Did Baby Jesus Go to Egypt???

[MCWAY]

Nice job at coming up with an explanation. It is speculation because it is not substantiated by the accounts in the gospels (quoted in the first post). Matthew 2 (quoted by Stella above) gives the impression that the wise men's visit occurred in the immediate aftermath of the birth of Jesus: "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem..."

It doesn't say ANYTHING about a time lag, so that is purely speculation on your part, in order to convince yourself and others that the gospels don't contradict each other.

I'm afraid your conclusion is an incorrect one. Matthew 2's account doesn't state that the wise men arrived immediately after Jesus' birth. And the proof is right in that very chapter, which you claim to have read and that Stella posted: Herod's order to kill all boys TWO YEARS and under. If Jesus is a newborn when the wise men find Him, why is Herod killing two years old (those ain't newborns)?

Verse 7 states that Herod got the age from his consulation from the wise men AND his own priests, Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared.  He sent them to Bethlehem and said, "Go and make a careful search for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him."

As for this portion of the text,

"After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem..."

Unless you see the word, "immediately", in this verse, this part does nothing to suggest that the wise men arrived to see Jesus as a newborn infant. This may come as a shock to you, but a two-year gap in time qualifies as "after Jesus was born".

That's no speculation; it's right there in the gospel of Matthew. Again, you asked why Joseph and Mary made a "second trip to Bethelem", accusing Stella of making such up to show that the accounts in Luke and Matthew weren't contradictory (as you allege they are). But, Luke 2:41 states that they went to Jerusalem every year. So, that answers that question right there.

And, their first trip to the temple (with Jesus) occured, when Jesus was approximately six weeks old.

A third trip, when Jesus was two, would explain how and when the wise men found him.

PS: McWay, you seem to have taken advanced courses in Christian apologetics from a Southern Baptist seminary  I'd like to see you take a crack at another thread on here, entitled "The authority of scripture, if only they could agree." It will be interesting to see what you have to say there!

Nope!! Personal study and use of the internet. These accusations aren't new (and neither is the evidence that refutes them).

[columbusdude82]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA "evidence"...

[columbusdude82]

I admire your zeal in reverse-engineering the stories so they seem to match and trying to fill in all the gaps, but I must say I am not convinced. Even if what you say is true, it only shows the human origins of scripture. Any god who might have inspired or revealed these books to their writers certainly didn't do a good job of filling them in on the details. Such a god would be particularly careless to leave so many "seeming" contradictions wide open to "mis"interpretation...

[MCWAY]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA "evidence"...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA....."contradictory"

You asked the question; you got the answer. Of course, the question remains were you legitimately seeking an answer to that question; or are you, like Trapzekerl, simply looking for a platform to do your skeptic blubbering?

I admire your zeal in reverse-engineering the stories so they seem to match and trying to fill in all the gaps, but I must say I am not convinced. Even if what you say is true, it only shows the human origins of scripture. Any god who might have inspired or revealed these books to their writers certainly didn't do a good job of filling them in on the details. Such a god would be particularly careless to leave so many "seeming" contradictions wide open to "mis"interpretation...

I didn't engineer anything. The verses are there, for you (or anyone else) to read, which is why I referenced them.

You asked why they made a "second trip to Bethlehem"; the answer is in Luke 2:41

I don't care if you're "convinced" or not. As I stated earlier, I suspect that you aren't looking for an answer but for a platform to whine, instead of an answer to a question.

Again, unless you can show that verse 1 , After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem..." shows that the Magi's appearance was immediately after Jesus' birth, your claims of contradictions have no legs on which to stand.

Plus, you've yet to address the issue of why Herod would be ordering the death of two-year-old toddlers, if Jesus was a newborn infant, when the Magi (wise men) find Him. After all, Matt. 2:7 states that Herod calculated Jesus' approximate age from the data he got from the wise men and his priests.

The details are right there in Scripture.

[columbusdude82]

About the slaughter of the children, until there is real historical evidence for it, it will remain just the figment of the evangelist's imagination. Since it did not occur in reality, it cannot be considered from a historical perspective as the self-interest-motivated actions of a jealous king. You presume that Herod thought that there was an infant out there that really presented a threat to his reign.

And yes, you did engineer your story. It is speculation. Matthew doesn't say they went back to Nazareth after Jesus was born. It doesn't mention a time lag. You speculate and present a reasonable, but not entirely convincing theory.

As for your accusations of "blubbering" and "whining," flattery will get you nowhere with me

[MCWAY]

About the slaughter of the children, until there is real historical evidence for it, it will remain just the figment of the evangelist's imagination. Since it did not occur in reality, it cannot be considered from a historical perspective as the self-interest-motivated actions of a jealous king. You presume that Herod thought that there was an infant out there that really presented a threat to his reign.

I don't presume anything; it's right there in Matthew 2. The presuming is on your part, claiming that it didn't happen.

Who said it didn't occur in reality? Ahh, skeptics of course. Then again, it wouldn't be the first time people made that claim about Biblical evidence, only to be proven wrong.

And yes, you did engineer your story. It is speculation. Matthew doesn't say they went back to Nazareth after Jesus was born. It doesn't mention a time lag. You speculate and present a reasonable, but not entirely convincing theory.

Matthew doesn't state that they stayed in Bethlehem, either. Matthew doesn't talk about the events shortly after Jesus' birth; but Luke does. As stated earlier, I am using BOTH Gospels, with regards to the early events in Jesus' life.

As for your claim about Matthew 2, the "time lag" is mentioned, in the very same chapter: Herod is ordering the deaths of two-year old boys and under. He is guessing that Jesus is that age, based on data he got from the wise men and his priests.

One more time, why is Herod ordering the death of two-year olds, if Jesus was a newborn baby when the wise men found Him?

[Butterbean]

MCWAY, I'm grateful you're here because you state things so much better and more clearly than I!


columbusdude, I'm amazed and happy that you do concur that what we (and the scriptures) are saying is POSSIBLE, even if you don't want to think it's probable:

  You speculate and present a reasonable, but not entirely convincing theory.

Good for you and for us.  Maybe you really are looking for answers to your questions  



OK, back to MCWAY's last question to you......

As for your claim about Matthew 2, the "time lag" is mentioned, in the very same chapter: Herod is ordering the deaths of two-year old boys and under. He is guessing that Jesus is that age, based on data he got from the wise men and his priests.

One more time, why is Herod ordering the death of two-year olds, if Jesus was a newborn baby when the wise men found Him?

[smoothasf]

the bible was a story written by the egyptians about astrology the sun "son" and the 12 zodiac (deciples). This book of astrology was written was before any religion and is practically identical to the books of "religion" in todays societies. when churches are asked how this book was written before their so called "god" was ever born they said it was "the work of the devil"

religion is a joke and the sooner we as a human species drop it the sooner we can advance as a race.
Lets leave this ancient hocus pocus behind

[columbusdude82]

I don't presume anything; it's right there in Matthew 2. The presuming is on your part, claiming that it didn't happen.

Who said it didn't occur in reality? Ahh, skeptics of course. Then again, it wouldn't be the first time people made that claim about Biblical evidence, only to be proven wrong.

Matthew doesn't state that they stayed in Bethlehem, either. Matthew doesn't talk about the events shortly after Jesus' birth; but Luke does. As stated earlier, I am using BOTH Gospels, with regards to the early events in Jesus' life.

As for your claim about Matthew 2, the "time lag" is mentioned, in the very same chapter: Herod is ordering the deaths of two-year old boys and under. He is guessing that Jesus is that age, based on data he got from the wise men and his priests.

One more time, why is Herod ordering the death of two-year olds, if Jesus was a newborn baby when the wise men found Him?

So just because the Bible says that Herod ordered the slaughter of the children, then it must be true

One more time, if Herod did order such a slaughter, surely it would have been recorded by a real historical source (as opposed to the gospels, a mythical-magical-theological source). Got any such sources?

[MCWAY]

So just because the Bible says that Herod ordered the slaughter of the children, then it must be true

One more time, if Herod did order such a slaughter, surely it would have been recorded by a real historical source (as opposed to the gospels, a mythical-magical-theological source). Got any such sources?

Do you have evidence to the contrary? If not, then your claim that it didn't happen holds no weight. And please define a "real" historical source. Without such criteria, you have no rhyme nor reason to disqualify the Gospels (other than personal, anti-religious bias).

Plus, the issue here is that you made the claim that the gospels of Luke and Matthew are contradictory. And, your reason for such revolved around the events of Jesus' early life, specifically when the wise men found Him and the subsequent flight to Egypt.

Plus, you said that the wise men found Jesus as a newborn infant. Where's your support for that?

Luke and Matthew mention two different time periods. Luke speaks of the events surrounding Jesus as a newborn infant; Matthew speaks of events that happen....TWO YEARS LATER. Therefore, unless you can show that the wise men did indeed appear shortly after Jesus was born, your claim that those two Gospels contradict each other is false.

[columbusdude82]

Hold on there, McWay. Let's go back to the first paragraph in your post. Do you see the methodological error you're making there?

The Gospels say Herod massacred the children. I say we have no historical sources corroborating that claim. You say, since we have no historical sources saying it DIDN'T happen, then it must be true.

The Gospels also say, for instance,

50And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

 51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

(Matthew 27)

An earthquake that tears the curtain of the temple, opens the tombs, and brings the bodies of dead people back to life is a very, very unlikely event. There is no historical record of it. We have no records of first-century Jews in Jerusalem saying they saw the risen body of some long-dead holy person after an earthquake. If there had been such an earthquake that damaged the temple, surely there would have been some Jewish written record of it???

By your logic, since we don't have evidence against it (no one wrote "No, I did not see the body of Isaiah come back to life after the earthquake that tore the temple curtain this week") then it must have happened.

By your logic, since we have no ancient writings saying "The sun has not stopped, it keeps moving following its usual trajectory through the sky," then surely the sun must have stopped for Joshua.

Just because someone writes something, does not mean we all have to scramble to find evidence against it, or else it is true. Do you have evidence to contradict the events recorded in "Harry Potter" books? If not, then your disbelief in Harry Potter holds no weight

[columbusdude82]

OK McWay I am splitting up my reply over several posts for your convenience.

You ask why I don't think the Gospels are "historical" sources. Of course, they are, in a way. They are writings from the first century and just afterwards. Every historical source has to be treated with care, with attention to who wrote it, for whom, what their purposes were, whether it has been been tampered with since...

The writings of the ancient world are strewn with books about supernatural heroes with magical powers, all presented to us today with no evidence at all. It is an insult to your intelligence and mine to say that we must believe them because they are "historical," right?

You, in fact, are the one with the bias, not I, because you choose to accept uncritically the occurrence of highly unlikely events in one set of ancient writings, and dismiss others.

Of course, that's because you think there is something special about the gospels. Divine inspiration. The Holy Spirit. Right? And that's where you and the scientific methods of history part company, because history examines all old writings critically

[columbusdude82]

Now finally getting back on topic, to the question of whether Baby Jesus did go to Egypt.

Once again, the theory you present is reasonable, but it is "reverse-engineered," in the sense that you (and others) read these accounts and filled in the gaps.

Now your theory is possible, or maybe the writers of these two books were reverse-engineering the story of Jesus's birth long after those events are supposed to have happened, and since they lived in the pre-Google era, couldn't check their facts together.

So your theory depends on the timing of the arrival of the wise men. Of course, we have no evidence that such men ever existed. And if they did, we have no way of verifying the timing of their visit (the Gospels don't say when they came, except at some point after the birth of Jesus).

Your theory is therefore reasonable, but neither verifiable nor falsifiable.

My claim, that the gospels can't get their stories right together, is based on just reading the texts without looking for excuses or gaps in the time-line: each gospel mentions an itinerary for travel after the birth of Jesus, they are contradictory.

Either the gospels contradict each other, or as you speculate, there is a gap in the time-line.

Which is it? I'd go with the contradiction, because Matthew doesn't mention anything about a gap, but your theory is neither verifiable nor falsifiable, so you can believe it all you like

[MCWAY]

Hold on there, McWay. Let's go back to the first paragraph in your post. Do you see the methodological error you're making there?

The Gospels say Herod massacred the children. I say we have no historical sources corroborating that claim. You say, since we have no historical sources saying it DIDN'T happen, then it must be true.

You are dismissing the verse about Herod ordering the slaying of boys two years and under, because it counters your claims that the gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other. It shows, as I've stated several times beforehand that Luke speaks the events immediately after Jesus' birth, while Matthew tells of what happens two years later. Those gospels complement each other, with each giving unique details that the other doesn't. That is not contradictory.

The Gospels also say, for instance,
 
(Matthew 27)

An earthquake that tears the curtain of the temple, opens the tombs, and brings the bodies of dead people back to life is a very, very unlikely event. There is no historical record of it. We have no records of first-century Jews in Jerusalem saying they saw the risen body of some long-dead holy person after an earthquake. If there had been such an earthquake that damaged the temple, surely there would have been some Jewish written record of it???

Last time I checked, Matthew was Jewish. And what makes you think that there was no other record of it? There may be one, that has yet to be unearthed. Regardless, this has little to do with your supporting the claim that those two gospels contradict each other, specifically your claim that the Magi found Jesus as newborn baby, instead of a two-year old toddler.

By your logic, since we don't have evidence against it (no one wrote "No, I did not see the body of Isaiah come back to life after the earthquake that tore the temple curtain this week") then it must have happened.


By your logic, since we have no ancient writings saying "The sun has not stopped, it keeps moving following its usual trajectory through the sky," then surely the sun must have stopped for Joshua.

Just because someone writes something, does not mean we all have to scramble to find evidence against it, or else it is true. Do you have evidence to contradict the events recorded in "Harry Potter" books? If not, then your disbelief in Harry Potter holds no weight

Again, your claim regarding Herod's order is based, not on its lack of historicity, but on the fact that the account refutes your take, regarding when the Magi find Jesus.

[columbusdude82]

You are dismissing the verse about Herod ordering the slaying of boys two years and under, because it counters your claims that the gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other.

your claim regarding Herod's order is based, not on its lack of historicity, but on the fact that the account refutes your take

No. I am only saying there is no corroborating evidence for it.

Luke speaks the events immediately after Jesus' birth, while Matthew tells of what happens two years later. Those gospels complement each other, with each giving unique details that the other doesn't. That is not contradictory.

Yes, that is your theory that you have stated several times

Last time I checked, Matthew was Jewish.

Umm, yes, but what does that have to do with anything? And you don't really believe that the Apostle Matthew sat down and wrote the Gospel According to Matthew, now do you?

[MCWAY]

Now finally getting back on topic, to the question of whether Baby Jesus did go to Egypt.

Once again, the theory you present is reasonable, but it is "reverse-engineered," in the sense that you (and others) read these accounts and filled in the gaps.

Now your theory is possible, or maybe the writers of these two books were reverse-engineering the story of Jesus's birth long after those events are supposed to have happened, and since they lived in the pre-Google era, couldn't check their facts together.

So your theory depends on the timing of the arrival of the wise men. Of course, we have no evidence that such men ever existed. And if they did, we have no way of verifying the timing of their visit (the Gospels don't say when they came, except at some point after the birth of Jesus).

The only thing being engineered here is your "theory" that Luke and Matthew were plotting and and "reverse-engineering". We have the approximate age of Jesus, based on the information in the Gospels. There's no need to "engineer" anything.

Luke 2:22 states that Jesus was brought to the temple when Mary's purification was complete. That process takes 40 days, making Jesus approximately 6 weeks old. Lev. 12 supports this.

Matt 2:17 states (once again) that Herod orders the slaying of boys 2 years and under, based on the info he got from the wise men and his priests. That would have to make Jesus around 2 years old, in that account.

Your theory is therefore reasonable, but neither verifiable nor falsifiable.


My claim, that the gospels can't get their stories right together, is based on just reading the texts without looking for excuses or gaps in the time-line: each gospel mentions an itinerary for travel after the birth of Jesus, they are contradictory.

The "itinerary" for the travel is based on two separate events that are TWO YEARS apart, as shown from the info in the Gospels themselves. Nowhere does it state in Matthew that the wise men find Jesus immediately after His birth. Getting the historical background behind Luke's account is hardly looking for excuses. What it shows is that the account DO NOT contradict each other.

Remember that you asked why Mary and Joseph made a "second trip to Bethlehem"; Luke gives the answer (Luke 2:41); They traveled to Jerusalem every year for Passover. And Bethlehem is only 5 miles away.

Either the gospels contradict each other, or as you speculate, there is a gap in the time-line.

Which is it? I'd go with the contradiction, because Matthew doesn't mention anything about a gap, but your theory is neither verifiable nor falsifiable, so you can believe it all you like

There's no speculation or excuses. We have the info right there on Jesus' age in BOTH Gospels. Matthew mentions that Herod calculated Jesus' age, based on what the Magi and the priests told him. There's no reason for him to even contemplate killing 2-year-old boys, unless Jesus was that age.

In short, did baby Jesus (as in a 6-7 week-old infant) go to Egypt? NO!!!

Did Jesus go to Egypt as a 2-year-old toddler? YES!!!

[MCWAY]

No. I am only saying there is no corroborating evidence for it.

That matters not, with regards to whether or not Matthew's account contradicts that of Luke.

Yes, that is your theory that you have stated several times

That's not my theory, because it's not a theory at all. The information is there, in both Gospels. And, it's supported by Leviticus.

Umm, yes, but what does that have to do with anything? And you don't really believe that the Apostle Matthew sat down and wrote the Gospel According to Matthew, now do you?

Not that it had anything to do with the topic and hand, but I (as many traditional Biblical scholars do) cite Matthew as the author of that particular Gospel.

[columbusdude82]

So you DO believe that the Apostle Matthew sat down and wrote this book... I hate to break it to you, but NO!

And what does "Lev. 12" have to do with this?

[MCWAY]

So you DO believe that the Apostle Matthew sat down and wrote this book... I hate to break it to you, but NO!

And, your support for such a statement is.............

And what does "Lev. 12" have to do with this?

Had you read that chapter, particularly verses 1-6, your question would be answered.

But, in case you missed it, it corresponds with Luke 2:22. The purification process for a woman, after giving birth is at least 40 days (approx. 6 weeks). After which time, the mother and father are to go to the temple and do the burnt offering thing.

Lev. 12:6


And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:

Luke 2:22, 23

And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. 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.

That's how we know Jesus' age in Luke's account. He was about six weeks old, when He was taken to the the temple. And after the temple stuff was done, they all went back to Nazareth.

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.

That would be, as you would call it, the first "itinerary": Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Narazeth......all happening when Jesus was a newborn baby.

So, there's no contradiction with Luke and Matthew.

 

[columbusdude82]

Whether the apostles really wrote the books attributed to them is a topic for another thread.

So baby Jesus didn't go to Egypt, but toddler Jesus may have. Good theory, McWay

Now there's another thread on here waiting for your contribution. "The authority of scripture, if only they could agree"

I'm excited about what you have to say there

[MCWAY]

Whether the apostles really wrote the books attributed to them is a topic for another thread.

So baby Jesus didn't go to Egypt, but toddler Jesus may have. Good theory, McWay

The Gospels record that this is what happened. Do you have information that states differently, a question asked of you multiple times?

[columbusdude82]

I don't have information either way, and neither do you. For all we know, Matthew may have made up the whole "flight to Egypt" story. No other gospel mentions it.

[nzhardgain]

I don't have information either way, and neither do you. For all we know, Matthew may have made up the whole "flight to Egypt" story. No other gospel mentions it.

   give up.

[OzmO]

Why is this even an issue?

Isn't the bible supposed to bed the word of God?   

if why does he tell the story 4 different ways?  Oh, yeah, they are separate accounts......but aren't they the word of god?

makes no sense, unless you want it to.   

Face facts, the bible is about as black and white as a grey guitar.

And I'd have to side with c-82 on the outrageous crap about all babies 2 and under being murder and the dead rising from their graves and it not ever being mentioned any where.

Ah  yes........what a book of stories.

[nzhardgain]

Why is this even an issue?

Isn't the bible supposed to bed the word of God?  

if why does he tell the story 4 different ways?  Oh, yeah, they are separate accounts......but aren't they the word of god?

makes no sense, unless you want it to.  

Face facts, the bible is about as black and white as a grey guitar.

And I'd have to side with c-82 on the outrageous crap about all babies 2 and under being murder and the dead rising from their graves and it not ever being mentioned any where.

Ah  yes........what a book of stories.

Ah yes........The word of God.
You remind me of what judas iscariot would of been like. ozmo.