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]

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 correct in that your grammar skills might need a bit of work. The quotation marks were in parentheses. To aid in your English education you should note that a parenthetical statement (including quotation marks!) does not interrupt the flow of a sentence. Do you see what I just did there?

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?

It's not. It's a common sense conclusion that any reasonable person would come to if parents set off on a journey without checking that their child was with them. To compound that first negligence they then failed to notice his absence for a whole day! If that is not negligent parenting, what would you call it, good parenting?

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.

I still 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". You can keep insisting that I have but unless you can identify the post, I think we both know what the truth is.

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.

Yes, but throwing out a possibility which has no foundation in the text whatsoever constitutes a fabrication. If I said that Jesus quickly found himself a girlfriend and stayed with her for 4 nights that would be a (remote) possibility. It would still be a fabrication on my part since there is absolutely nothing in the text to support it. On the other hand, I could argue what might be probable in the circumstances but that is a completely different animal.

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

Okay. So we are done. Thank 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.

You have not demonstrated that you drew a reasoned conclusion.

I know that I have. I suggest you review the record.

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.

Calling my inference ridiculous does not help you to overturn it. As I am tired of repeating, you would need a better explanation than mine based only on what Jesus said. I haven't heard one yet. Perhaps you could refresh my memory?

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.

Okay. Explain away.

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.

It is completely different. Firstly Jesus was asleep so their fear was beyond his control. Secondly he had already demonstrated that he could work miracles. He hadn't done so as a 12-year old. Thirdly these were disciples who were supposed to have faith in him as their master. Fourthly it might have been thoughtful of Jesus to tell the disciples to have faith and not to worry before he took a nap. Shall I go on?

(The fact you would argue that a 12-year old boy should not care less about the anxiety he would cause his parents by effectively running away is a sad reflection on how Christians must put away their critical thinking skills in order to defend the indefensible).

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.

I think you are overlooking something.

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

I don't care about all it might mean. We're only discussing Jesus's words at that point in time. 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?

[RedEye]

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....

You missed the point. Never mind. ](*,)

[FWI]

[Replying to post 41 by RedEye]

Do you see what I just did there?

Of course I know what you are doing and it has nothing to do with grammar

But, let's review what a compound sentence is: a sentence that contains at least two independent clauses often joined by conjunctions. Where, an independent clause is a clause that can stand alone as a separate sentence, which contains a subject and a predicate with a finite verb.

So, in your following statement, there appears "not to be" the two required independent clauses that can stand alone as separate sentences, for your comment to be considered a compound sentence. Yet, since you are insisting that, you did write a compound sentence, I can only conclude that it was your intent to do so.

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?

Therefore, before you try to lecture someone on proper grammar, you should get your own understandings corrected first. Hence, if your comment was a compound sentence it would have two independent clauses that could stand alone as separate sentences. Thus, written correctly, my assessment that two independent sentences were in your comment, would technically be correct

It's not. It's a common sense conclusion that any reasonable person would come to if parents set off on a journey without checking that their child was with them. To compound that first negligence they then failed to notice his absence for a whole day! If that is not negligent parenting, what would you call it, good parenting?

The problem with your analysis is that you refuted common sense or universal acceptance, when I used it. Now, because it benefits you, it's okTypical.

I still 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". You can keep insisting that I have but unless you can identify the post, I think we both know what the truth is.

In post 14 you stated:

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.

This is a clear reference to Luke 2:43-45.

In post 6, I stated: "No, they were doing what "any other" concerned parent would do, when it was found out that their 12 year old son wasn't to be found with their traveling group of family and friends." Which, is referring to Luke 2:43-45!

In post 13, I stated: It is also clear that Joseph and Mary knew that God would be watching over the ChristSo, allowing him to stay with cousins and friends wasn't much of a concern, until they learned he actually wasn't with them. This also is in Luke 2:43-45!

In post 27, I stated: 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. Here again, is a clear reference to Luke 2:43-45.

So, the postings are clear and they show that your position is in error

Yes, but throwing out a possibility which has no foundation in the text whatsoever constitutes a fabrication.

It is for you to arbitrarily decide, if a statement has foundation or if doesn't without verifiable evident. And, expect to be taken seriously. Which, in this case you haven't produced.

Okay. So we are done. Thank you.

I don't think so

[RedEye]

[Replying to post 41 by RedEye]

Do you see what I just did there?

Of course I know what you are doing and it has nothing to do with grammar

It has everything to do with grammar. At least you have now learned what a parenthetical statement is.

But, let's review what a compound sentence is: a sentence that contains at least two independent clauses often joined by conjunctions.

Very good. The conjunction I used was "and". Tick.

Where, an independent clause ...

I invite you to read the question again. If there were more than one question there would be multiple question marks. How many question marks do you see? Yep, one. So it it was a single sentence with two parts separated by "and then" and with a parenthetical expression (an aside) in the middle. You can keep arguing that I wrote two sentences there but everyone knows you are wrong.

It's not. It's a common sense conclusion that any reasonable person would come to if parents set off on a journey without checking that their child was with them. To compound that first negligence they then failed to notice his absence for a whole day! If that is not negligent parenting, what would you call it, good parenting?

The problem with your analysis is that you refuted common sense or universal acceptance, when I used it. Now, because it benefits you, it's okTypical.

I'll take that as agreement that the parents would indeed be negligent. Thank you.

In post 27, I stated: 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. Here again, is a clear reference to Luke 2:43-45.

This has all been addressed by me previously. It serves no purpose for you to restate the same claims which I have already refuted.

Yes, but throwing out a possibility which has no foundation in the text whatsoever constitutes a fabrication.

It is for you to arbitrarily decide, if a statement has foundation or if doesn't without verifiable evident. And, expect to be taken seriously. Which, in this case you haven't produced.

Unfortunately the onus is on you to provide the foundation if you think you have one. My job is to point out that you haven't done so.

Okay. So we are done. Thank you.

I don't think so

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

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

Do I take it that some explanation will be forthcoming from you or will I still be waiting? I'm confused.

[tam]

[Replying to post 42 by RedEye]

Peace to you.

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.

WHY they should have known that He had to be in His Father's house.



Something that is actually indicated in the text.


I do not know why you insist that the thing they did not understand was what Father He was referring to. I do know that you are making this much more complicated than it actually is.




Peace again to you!

[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.

WHY they should have known that He had to be in His Father's house.

The question also does not relate to why they should have known where he would be. That question would be: "Why didnt you know I had to be in my Fathers house?

Regardless of any of that, Joseph and Mary should have twigged and gone "yes, of course, that makes sense". Instead the reaction was "duh?". Another reaction might have been "oh, that hadn't occurred to us, but now that you say it ...". Instead the reaction was "duh?". That is what is unbelievable about this exchange.

Something that is actually indicated in the text.

No, you have inserted "why" words that are not in the text and would change the meaning of the text.

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. 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.

I do know that you are making this much more complicated than it actually is.

That's my feeling exactly about what you are attempting to do.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[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.

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.


Other than that, I would just refer you back to post 33 (and the next post of mine which elaborates more).

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?

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.

That changes nothing in the text.

Peace again to you!

[FWI]

[Replying to post 45 by RedEye]

This has all been addressed by me previously. It serves no purpose for you to restate the same claims which I have already refuted.

I and others have refuted "all" of your comments, related to this topic! So, it is your insistence that you are right, with no actual evidence and only unfounded statements that keeps driving the rebuttals. Thus, if you want them to stop, then do what you have stated and just move on

[RedEye]

[Replying to post 45 by RedEye]

This has all been addressed by me previously. It serves no purpose for you to restate the same claims which I have already refuted.

I and others have refuted "all" of your comments, related to this topic! So, it is your insistence that you are right, with no actual evidence and only unfounded statements that keeps driving the rebuttals. Thus, if you want them to stop, then do what you have stated and just move on

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

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

Do I take it that some explanation will be forthcoming from you or will I be left waiting? I'm still confused.