You are certainly welcome to your interpretation but it is not one I share.
How patronizing. "Welcome to...." I doubt there is a more condescending remark. But shaking off that mood, let's move on.
Early Christians were intent on showing Jesus as Messiah and, to do that, they tried to show how Jesus fulfilled the Biblical prophesies about the Messiah. One such prophesy was that the Messiah would be born in the hometown of King David, Bethlehem. Their problem was that it was well know that Jesus came from Nazareth. It is apparent to me that two myths appeared independently from two different Christian communities explaining the contradiction. Neither was based on historical fact but they were an answer. Matthew included one and Luke included the other.
This is just one example that shows me that historical accuracy was not as important as theology and I should be very skeptical about accepting as factual, as @ding does, other such stories, e.g., Jesus performed miracles.
Study and research the Old Testament, particularly the genealogies used in either/both Matthew and Luke. The biographies of those listed were as familiar to the people of that time as the biographies of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are to us today. Both Washington and Lincoln call to mind the history of our country, and the genealogies listed in Matthew and Luke readily called to mind the history of Israel to the people of that time.
Second, etymology plays a great part in understanding what was written. The third part that comes into play is that Jesus stated clearly he was not the Messiah (the anointed one) called to rule Israel as a political leader. That is the messiah the people of the time were anticipating. Instead, Jesus was clear that he was anointed (the messiah) for an entirely different purpose. The genealogies point to historical building blocks of his purpose.
Scripture is clear that Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and that his birth was in Bethlehem. The question: Why would Mary and Joseph have been in Bethlehem? Joseph was a carpenter. In that age, carpenters weren't known for working in wood so much as for being stone masons--and also those who hauled stones to building sites. At the time Jesus was born, work on walls, outer buildings, etc. was still in progress. Was Joseph, as a carpenter, working on this project? Another point: Tradition has Mary spending her childhood in the Temple where she learned and served. Were Mary and Joseph already living in that area when Mary was pregnant?
When Jesus was growing up in Nazareth, the nearby city of Sepphoris was being built. Perhaps Joseph (and later Jesus as his apprentice) were working at that site as well, while living in Nazareth?
Being skeptical of birth stories and miracles are beside the point. Even as a child, where Jesus was born was immaterial to me. What was even more immaterial were the miracles he performed for the benefit of people two thousand years ago. How was any of that of any use to me? It wasn't. So I turned to his teachings, and in following them, I ran into my own miracles. Because it is impossible for me to discount my own miracles, who am I to discount the miracles of the past.
When faced with the question Why didn't someone seek Jesus? answering, "There was no historical proof of where Jesus was born" has my eyes twinkling. Jesus advised to seek him, not to seek his birthplace. Along the way, the history and culture leading up to his story is a plus for those who have an interest in those things.
Maybe it is just me, but the two most frustrating things too many latch onto is Jesus' past accurate, and the beautiful afterlife for those who "accept" Jesus. Why isn't the focus on Jesus in the present, in our lives today?
I apologize for the screed. You are welcome to ignore it
