I’ve been listing them all along.
Joseph and Mary married in Nazareth and date counters being able to recognize Jesus as illegitimate to Joseph.
The wisemen arriving in Nazareth instead of Bethlehem where prophecy was fulfilled. These are wisemen. The reason they are searching for Christ is because of prophecy. It would seem to be a problem for recognition if they were in Nazareth.
Also, they were following the star. The star brought them by Jerusalem on the way to Bethlehem. If they were going to Nazareth they would have taken the “skip Samaria” road when they came to it. It would have been more direct.
Traveling to Egypt when Jesus’ life was not in danger. Look at a map. Herod didn’t kill every baby in the country. Nazareth is not in the coasts of Bethlehem.
This is your assumption.
You seem to be quite invested in it. Did you preach it yesterday?
It doesn’t say that as soon as, or immediately. It says, “And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord,” I would include “out of Egypt have I called my son” in that, even though it is not part of the laws you are speaking of.
Only that Herod sent them to Bethlehem
And go back and read my posts again. You seem to have forgotten them already. I find them compelling.
Tradition does get some things wrong. I don’t think this is one of them.
Now, what are the cons to the traditional narrative?
You just asked me my question without answering.
I have also been answering my question towards you all along. So it is a bit frustrating to be asked to answer it again. But I did until I got tired of repeating myself.
So again I ask, what are the cons of Bethlehem to Egypt?
Your assertion that Jesus was living in Nazareth is assumption. It is not stated anywhere.
Apart from that one verse that you are teaching, which can easily be explained by the traditional order of travel, what other cons are there in the traditional narrative?