be concluded with high confidence that they did not go to Nazareth to live until after Egypt.
I’m convinced. I had never considered it till today. But I don’t see any reason to say that tradition is wrong on this point.

 

[Charlie24]

The wisemen were sent to Bethlehem. They found Jesus in Bethlehem. If they had moved to Galilee, there had been no need to go to Egypt. The children that were killed were from the area around Bethlehem, not Galilee.
I think that it may be concluded with high confidence that they did not go to Nazareth to live until after Egypt.
I’m convinced. I had never considered it till today. But I don’t see any reason to say that tradition is wrong on this point.

Herod sent them to Bethlehem not having a clue.

When they left Herod they seen the star in the east and followed it until it came to where Christ was.

Where did the star take them?

 

[Ben1445]

Herod sent them to Bethlehem not having a clue.

When they left Herod they seen the star in the east and followed it until it came to where Christ was.

Where did the star take them?

To Bethlehem. Why would Jesus be moved from his place of fulfillment of prophecy before the wisemen found him?

Micah 5:2
But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah,
though thou be little among the thousands of Judah,
yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel;
whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Herod asked the priests and scribes what the prophets said.
I have a hard time imagining that Herod sent them to Bethlehem so that they could arrive in Nazareth and say to themselves or anyone else that Micah was mistaken.
Believe Matthew, the way he says it. All the the law (from Luke) and the prophets (from Matthew) are fulfilled in a Bethlehem to Egypt to Nazareth sequence of events.
Pardon my bluntness, but I think you have attached yourself to one verse and ignored the rest. Jesus would not have had to go to Egypt if he was in Nazareth.
Mat. 2;17
In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

Ramah is not near Nazareth. It is near Bethlehem.

 

[Charlie24]

To Bethlehem. Why would Jesus be moved from his place of fulfillment of prophecy before the wisemen found him?

Micah 5:2
But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah,
though thou be little among the thousands of Judah,
yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel;
whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Herod asked the priests and scribes what the prophets said.
I have a hard time imagining that Herod sent them to Bethlehem so that they could arrive in Nazareth and say to themselves or anyone else that Micah was mistaken.
Believe Matthew, the way he says it. All the the law (from Luke) and the prophets (from Matthew) are fulfilled in a Bethlehem to Egypt to Nazareth sequence of events.
Pardon my bluntness, but I think you have attached yourself to one verse and ignored the rest. Jesus would not have had to go to Egypt if he was in Nazareth.
Mat. 2;17
In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

Ramah is not near Nazareth. It is near Bethlehem.

There are pros and cons either way, no way of knowing for sure.

 

[Ben1445]

There are pros and cons either way, no way of knowing for sure.

What are the cons of Bethlehem to Egypt?

 

[Charlie24]

What are the cons of Bethlehem to Egypt?

What are the cons of Nazareth to Egypt?

Considering He lived in Nazareth within a few weeks after His birth in Bethlehem.

There is no reason to believe He was anywhere else when they found Him some 18-22 months later.