How Could Joseph and Mary Not Understand?

[RedEye]

The gospel of Luke tells us that on one of the yearly family trips to Jerusalem when Jesus was a boy, he failed to return back with his parents but stayed behind. His parents did not notice his absence for a whole day. (Let's ignore the fact that they must have been really atrocious parents to depart and not know that their son was not with them! Not to mention the arrogance and thoughtlessness of the boy Jesus in staying behind and not saying a word to his own parents who he should surely have realized would worry about him). Eventually Joseph and Mary went back and after much frantic (if belated) searching they found him in the temple courts. Then we have this:

• Luke 2
  48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you. 49 Why were you searching for me? he asked. Didnt you know I had to be in my Fathers house? 50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

Did Joseph and Mary suffer collective amnesia? Had they completely forgotten the circumstances of his conception and birth after only 12 years? This is what the gospel author tells us:

• Luke 1
  29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacobs descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.
  |
  35 The angel answered, The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

Is it credible that Mary would have a visit from an angel, conceive a child as a virgin (!!!) and then completely forget whose son she brought into the world? Isn't this just another ridiculous plot hole in the entirely fictional story of Jesus?

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 11 by Goose]

Even Jesus disciples didnt understand Jesus at times.

And I'm supposed to trust the Gospels, which (if I recall correctly) you say were written by the disciples Matthew/Mark/Luke/John, because why...?
If as you say the disciples didn't understand Jesus (at times), then it's very likely they got what they say Jesus said in the Gospels wrong.

What they may or may not have understood back in the day is of no consequence IF what they wrote was inspired by GOD.

[RedEye]

Is it credible that Mary would have a visit from an angel, conceive a child as a virgin (!!!) and then completely forget whose son she brought into the world?

Beside the very astute mention that not understanding does not imply forgetting, you might be interested to know that sinfulness does indeed MAKE people forget as written about in Rom 1 which insists that sinners who saw the creation of the physical universe (1:20) then repress that proof because their love for sin is greater than their love for the truth. Paul says this at least 3 times which bears all the implications that scriptural repetitiveness contains.

As sinners, both Mary and Joseph would be heir to this repression syndrome and lack of insight into spiritual things.

You are wielding a two-edged sword. By your own reasoning you are very much a sinner too. Therefore you too lack insight into spiritual things. Why then would anyone believe anything you have to say? The same applies to Paul. Accusing everyone of being a sinner cuts both ways.

As argued in the OP the lack of understanding on the part of Joseph and Mary could only relate to their apparent amnesia as to who Jesus's father was. I have yet to see any other explanation except for lame apologetics about them suffering stage fright from the stress of the search. (In actual fact they should have felt relief when Jesus was eventually found). We can dismiss that since the statement made is that they did not understand, period. There is nothing in the text about it being a momentary lapse in thinking ability.

[William]

[Replying to post 17 by ttruscott]

As sinners, both Mary and Joseph would be heir to this repression syndrome and lack of insight into spiritual things.

And what - if anything - would fix this amnesia, you claim both Mary and Joseph were under the influence of?

Rebirth:
This self imposed amnesia is cured only by the intervention of the Holy Spirit by giving them a rebirth into Christ, a rebirth that breaks their addictive enslavement to evil and restores their free will. It would seem to be accompanied by the Holy Spirit indwelling the person.

So the narrative you are claiming is that neither Mary and Joseph were free from evil. What of the narrative which claims Mary as pure/without evil?

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 1 by RedEye]

Didnt you know I had to be in my Fathers house? 50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

When it says 'they did not understand what he was saying'... are you suggesting that the thing they did not understand was why he was calling someone else his father?

[ttruscott]

You are wielding a two-edged sword. By your own reasoning you are very much a sinner too. Therefore you too lack insight into spiritual things. Why then would anyone believe anything you have to say? The same applies to Paul. Accusing everyone of being a sinner cuts both ways.

You seem to have missed post #20 where I mention the cure for this lack of spiritual acuity... For more detail, see Heb 12:5-11 which tells us that even after we have had our free will returned by a rebirth, there is a time lag for the institution of painful discipline that trains us to always choose righteousness and never sin. Every Christian is at a different place of this process and to catch them at a high or low does not limit them to that high or low nor define their progress in sanctification.

The difference between Paul and others is that his writings have been included by GOD in our Cannon and so have been trustworthy to me ever since I was told in the Spirit that the Bible was HIS book and said what HE wanted it to say.

Anyway, there is no point in trying to find salvation in what I write or Paul - only by seeking the salvation that is found in the Christ can one be saved. Since Christ has said He will not lose one of His people gone astray into sin, what someone thinks of what I write is immaterial.

[ttruscott]

So the narrative you are claiming is that neither Mary and Joseph were free from evil. What of the narrative which claims Mary as pure/without evil?

I do not accept sinless on earth except maybe a very few people (over the centuries) for a very short time... I have no allegiance to the Catholic interpretation of things and their need to idolize people.

Sinless people are heaven ready, there is no reason to say in this place of suffering.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 14 by RedEye]

Is it credible that Mary would have a visit from an angel, conceive a child as a virgin (!!!) and then completely forget whose son she brought into the world?

What you wrote was two questions! The first being: Is it credible that Mary would have a visit from an angel, conceive a child as a virgin (!!!) I answered: Sure, it's credibleThe second question was: and then completely forget whose son she brought into the world? I answered: "And, she surely wouldn't have forgotten how her first child came to be" (post 6). Hence, it is clear that you refused to recognize or acknowledge the truth or validity of "all" my actual posted remarks to your above questions. Which, it seems was intended. I also made it clear in post 6 (first comment) that Joseph and Mary didn't, through-out the gospels, forget who the Christ was (as introduced to them by an angel)So, the spin is quite evident.

I'm not sure that you should be blaming others for your inability to state things in a careful manner without apparent contradiction.

It's not unusual to question the intent of others, when certain tactics are considered beyond the scope of a reasonable and honest debate. Yet, suggesting that my comments include: apparent contradictions, is not true and no real proof has been brought forward to support this claim.

That is not in the text. If they knew this, then why the worry and anxious search?

It doesn't need to be in the text. Why? Because, it's universally accepted and known as being a parent (see post 14 for further details)However, it does seem that you have decided to take a peculiar approach here: You claimed that Joseph and Mary were atrocious parents (post 1) and were absent minded (post 7). Yet, now you seem to support that they were worried and anxiously searched for their son. This surely could have others, questioning your real position and intent, including myself.

That is also not in the text. You are inventing your own scripture. The only "friends and relatives" that are mentioned were traveling with them to and from Jerusalem. As far as we know they all stayed in tents on the outskirts of the city for the duration of the festival.

Sorry, but it is in the text (Luke 2:43-45) and you make the claim yourself! So, there is no inventing going on, concerning my statementsI didn't claim that the Christ stayed with friends and relatives during his extended layover in Jerusalem. Thus, I have no control on how you perceive my comments. That's on youHence, it is not unusual for someone, who is focused only on one outcome, to misread the actual intent of the written word.

I ignore that poster. I don't find that interactions with him are productive.

Well, I guess you can be as selective as you wants with who you interacts with. But, I feel the same way towards our interactionsBut, the information I introduce, during interactions with posters is intended to inform, not to convert. This is done so that individuals will have no excuse or be able to deny that they didn't know the real facts, when it is brought to their attention at some point in the future

You are inventing your own story again.

No, you are wrong again. There was a school of Gamaliel and the apostle Paul verifies this (Acts 22:3). The Christ, at age 12 did astonish the teachers of the law (Luke 2:47). And, the Pharisees did send their male children to school (this is common knowledge). So, what am I inventing? However, my explanation is much more reasonable than yours, where you suggest the Christ begged on the streets for food and slept in alleyways, when it became dark. So, suggesting a "worst case scenario" in this situation, just points to a much bigger issue. So, what's your purpose with all this animosity?

Then you need to explain what Joseph and Mary did not understand about the explanation Jesus gave to them about how they should have been able to find him sooner. That is the whole point of the O.P. Given that you agree that both parents knew at all times who Jesus's real father was, what exactly were they having trouble with?

No, there isn't a need to explainBecause, the young Christ didn't make any such comments, which relate to "the time period it took Joseph and Mary to find him" (this is another false claim). The bible records that the young child actually questioned Joseph and Mary on why they were seeking him in the first place! So, if this is the whole point of the O.P., it's flawed!

Yet, when Luke 1:31-33 is review, we see that these verses record, what the angel Gabriel informed Mary about her first born child's destiny. Stating: he will be the Son of the Highest, he will be given the throne of King David, his kingdom will have no end and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever. So, Joseph and Mary weren't informed of the business their son would have had at the temple. Thus, they thought that if this was their son's calling by God, which they had anticipated since his birth. They would find him at the royal palace, rather than in the temple.

So, another attempt to discredit a biblical event has been foiledThank you for giving me this opportunity.

[Tcg]

Yet, when Luke 1:31-33 is review, we see that these verses record, what the angel Gabriel informed Mary about her first born child's destiny. Stating: he will be the Son of the Highest, he will be given the throne of King David, his kingdom will have no end and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever. So, Joseph and Mary weren't informed of the business their son would have had at the temple. Thus, they thought that if this was their son's calling by God, which they had anticipated since his birth. They would find him at the royal palace, rather than in the temple.

Not surprisingly, your review didn't include Luke 1:35 which includes this phrase:

"So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."

According to this claim, Jesus' father was God. The temple is God's house not the royal palace.

So, another attempt to discredit a biblical event has been foiledThank you for giving me this opportunity.

Given that you overlooked the above fact, your claim of victory is invalid.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 28 by Tcg]

Not surprisingly, your review didn't include Luke 1:35 which includes this phrase: "So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God." According to this claim, Jesus' father was God. The temple is God's house not the royal palace.

This comment of yours is surely faulty. It seems that you are doing the same thing that RedEye was doing, which is ignoring what I actually wroteIn the second sentence of my quoted comment I included the phrase: The Son of the Highest, which of course can also be stated as: the Son of God. Hence, there is no need to include every verse that claims that the Christ is the Son of God or the several titles of the Heavenly Father.

However, you are also trying to ignore the young Christ's comments. So, what's the business of the Father, which Mary and Joseph was aware of, which was related to the temple?

[RedEye]

[Replying to post 1 by RedEye]

Didnt you know I had to be in my Fathers house? 50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

When it says 'they did not understand what he was saying'... are you suggesting that the thing they did not understand was why he was calling someone else his father?

This is what Jesus said:

• 49 Why were you searching for me? he asked. Didnt you know I had to be in my Fathers house?

Obviously the first question is fully understandable. The only part of the second question which they could possibly have had trouble with is "my Father's house". So yes, I am suggesting (more like pointing out a fact) that Joseph and Mary failed to understand the reference to Jesus's real father being God and his house being the Temple in Jerusalem. Now, do you have an explanation for how it is possible for them to not have understood this reference?