Or was he lying by omission? Or was the account faulty? By trying to combine these stories, you've created new questions.
The truth is, these accounts were never meant to be combined--their authors had no idea the others existed, save for the sources from which any of them were compiled. I don't deny christ existed, but anyone could work all the details from entirely disparate accounts of his existence into one overwrought tale and claim it isn't contradictory. Anyone who wasn't born into a literalist interpretation.. let alone any real biblical scholar.. will beg to differ from such very personalized approximations.
Remember that your summary writeup that ties all these together was not itself in the Bible. You've in essence created your own version of the religion by trying to reconcile these different accounts.