You are understating it a tad. The baby Jesus was the target of an asassination campaign by the local sovereign.
It's not exactly normal, but I wouldn't call it unusual.
My point exactly. They didn't have this baby and then resume their normal lives, him carpenting and her spitting out babies.
SD
They didn't have this baby and then resume their normal lives, him carpenting and her spitting out babies.
Once Herod was dead, there was nothing preventing such a life.
In fact, once Herod was dead, the family moved back to Nazareth and, per the later testimony of their neighbors (when they were confronted with JESUS' ministry), their life there did not seem to be all that out of the ordinary.Matthew 13:54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
------------------------------------------------------
Mark 6:1 And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him.
2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
Again; no proof that they did, no proof that they didn't. We are left to reason and tradition, and end up weighing those against each other. I go one way, others go the other. If you wish to accept this as an article of faith, I have no argument. If you wish to accept this as doctrine that's proven by Scripture, then I do argue.