Question about Matthew for Christians

[ISiddiqui]

@UDS

It’s not, in other words, that they didn’t accept the historicity of the creation account, etc. It’s that they weren’t invested in accepting it; it wasn’t the foundation on which their faith was built. They weren’t biblical literalists in the modern sense, in the sense of understanding the authority of scripture and its substantial or total historicity as being basically the same thing.

Very well put and I feel needs to be highlighted. The difference between literal fundamentalists and Christians of the past who believed in the factual-ness of Biblical stories of the Creation and the Flood (etc) is that the later did not stake their faith upon it. So they may believe in these stories, but when scientific evidence indicated another path, they were fine with it (for example, the Catholic response to Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species was basically “Yeah, Creation could have happened that way”). So the fact that it isn’t literally true or may have contradictions, doesn’t kill it. The narrative isn’t invested with power as fundamentalists invest it. It is (and was) acknowledged that history wasn’t written in an objective, journalistic fashion. People wrote what they saw, or heard, and played up parts for dramatic effect or to highlight things. And the stories weren’t important for their literalness, but rather what they taught. And if something came around that was different, well, ok.

[Hector_St_Clare]

@TonySinclair

Right, that’s pretty much the default position. The thing is, the “strong reasons not to” keep growing, and what’s literal keeps eroding. I get all kinds of crap from educated Christians about taking things like the 6-day creation literally, when it’s “obviously” a metaphor. But that became obvious only after science proved the age of the earth. Up to the 19th century or so, it was unusual for a typical Christian to have the modern view of many Biblical “metaphors,” and not too long before that, it could cost you your life if your heresies fell on the wrong ears.

No, this isn’t true. The belief that the Old Testament is to be read literally grew over time, it didn’t ‘erode’. Among early Christians, what to make of the Old Testament was a very lively debate. There were a lot of people (the Marcionites, and other groups), who didn’t believe that God had created the world at all, and who rejected the Old Testament in its entirely). The prevailing position in the (small-o) orthodox church up until the Reformation was that the Old Testament was to be read for its typological rather than for its literal value (i.e. as a set of prophecies about Jesus).

I strongly suspect that if you’d walked around Rome in the third century AD and argued with Christians that 'God didn’t create the forms of living things we see today, they evolved from more primitive forms of life", you would have found some Christians who violently disagreed with you, but also others who agreed.

@TonySinclair

I’m aware that there were theologians, notably Augustine, who counseled against being too literal, but that is typically blown way out of proportion. His writings make clear that he took a great deal more of the Bible literally than the people who cite him today. And in any case, the vast, vast majority of illiterate Christians through the ages took everything literally. Even in this age of science and the internet, there are US colleges and universities, including those who supplied many of the experts used by the Bush administration to administer the occupation of Iraq, that require their professors to sign a statement of faith, which includes the assertion that the Bible is literally true in every detail, regardless of what those egghead scientists or historians think they know.

Do you have any evidence that “the majority of illiterate Christians” in, say, late antiquity took “everything” in the Old Testament literally? If you do, I’d like to see it. As I pointed out, a lot of early Christians didn’t even think God had created the world.

Back to the point at issue, yes, sorry, I made an error about when Anna and Simeon prophecied. That was a couple months later, commemorated by Candlemas. (I should really have remembered the liturgical calendar). Regardless, the point remains, it was the visit of the Magi, not the prophecies of Anna and Simeon, that tipped Herod off to the existence of Jesus.

[Hector_St_Clare]

@TonySinclair

Now you’re the one excluding the middle. Even wikipedia’s article on Biblical literalism says, “Literalism does not deny that parables, metaphors and allegory exist in the Bible, but rather relies on contextual interpretations based on the author’s intention.”

But that’s really beside the point, because when you insist it’s a modern phenomenon, you’re narrowing down the definition of literalism to a specific reactionary movement by people who have seriously examined the scriptures. You can’t seriously claim that the vast, vast majority of Christians, at least until the 19th century, didn’t believe in a literal six day creation, or a worldwide flood, or all the miracles of Jesus, along with historical howlers like the Slaughter or the Census. You can’t seriously claim that even today, let alone for most of the last 2000 years, the typical Christian analyzes all of that into some combination of allegory, metaphor, and higher truth. You have to know that it’s much more likely that they are simply unaware of the contradictions a literal interpretation raises, or when they are, they uncritically accept lame explanations like Luke’s genealogy being of Mary rather than Joseph, or the link Hector gave to a harmonization that retained most of the contradictions.

I don’t pretend to know what you think; I’m just assuming your intelligence. If I’m wrong about anything I said above about what you claim or know, please correct me.

You’re making a big mistake by folding together the New Testament miracles, the slaughter, etc. with Old Testament books like Genesis. I don’t think that ‘reading Genesis literally’ has been universal or even all that widespread among most Christians historically, but I’d certainly agree most of us, historically and today, do take the New Testament accounts more or less at face value. The Gospel is the core of our faith: Genesis is prologue.

I don’t think the fact that Josephus doesn’t record the slaughter of male children at Bethlehem is exactly good evidence that it didn’t happen, to put it mildly. We don’t have a lot of other sources for first century Palestine, and it’s far from impossible that things happened in that place and time that Josephus chose not to record. I believe that the massacre happened because Matthew did, and because I have no proof that it didn’t, so of course I’m going to consider Matthew a reliable authority.

[Hector_St_Clare]

@TonySinclair

Matthew says they lived in a house in Bethlehem, and gives no indication that they ever lived anywhere else before Jesus was born. They clearly intended to return there after Herod died, but were warned away by God, and only then did they settle in Nazareth, apparently for the first time.
Correct. And the Magi. Kind of puzzling how all these strangers (let alone angels) came from miles around to worship an infant who hadn’t done anything but poop in his diapers, and yet 12 years later, his parents don’t understand why he does unusual things, and 30 years later, the people of Nazareth, and even his own family, worry about his sanity.

No, you have made the same mistake the great Biblical scholar Bill O’Reilly made in his book, Killing Jesus. Jesus was circumcised after 8 days, but it was another 33 days before Mary’s purification ended (women are so fucking dirty) and they could visit the Temple. See Lev 12:4. So Jesus was at least six weeks old when he was presented in the Temple.

The holy Temple denizens Simeon and Anna did indeed proclaim Jesus to be the Messiah, and Luke 2:38 says that Anna, at least, told everyone looking for the Messiah about Jesus. And yet, the same King Herod, who Matthew says was paranoid enough to kill an entire village’s infants on the basis of a horoscope, did nothing in Luke when the Messiah was publicly proclaimed half a mile from his palace. It is inconceivable that the Temple priests, let alone his own spies, would not have heard and reported this to Herod.

No. Luke 2:39 clearly says that after all the doings at the Temple, they returned to Nazareth.

Correct, according to Matthew. But you left out that God tells the Magi not to go back to Herod, to save themselves. So why couldn’t he have told them not to see Herod in the first place, to save all the innocent babies that were killed? And why did the Star have to stop and ask directions anyway, when it knew which house the baby Jesus was in? Was Jesus out of range before they got to Jerusalem?

Correct, according to Matthew. But why did they have to be diverted to Nazareth by a warning from God, if that’s where they lived? Why wouldn’t they just go straight home to Nazareth? Unless, as I said above, they had always lived in Bethlehem, which is why Matthew didn’t have to resort to Luke’s stupid census to get them there.

And it’s a historical fact that Archelaus ruled Judea from 4BC to 6AD, so that was ten years they had to stay out of Judea. But Luke says they came to Jerusalem (in Judea, and where Archelaus ruled) every year for Passover. That is a flat contradiction.

It’s perfectly obvious that at least one of these stories was fabricated, to explain how Jesus could be the Messiah, and yet be from Nazareth, rather than Bethlehem. Matthew says his parents lived in Bethlehem all along, but were forced to move to Nazareth for fear of Herod and Archelaus. Luke says his parents lived in Nazareth all along, but were forced to journey to Bethlehem for the worldwide census that required everyone to pay his taxes in the town his ancestors lived in a thousand years earlier. Since no historian, secular or otherwise, heard of the Slaughter but Matthew, and no historian, secular or otherwise, heard of that census but Luke, it’s almost 100% certain that both tales were fabricated.

1. Matthew doesn’t explicitly state that they went to Nazareth for the first time after the birth of Jesus. Maybe they lived back and forth between the two towns. Lots of people today live their lives split between two or more locations.

2. The Magi were not Jews, nor were they present to remind people about the epiphany. I’m sure that over the next twelve years, people gradually forgot that Jesus had been special, and dismissed the Magi as foreign heathen weirdos and Simeon & Anna as senile lunatics.

3. Is it strange that Herod wouldn’t respond to rumours about Jesus after he visited Jerusalem and was presented to Anna and Simeon? Sure, but people behave strangely all the time.

4. Maybe they lived in Galilee, but made a pilgrimage to Judea every year, in spite of fear of Archelaus. People do make sacrifices for their faith, you know.

[asterion]

@Czarcasm

Playing your game, is it even possible for the Bible to contain inconsistencies and/or inaccuracies and/or contradictions?

Sure. It has got plenty within the first two chapters of Genesis and continues on through there all the way to the other end. My point is that they’re not very important unless you’re an inerrant literalist.

[Czarcasm]

@Hector_St_Clare

I don’t think the fact that Josephus doesn’t record the slaughter of male children at Bethlehem is exactly good evidence that it didn’t happen, to put it mildly. We don’t have a lot of other sources for first century Palestine, and it’s far from impossible that things happened in that place and time that Josephus chose not to record. I believe that the massacre happened because Matthew did, and because I have no proof that it didn’t, so of course I’m going to consider Matthew a reliable authority.

So amongst all these attacks on the silly posters who think they can point out inconsistencies in the Bible by taking it literally, we have a poster who takes Matthew literally…but seems to be immune from these attacks. Is it because Hector_St_Clare is a believer and supports the Bible?

[Flyer]

@tomndebb

I doubt that you have provided any such conclusive proof. Can you provide a link to this extraordinary claim?

From the other thread–

@Flyer

The truth is that the true Church has ALWAYS believed the inerrancy of the Bible. Dr. Adam Clarke (c. 1762–1832), one of the first Methodists, wrote a massive Commentary on the Bible. In part of it called “An Introduction to the Four Gospels, and to the Acts of the Apostles” he writes this–

I have purposely avoided the question concerning the authenticity of the sacred writings in general. On a thorough conviction, I assume the fact, that they are a Divine record, a revelation from God. This has been so amply proved that the Christian cause has had a complete triumph. I consider, therefore, the question to be for ever at rest.

He then goes on to quote at length from a Dr. Whitby concerning the various methods of Divine inspiration.

Going back even further, Matthew Henry (1662–1714) also wrote a very influential Commentary. It influenced many well-known preachers for centuries afterward. On II Timothy 3:16, which states, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” Henry writes thusly–

It is a divine revelation, which we may depend upon as infallibly true. The same Spirit that breathed reason into us breathes revelation among us: For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men spoke as they were moved or carried forth by the Holy Ghost, 2 Pet. i. 21. The prophets and apostles did not speak from themselves, but what they received of the Lord that they delivered unto us. That the scripture was given by inspiration of God appears from the majesty of its style,–from the truth, purity, and sublimity, of the doctrines contained in it,–from the harmony of its several parts,–from its power and efficacy on the minds of multitudes that converse with it,–from the accomplishment of many prophecies relating to things beyond all human foresight,–and from the uncontrollable miracles that were wrought in proof of its divine original: God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will, Heb. ii.4.

[Czarcasm]

@asterion

Sure. It has got plenty within the first two chapters of Genesis and continues on through there all the way to the other end. My point is that they’re not very important unless you’re an inerrant literalist.

This is just historical and intellectual laziness, in my opinion. It is deciding beforehand that when two or more stories collide, one will be deemed historical and the other(s) allegorical, and history has shown us that what stories turn out to be allegorical are usually decided more by scientific and historical progress than religious introspection. Frankly, I am resigned to the fact that a time machine visit throughout history showing that most of the Biblical stories were bull would just result in the same snooty “You poor literalists just don’t understand how to read the Bible” response.

[Czarcasm]

@Flyer

From the other thread–

Ah, yes-Adam Clarke, in the commentary in that selfsame book said

The Jewish philosophy, such as is found [in] the Cabala, Midrashim, and other works, deserves the character of vain deceit, in the fullest sense and meaning of the words. [With t]he inspired writers excepted, the Jews have ever been the most puerile, absurd, and ridiculous reasoners in the world. Even Rabbi Maimon or Maimonides, the most intelligent of them all, is often, in his master-piece, the Moreh Nevuchim, the teacher of the perplexed, [is] most deplorably empty and vain.

[tomndebb]

@Flyer

From the other thread–

Interesting. Not only have you not provided proof that literalism is not of recent origin, you have quoted people who are not even addressing the same issue. Discussing the inerrancy of scripture, (which addresses the truths revealed about God), is a different discussion than whether the methods of presentation of those truths are based on literal depictions. Your citations also fail in that they only present the beliefs of a pair of nineteenth century religious writers with no references to the actual thoughts of Christians in the first two centuries.

You have not merely failed to prove your point, you have established that your whole argument is rooted in personal beliefs and not facts.

[TonySinclair]

@Czarcasm

This is just historical and intellectual laziness, in my opinion. It is deciding beforehand that when two or more stories collide, one will be deemed historical and the other(s) allegorical, and history has shown us that what stories turn out to be allegorical are usually decided more by scientific and historical progress than religious introspection. Frankly, I am resigned to the fact that a time machine visit throughout history showing that most of the Biblical stories were bull would just result in the same snooty “You poor literalists just don’t understand how to read the Bible” response.

I’m rushing around to load the car for our Christmas pilgrimage to Grandma’s house, but I’ll take a minute to say that I agree with this completely. Many Christians remind me of the stock market experts on TV, who can tell you in detail exactly why the market went up or down today, after the close, but are less accurate than flipping a coin when it comes to what it will do tomorrow.

Similarly, there is no shortage of experts who can point out all the indications that Genesis 1 is rhapsodic poetry, never meant to be taken literally, but had they lived 500 years ago, i.e. before science made Genesis look silly, they would be very thin on the ground.

I have no doubt that this will continue. The Hectors of the world who stand by Matthew and Luke’s nativity tales today will seamlessly switch to the allegory/metaphor explanation if archaeology conclusively proves that Bethlehem and/or Nazareth were unoccupied around 4 BC.

And no time for a separate post, but to answer someone above, no, I can’t prove that most Christians took the Bible literally until relatively recently. All I can say is that most of them were illiterate, and accepted the stories at face value, with no hint of what Augustine or others thought or wrote. IMO it should be obvious that such learned discourses were known to less than 1% of the Christian community, and very likely never discussed where laymen could hear. But no, I can’t prove it.

ETA: Merry Christmas, everybody. It’s the most wonderful time of the year!

[Bricker]

So…you’re really really sure, but can’t actually prove it, yet your sincerity should count anyway as proof?

[tomndebb]

@Czarcasm

This is just historical and intellectual laziness, in my opinion. It is deciding beforehand that when two or more stories collide, one will be deemed historical and the other(s) allegorical, and history has shown us that what stories turn out to be allegorical are usually decided more by scientific and historical progress than religious introspection. Frankly, I am resigned to the fact that a time machine visit throughout history showing that most of the Biblical stories were bull would just result in the same snooty “You poor literalists just don’t understand how to read the Bible” response.

@TonySinclair

Similarly, there is no shortage of experts who can point out all the indications that Genesis 1 is rhapsodic poetry, never meant to be taken literally, but had they lived 500 years ago, i.e. before science made Genesis look silly, they would be very thin on the ground.

And I have been persuaded by the actions of the atheist literalists on this board that if we had a time machine that would allow an anthropologist to interview the believers of the early centuries of Christianity, nothing they recorded would be construed as anything other than a strict, nineteenth century literalism.

(Judaeo-)Christian literature is not unique among religious writings in its acceptance of contradictory images or events. Was Athena the daughter of Pallas or Zeus? Did Prometheus create humans from mud or from pieces of all the other animals in the world? Is Aphrodite the daughter of Zeus or the product of the testicles of Kronos and sea water? Eros was sometimes a God and sometimes a Titan with different stories assigning him at least three sets of different parents. Greek mythology provides these and numerous other contradictions.
When perusing the various accounts of the gods written by the ancient Greeks, one does not encounter strident debates over which story was “real” or “accurate.”. Such questions were irrelevant to the understanding of the myths. When a form of rationalism arose with post-Socratic philosophy, the myths were challenged on the basis that the gods, as portrayed, were too immoral to have been divine, but we still do not see deconstructions of the myths based on internal inconsistencies.
The very question of accuracy in religious texts only originated when science, following directly on the tumult of the Reformation, provided a separate challenge to religious belief in a totally new way of surveying the world.
There is no evidence that anyone in prescientific ages even thought in terms of literal accuracy when reading religious texts. Even biography and history were read with an eye toward moral exhortation than to an exact delineation of events. . Accusations of literalism are simply anachronistic.

[Hector_St_Clare]

@TonySinclair

I’m rushing around to load the car for our Christmas pilgrimage to Grandma’s house, but I’ll take a minute to say that I agree with this completely. Many Christians remind me of the stock market experts on TV, who can tell you in detail exactly why the market went up or down today, after the close, but are less accurate than flipping a coin when it comes to what it will do tomorrow.

Similarly, there is no shortage of experts who can point out all the indications that Genesis 1 is rhapsodic poetry, never meant to be taken literally, but had they lived 500 years ago, i.e. before science made Genesis look silly, they would be very thin on the ground.

I have no doubt that this will continue. The Hectors of the world who stand by Matthew and Luke’s nativity tales today will seamlessly switch to the allegory/metaphor explanation if archaeology conclusively proves that Bethlehem and/or Nazareth were unoccupied around 4 BC.

And no time for a separate post, but to answer someone above, no, I can’t prove that most Christians took the Bible literally until relatively recently. All I can say is that most of them were illiterate, and accepted the stories at face value, with no hint of what Augustine or others thought or wrote. IMO it should be obvious that such learned discourses were known to less than 1% of the Christian community, and very likely never discussed where laymen could hear. But no, I can’t prove it.

ETA: Merry Christmas, everybody. It’s the most wonderful time of the year!

Actually, I’d be more likely to argue that inspired Gospel writers are more to be trusted than non-inspired archeologists. Don’t let that stop you, though.

In other words, you have no evidence. (Might I point out that most of the illiterate peasants in 13th century Provence subscribed to a Christian sect that actively denied that God had created the world?)

When you do have some evidence, please cough it up.

[simster]

@Hector_St_Clare

Actually, I’d be more likely to argue that inspired Gospel writers are more to be trusted than non-inspired archeologists. Don’t let that stop you, though.

In other words, you have no evidence. (Might I point out that most of the illiterate peasants in 13th century Provence subscribed to a Christian sect that actively denied that God had created the world?)

When you do have some evidence, please cough it up.

Do you have any evidence that your gospel writers were ‘inspired’ ?

Exactly what is ‘inspiration’ and why would the archeologist not be similarly ‘inspired’ ??

[monavis]

@Flyer

On one level, I’m absolutely fascinated by how much time and energy some atheists spend in finding “contradictions” in the Bible. If they would spend even one-tenth the time and energy in reading the text with an open mind, they would find a lot of their questions resolved.

I am also utterly perplexed by the phenomenon of (perhaps deliberate?) lack of understanding and reading comprehension, shown so clearly by the first part of the OP, and by other people. Why in the world some people insist on taking two parts of the SAME STORY, and claiming that they are two separate, mutually contradictory stories, is beyond me.

The Magi obviously arrived on the scene some time after the birth of Jesus. The wording of Herod’s killing order makes that perfectly clear.

---

Now as for the actual question posed by the OP: there could be, and quite possibly were, several different reasons why the disciples never tried to resurrect Jesus. My first thought would be “lack of faith.” Sure–IF you have faith, you can do just about anything. But when it comes to extreme things like raising the dead, that’s a stupendously big if. And we know from the Gospels that the disciples sometimes had trouble believing what Jesus told them.

It was the contradictions in the Bible that turned many atheists away from religion.Truth is not contradictory.

[kanicbird]

@TonySinclair

…
But I’d like to ask Christians a different question, one that I rarely see discussed.

In Matthew 10:8, fairly early in his ministry, Jesus sends his disciples out to perform miracles. He tells them (KJV), “Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.”

My question is, if his disciples could raise the dead, why didn’t they go to the tomb and raise Jesus, instead of moping around after he died, and instead of disbelieving that he had risen, even after being told so by their closest friends? Matthew 28:17 (among others) says some doubted even after allegedly seeing him. And remember, this was after (Matthew says) that all the Jewish saints had come out of their tombs and strolled around Jerusalem.

I realize that the disciples weren’t very bright, since they had no clue how to feed 4000 people with a few loaves and fishes in Matthew 15, after they had just fed 5000 people with a few loaves and fishes in Matthew 14, but could they really so dumb that they couldn’t think of an application for their raise-the-dead powers after Jesus died?

The disciples were given heavenly powers to work miracles in this world, but the disciples did not overcome the world (and it’s powers to control us) Jesus overcame the world.

The spiritual war aims to break our faith and put us into a state of disbelief. Jesus overcoming the world was immune to this, the disciples were still vulnerable and while they could never lose the gift of the powers, they could lose the belief that they have them, or be placed in a state of believing it is not for them to use in this case.
The effect of these spiritual or heavenly ‘weapons’ or powers can be see when after the rising of the Lord, the disciples did not recognize Him - until Jesus revealed Himself to them, allowed them to see Him. The effect of the spiritual weapon is pretty clear in Luke 24:

16 but they were kept from recognizing him.

(him = Jesus)
And the removal of the effect of the spiritual weapon:

31a Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him,…

It does show the power of the worldly powers (expressed in Eph 6:12 - below) and how they operate, how they manifest themselves in our physical world.

12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

Without overcoming the world, once struck with such a weapon of disbelief or fear it may take another to free one of the effects.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Flyer

On one level, I’m absolutely fascinated by how much time and energy some atheists spend in finding “contradictions” in the Bible. If they would spend even one-tenth the time and energy in reading the text with an open mind, they would find a lot of their questions resolved.

Which is funny, because a lot of the time, examining the bible with an open mind is what leads one to atheism. Part of that being finding passages which clearly contradict each other. By the way, find solution to the question “who bought the field of blood” yet?

I am also utterly perplexed by the phenomenon of (perhaps deliberate?) lack of understanding and reading comprehension, shown so clearly by the first part of the OP, and by other people. Why in the world some people insist on taking two parts of the SAME STORY, and claiming that they are two separate, mutually contradictory stories, is beyond me.

Here’s a short story.

Judas bought a field from Joe using 30 silver shekels. The jewish counsel bought the same field from Joe using the 30 silver shekels Judas gave them.

Hey look. Two parts of the same story, but there’s still a contradiction. What do you mean by “claiming they are two separate, mutually contradictory stories”? We’re not doing that. We’re pointing out that this one story has some clear contradictions in it.

@Flyer

You were doing very well until your last paragraph. Generally speaking, it doesn’t matter to Christians at all. In my experience, when a Christian notices seeming inconsistencies for the first time, he goes to an older friend or family member, who calmly explains the principles of Bible study, and then all is well again.

Well, why don’t you go to your older friends/family members about that Judas thing? Because last time this came up, you kinda ran off.

On the contrary, the “inconsistencies” matter a great deal indeed to the atheists. They expend a great deal of time and effort to find them, and then say essentially “Look at what I found! Hur, hur, hur! Where is your precious God NOW?”

It’s a great response to anyone who believes that the bible is the inerrant word of god. Inerrancy and internal contradictions are, well, contradictory. And I personally hold that the less people believe in the bible, the better off we all are.

For people who claim to disbelieve in God, they certainly go to great lengths to find anything, no matter how small, ridiculous, or illogical, to “prove” that they are right.

Because I prefer people not to believe in a horrific death cult. I especially prefer it if the people representing me in government do not base their decisions on said death cult.

[kanicbird]

@TonySinclair

Matthew says they lived in a house in Bethlehem, and gives no indication that they ever lived anywhere else before Jesus was born. They clearly intended to return there after Herod died, but were warned away by God, and only then did they settle in Nazareth, apparently for the first time.

Can you please cite the above bold.

[TonySinclair]

@kanicbird

Originally Posted by TonySinclair
Matthew says they lived in a house in Bethlehem, and gives no indication that they ever lived anywhere else before Jesus was born. They clearly intended to return there after Herod died, but were warned away by God, and only then did they settle in Nazareth, apparently for the first time.

Can you please cite the above bold.

Mat 2:8 (KJV) And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
Mat 2:9 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.
Mat 2:10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
Mat 2:11 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.

Other translations of Matthew 2:11:

(ASV) And they came into the house and saw the young child with Mary his mother; and they fell down and worshipped him; and opening their treasures they offered unto him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

(CEV) When the men went into the house and saw the child with Mary, his mother, they knelt down and worshiped him. They took out their gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh and gave them to him.

(ESV) And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

(Geneva) And went into the house, and founde the babe with Mary his mother, and fell downe, and worshipped him, and opened their treasures, and presented vnto him giftes, euen golde, and frankincense, and myrrhe.

(ISV) After they went into the house and saw the child with his mother Mary, they fell down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasure sacks and offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

(LITV) And having come into the house, they saw the child with His mother Mary. And falling down, they worshiped Him. And opening their treasures, they presented gifts to Him: gold and frankincense and myrrh.

(MKJV) And coming into the house, they saw the child with Mary His mother. And they fell down and worshiped Him. And opening their treasures, they presented gifts to Him, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

(YLT) and having come to the house, they found the child with Mary his mother, and having fallen down they bowed to him, and having opened their treasures, they presented to him gifts, gold, and frankincense, and myrrh,

(GNT) καὶ ἐλθόντες εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν εἶδον τὸ παιδίον μετὰ Μαρίας τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ πεσόντες προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ, καὶ ἀνοίξαντες τοὺς θησαυροὺς αὐτῶν προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ δῶρα, χρυσὸν καὶ λίβανον καὶ σμύρναν·

Strong’s Greek Dictionary
G3614
οἰκία
oikia
oy-kee’-ah
From G3624; properly residence (abstractly), but usually (concretely) an abode (literally or figuratively); by implication a family (especially domestics): - home, house (-hold).
To anticipate your response, no, Matthew does not explicitly say that Mary and Joseph always lived in Bethlehem. But as I said in the sentence you quoted, Matthew says they were living in a house when the Magi were led to them by the Star (evidently after it downloaded a new set of maps in Jerusalem), and gives no indication that they ever lived anywhere else. There is no mention of Nazareth until after they are returning home from Egypt, and are warned by God to stay out of Judea, and go to Galilee instead.

[QUOTE=St. Matthew (KJV)]
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:
2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
[/QUOTE]

Call me crazy, but that sure makes it sound like they hadn’t lived in Nazareth before then. There is no mention of a census requiring them to travel during Mary’s pregnancy. There is no mention of an inn that had no room for them, or a manger, or shepherds finding the baby Jesus with the Magi in some kind of stable or barn, as most Christmas pageants portray.

The only way to reconcile Luke’s census with Matthew is to suppose that they were staying in a barn/stable/whatever when Jesus was born, but managed to find a house a few days later, where the Magi found them, and then they fled to Egypt. Except that Luke says they didn’t flee to Egypt; they went to Jerusalem six weeks after Jesus was born, had Jesus publicly proclaimed as the Messiah in the Temple, and then went home to Nazareth, with no trouble from Herod or anyone else.