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?

[RedEye]

[Replying to post 42 by RedEye]
Just a quick response to your post, though I may go back through it all later:

Let me remind you what he asked: "Didnt you know I had to be in my Fathers house?. This is what you need to address. What about this could Joseph and Mary not understand?

WHY He had to be in His Father's house.

But Jesus did not ask: "Didnt you know why I had to be in my Fathers house?". That's a completely different question.

It is also not the question I inferred.

But you added the "why". It wasn't me and it isn't in the text.

I feel it is a logical inference that they did not understand a) that He had to be in His Father's house, and/or b) why He had to be in His father's house. They seem to go hand in hand to me. If you did not understand that someone had to do something, you probably also didn't understand why they had to do it.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. The point is that this is not the question Jesus asked. He asked about where they should have expected to find him, not why Jesus felt he had to be there. You can't suddenly change the question to suit your agenda.

I do not know why you insist that the thing they did not understand was what Father He was referring to.

That is not what I have argued.

I specifically asked you if that was the thing you were saying they did not understand, and this was your answer:

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.

Your entire argument is based upon that, is it not?

Yes, it is, but that is not what you paraphrased up above. Notice the "and" in my response. You can't focus on just one side of my sentence and ignore the other. The sentence is a complete unit. It's part of what I argued but not all of it. See below if you need clarification.

My argument has been that the "Father's house" reference should have been immediately understood. That is the only thing in that passage that could be the subject of misunderstanding. You aren't giving us an alternative except by inserting things into the text.

Not at all. They did not understand that they need not have been searching for Him. They did not understand that He had to be in His Father's house.

I'm weary of this same response. We have been through this already and are just repeating ourselves. I can't keep making the same arguments endlessly and you restating your same non-scriptural claims. If you can't say anything new that I haven't already addressed then I may choose to not reply further.