You miss the point of bornacatholic's post. He is not seriously proposing that the woman with the issue of blood was Our Lord's daughter in the carnal sense. Rather his pointing to the absurdity of the stance taken by the advocates of 'sola scriptura', that they can read the Scriptures 'literally'--that is without the need for interpretation beyond the face meaning of the passages.
'Brother' must be taken at face value in one passage. 'Daughter' must not in another. 'Do this in rememberance of Me' should be read 'literally', but 'This is My body' is not, and so forth.
Once it is admitted that 'sola scriptura' is not as advertised, but is actually the application of an interpretive tradition alien to the mind of the ancient Church to the Scriptures, its advocates have to explain why their human tradition new minted in the 1500's is superior to that of the Church (and they can do it twice, once for bornacatholic and his Latin bretheren, and once again for us Orthodox).
I'm not missing the point of his posts, they're perfectly clear.
sola scriptura is part of the oral tradition of protestantism