I had already addressed your speculation with my post at
#19 or was it a sermon based on your speculation.? Its a bit of a blurred line. To address further your speculation at post 20 would be a pointless exercise and just as pointless as it would be to address your conjecture and speculation presented as fact above at post
#27
This dismissal of discussion as “speculation” overlooks the depth of Catholic exegesis. Engaging with these passages through the lens of Catholic theology isn’t conjecture but rather an exploration rooted in centuries of Church teaching. The narrative in Luke 2:41-52, like all Scripture, benefits from thorough analysis informed by tradition and Church Fathers. Catholic theology does not view such exegesis as a "pointless exercise" but as essential for deeper understanding.
The child was perfect wasn't he? He was holy, immaculately conceived, special and a child that was to be a king that by the promise of his father god himself would inherit the throne of king David? Which among other promises made to his mother by god never came to fruition.”
While it is true that Jesus was perfect and holy, being divine and sinless, the assertion that the promises “never came to fruition” misinterprets the nature of His kingship. Catholic teaching holds that Jesus did indeed inherit the throne of David, but not in the temporal sense that some expected. His kingdom is spiritual and universal, transcending the earthly notion of kingship. This fulfillment is affirmed in His declaration that His kingdom is “not of this world” (John 18:36) and is foundational to Catholic understanding.
And Mary wasn't at all like you or I, was she? She was chosen by god himself to bear his child. Sound pretty special to me. It's a shame that god didn't tell his mother the whole story of her son's cruel torturous demise instead of the one he actually did give her, i.e., that he was only here on earth as a sacrifice!”
Mary’s uniqueness as the Mother of God (Theotokos) is undisputed in Catholic teaching. However, the argument that she should have known every detail of Jesus' future disregards the nature of divine revelation. Mary received what was necessary to fulfill her role, and while she was aware of Jesus’ divine mission (Luke 1:32-35), she, like any human, experienced the progressive unfolding of God’s plan. The prophecy of Simeon (Luke 2:34-35) alludes to the sorrow she would face, indicating that while Mary knew of the Messiah’s role, the full extent of His suffering was not revealed to her in detail.
Are you telling us that neither of his parents had never held a conversation of their own with their ‘divine’ child? Are you telling us that the child himself never once before their visit to Jerusalem had discussed or explained anything about his origins or indeed his very existence?
This presumption overlooks the mystery of the hypostatic union — the belief that Jesus is fully God and fully human. While Jesus' divine nature was inherent, His human nature followed a natural development process (Luke 2:52). Catholic theology supports that He grew in wisdom in a way appropriate for His human experience. Conversations between Jesus and His parents may have occurred, but expecting them to have fully grasped or discussed all aspects of His divine nature undermines the gradual revelation inherent in the Gospels.
Didn’t the very fact of her immaculate conception give her the slightest clue as to what she was to expect from her holy charge from god?
The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary’s preservation from original sin, not her omniscience regarding Jesus’ entire future. Her sinless nature prepared her to be a worthy mother of Christ but did not imply she had complete foreknowledge of all events. The Gospels depict Mary as learning and deepening her understanding of Jesus’ mission over time, aligning with the Catholic teaching that her faith and acceptance were acts of trust in God’s plan.
As I stated above, you are expecting all reading here to believe that in the 12 years Jesus had been on earth, and after all the signs and warnings Mary and Joseph heard from angels of god no less about this heavenly child and would be king, that nothing before his speaking at the temple had astonished them before that day.
It is not that nothing astonished them before this event; it is that this event, specifically, was remarkable due to Jesus’ self-awareness and expression of His divine mission. Mary and Joseph witnessed signs and had angelic revelations, but their understanding of Jesus’ full identity and mission developed over time. This astonishment does not reflect ignorance but the profound realization that, even in their role as parents, they were witnessing the divine mystery of God’s plan unfolding through their son.
