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]

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.

Unfortunately your arguments are premised on me being a believer. Since I am not and I don't accept that there is a God or that he personally put together the Bible or that anyone needs saving then your arguments are wasted "breath". You do understand that if you are trying to convince an unbeliever of something related to the Bible then you can't presuppose the existence of God? Right?

[RedEye]

[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?

It's actually a single question. Count the question marks. (The first part was simply stating a set of givens). I'm sorry that you don't understand the nature of a compound sentence.

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.

You are accusing me of dishonesty when I have already shown that your lack of reading comprehension (see above where you continue to insist that I was asking two questions instead of one) led to me seeing an apparent contradiction in your comments?

Yet, suggesting that my comments include: apparent contradictions, is not true and no real proof has been brought forward to support this claim.

The proof is in your inability to comprehend a compound sentence (question). See above.

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).

I'm sorry but if it is not in the text then it is a fabrication no matter how "universal" its acceptance. I'm not sure what being a parent has to do with it. Your claim was that Joseph and Mary knew that God would be watching after Jesus. This is knowledge that you can't possibly have. Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

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.

You are confusing two different things. Parents can be negligent (not noticing that their son was with them on the return journey to Nazareth for a whole day!) but still have feelings of remorse when they discover that their negligence may have led to a potentially tragic outcome. There is nothing contradictory about that at all.

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!

• Luke 2
  43 After the festival was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44 Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45 When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him.

Read the text carefully. The search among friends and relatives happened within their (large) traveling group. I have no idea what you mean by "you make the claim yourself!". I have never claimed what you did:

• "So, allowing him to stay with cousins and friends wasn't much of a concern, until they learned he actually wasn't with them".

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.

In the context of what we were discussing that appeared to be your position. You used the word "stay" not "travel". The word "stay" implies a permanent dwelling. If you meant something else then you should have chosen your words better.

You are inventing your own story again. The point is that the text glosses over the practical aspects of this little yarn. As far as we know Jesus begged on the streets for food and slept in alleyways when it became dark. We just don't know because the author deigned not to tell us. That is the plot hole.

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?

Everything. You have no knowledge that a 12-year old boy who was not a Pharisee was accepted into this school without the permission of his parents. It is a complete fabrication, totally unsupported by anything in the text. If it had happened then it would have been worth documenting by the author of Luke.

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?

No animosity. You say your explanation is more reasonable. I beg to differ. My explanation is vastly more plausible in the circumstances. Both could be wrong though. The point I was making is that there is huge plot hole in evidence which is highly indicative of a story which has been invented and not well thought out.

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 OP. 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!

If you don't want to acknowledge that there is a problem or address the OP question then that is entirely your prerogative.

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.

That may well be a remote possibility (that a seeming street urchin would be admitted to Herod's Palace --- in some parallel universe). Now explain what Joseph and Mary did not understand about the reply that Jesus gave them. I'm still waiting.

[tam]

Peace to you 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?

Why do you fabricate something that is not in the text? There is nothing to suggest that Mary and Joseph did not recall the circumstances of His birth. How in the world would they have forgotten that He had been conceived and birthed before Mary and Joseph ever had union (sexual relations)?


Why not simply go with what IS in the text? So that they did not understand that He had to be in His Father's house... or... why he had to be in His Father's house (even to the point of remaining behind when they and everyone else left). What did it mean? Why should they have known that?

It is also natural for parents to search for their missing child, is it not? Yet here He is asking them why they were searching for Him at all. Did they not know that He had to be exactly where He was (in His Father's house)?


**

There is just no reason from the text to suggest or accept that they did not understand (or remember) who His Father was.



Peace again to you!

[Elijah John]

It's actually a single question. Count the question marks. (The first part was simply stating a set of givens). I'm sorry that you don't understand the nature of a compound sentence.

You are accusing me of dishonesty when I have already shown that your lack of reading comprehension ..

The proof is in your inability to comprehend a compound sentence (question). See above.

Moderator Comment

Whatever you consider the provocation, uncivil retaliation is against the rules. Report, don't respond with statements like these.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[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?

Why do you fabricate something that is not in the text? There is nothing to suggest that Mary and Joseph did not recall the circumstances of His birth.

I'm not fabricating anything. What other possible explanation is there for Joseph and Mary not to understand what Jesus just said to them? I have asked you for an alternative explanation and you have declined to answer. That can only mean that you accept that my conclusion is the right one (the only one).

How in the world would they have forgotten that He had been conceived and birthed before Mary and Joseph ever had union (sexual relations)?

That's an excellent question and that is the whole point of the OP. It beggars belief that they could forget. Yet this is what the author of Luke would have us believe by telling us (via his omniscient viewpoint) that they could not understand Jesus's words. The story becomes ridiculous to the point of it being obvious fiction (and poor fiction at that).

Why not simply go with what IS in the text? So that they did not understand that He had to be in His Father's house... or... why he had to be in His Father's house (even to the point of remaining behind when they and everyone else left). What did it mean? Why should they have known that?

You are still offering no explanation on what it was about Jesus's words that they could not understand. Just stating that they did not understand tells me nothing. Then you talk about knowing. That is not the issue. The issue is their apparent inability to decipher what Jesus meant, ie. their lack of understanding.

It is also natural for parents to search for their missing child, is it not? Yet here He is asking them why they were searching for Him at all.

All quite unbelievable, isn't it? Thank you for recognizing that there is a problem with the veracity of this tale.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 35 by RedEye]

I think you have demonstrated how one can indeed not understand what Christ meant, or why He spoke thus to Mary and Joseph, without having to forget who His Father is.


Earlier, did you not state to FWI that if something is not in the text, it is a fabrication? Well... the text does not state that Mary and Joseph forgot (or did not understand) who His Father was. So according to your own words, you have fabricated this idea.

All quite unbelievable, isn't it? Thank you for recognizing that there is a problem with the veracity of this tale.

That is not a problem with the tale; that simply demonstrates something that they did not understand. Since you also do not understand it, why is it so hard to accept that this (or something similar from the text) is what Mary and Joseph did not understand?


Peace again to you.

[RedEye]

[Replying to post 35 by RedEye]

I think you have demonstrated how one can indeed not understand what Christ meant, or why He spoke thus to Mary and Joseph, without having to forget who His Father is.

Earlier, did you not state to FWI that if something is not in the text, it is a fabrication? Well... the text does not state that Mary and Joseph forgot (or did not understand) who His Father was. So according to your own words, you have fabricated this idea.

No, I have drawn a logical inference. I have no problems in drawing reasoned conclusions from the text. My problem is when people like FWI just fabricate things out of whole cloth, coming up with wild, improbable theories which they cannot support.

All quite unbelievable, isn't it? Thank you for recognizing that there is a problem with the veracity of this tale.

That is not a problem with the tale; that simply demonstrates something that they did not understand. Since you also do not understand it, why is it so hard to accept that this (or something similar from the text) is what Mary and Joseph did not understand?

There's a difference. There is no reason why either you or I should understand why Jesus would be oblivious to the anxiety he caused his parents by staying behind. Given our life experiences it is incomprehensible why the thought never seems to have occurred to him. That makes it a plot hole in the story. On the other hand, Joseph and Mary should have understood the part about Jesus saying that they should have looked for him first in his Father's house. There is absolutely no reason why this would be a difficult statement to understand given their knowledge of his origins. They may not agree with what he said, but they should certainly have understood the meaning. That makes it another gaping plot hole.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 32 by RedEye]

It's actually a single question. Count the question marks. (The first part was simply stating a set of givens). I'm sorry that you don't understand the nature of a compound sentence.

I have already shown that your lack of reading comprehension (see above where you continue to insist that I was asking two questions instead of one) led to me seeing an apparent contradiction in your comments?

The proof is in your inability to comprehend a compound sentence (question). See above.

I don't profess to be that great at writing grammar. Yet, I do know that the usage of "exclamation marks" are applied when ending a sentence. So, whatever your intent was by using them, the proper usage is the end of a sentence!!! Therefore, maybe it's really you that needs additional research in this area.

You are confusing two different things. Parents can be negligent (not noticing that their son was with them on the return journey to Nazareth for a whole day!) but still have feelings of remorse when they discover that their negligence may have led to a potentially tragic outcome. There is nothing contradictory about that at all.

And, the spin just keeps comingBut, remember: If it is not in the text then it is a fabrication. So, where in the (related) text is the word negligent or negligence used?

Read the text carefully. The search among friends and relatives happened within their (large) traveling group. I have no idea what you mean by "you make the claim yourself!". I have never claimed what you did:

Yes, you have. My statement was referring to the same situation but, you are just not accepting the reality of my comment and repeating your version several times. This isn't going to change anything.

Everything. You have no knowledge that a 12-year old boy who was not a Pharisee was accepted into this school without the permission of his parents. It is a complete fabrication, totally unsupported by anything in the text. If it had happened then it would have been worth documenting by the author of Luke.

There is big difference between: what could have happened or a possibility (which, I stated in post 13) verses a fabrication. Where, you are trying to suggest that I'm attempting to deceive. However, it seems to be the other way around, since my postings clearly include the opposite of your accusations.

Now explain what Joseph and Mary did not understand about the reply that Jesus gave them. I'm still waiting.

And, unless you get the information from someone else or open up the bible and find it yourself, you'll still be waiting

[tam]

Peace again to you,

[Replying to post 35 by RedEye]

I think you have demonstrated how one can indeed not understand what Christ meant, or why He spoke thus to Mary and Joseph, without having to forget who His Father is.

Earlier, did you not state to FWI that if something is not in the text, it is a fabrication? Well... the text does not state that Mary and Joseph forgot (or did not understand) who His Father was. So according to your own words, you have fabricated this idea.

No, I have drawn a logical inference. I have no problems in drawing reasoned conclusions from the text.

You have not demonstrated that you drew a reasoned conclusion. You have drawn what appears to be a ridiculous inference from the account, especially considering that there are other conclusions that have been suggested to you that do not require Mary and Joseph suddenly forgetting the circumstances of His conception and birth. You also stated that your inference was a fact, which suggests a very loose definition of the word, fact.

All quite unbelievable, isn't it? Thank you for recognizing that there is a problem with the veracity of this tale.

That is not a problem with the tale; that simply demonstrates something that they did not understand. Since you also do not understand it, why is it so hard to accept that this (or something similar from the text) is what Mary and Joseph did not understand?

There's a difference. There is no reason why either you or I should understand why Jesus would be oblivious to the anxiety he caused his parents by staying behind. Given our life experiences it is incomprehensible why the thought never seems to have occurred to him.

I do not find it incomprehensible at all.

It does not seem to be much different from when the apostles feared for their lives in the boat because of the storm all around them (while my Lord slept), and my Lord asked them 'where is your faith?' They should have known not to fear, but without (or with lacking) faith, they did fear.



(That being said, if you still find this hard to understand, then it should be easy for you at least, to consider that Joseph and Mary would have found that hard to understand.)

That makes it a plot hole in the story. On the other hand, Joseph and Mary should have understood the part about Jesus saying that they should have looked for him first in his Father's house.

He did not tell them that they should have looked there first. He asked them why they were searching for Him.

There is absolutely no reason why this would be a difficult statement to understand given their knowledge of his origins. They may not agree with what he said, but they should certainly have understood the meaning. That makes it another gaping plot hole.

I think you are overlooking something.

Knowing that God is His Father is not the same as them understanding all that this must mean.


Like the disciples, they should have known that nothing would happen to Him outside the will of His Father. Christ would accomplish what He had been sent to do by His Father (even if they did not understand exactly what He had been sent to do). I am not judging them at all. There are few who could say we would have done better. Abraham is one of those few exceptions. He knew Isaac would live (even if he had to be resurrected) and so he was not afraid... because God had told Abraham that his offspring would come through Isaac, and Abraham believed God (had faith in God and in His promise). God's promise could not be fulfilled if Isaac were dead.


Just because Mary and Joseph knew that God was the Father of Christ, this does not mean that they understood all that Christ did and would have to do. There is simply no issue here. It is not necessary that they would have to forget who His Father was, in order for them to not understand His words to them.





Peace again to you!

[ttruscott]

Unfortunately your arguments are premised on me being a believer. Since I am not and I don't accept that there is a God or that he personally put together the Bible or that anyone needs saving then your arguments are wasted "breath". You do understand that if you are trying to convince an unbeliever of something related to the Bible then you can't presuppose the existence of God? Right?

Your supposition that I think I can change an unbeliever's opinion about the Bible message misses the mark. Way off....