You're quite the font of misinformation, aren't you?
If I had an adoptive Father and he was celibate, and people mentioned it, I don't think that would bother me at all. There have been bishops that have adopted children if I recall correctly. Much less offensive than discussing your mom's sex life.
I'm pretty sure the Theotokos would be quite horrified at the amount of conversation her marital relations or lack thereof has generated throughout the ages.
Can you imagine what it's like for Jesus? I mean, I don't think I could handle hearing about such things with regard to my mother.
Yeah, but more to the point, could you imagine people calling your guardian/adoptive Father a celibate? Nobody ever considers Joseph.
If there are "modern" bishops that adopted, they didn't have wives.
Abp. John of Chicago/Metropolitan of Riga and All Latvia adopted Fr. Sergei, the once and present guardian of the Tikhvin Mother of God (once his beloved wife went to her reward). Neither Fr. Sergei, his Matushka nor their children had anything but kind words on Abp. John. St. Innocent, Abp. of the Aleutians and Met. of Moscow had a wife and children.
But this is not the point, a married man being called celibate to his wife is insulting.
Most prefer to think of their father being celibate but married to their mother, and are insulted by people insisting on getting into details otherwise. But you go ahead and fantasize about your parents' intimate relationships.
My point was in response to what somebody said.
Yes, St. Matthew.
Look, its not all about Mary, Joseph was his male role model.... To call Mary "ever virgin" is the same as calling Joseph a celibate.
Since he had been married and had half a dozen children, no, it is not.
Blah, this is ridiculous.
Like it or not the scriptures CLEARLY state Joseph did not know her until AFTER the birth.
Like it or not our Scriptures CLEARLY state Joseph did NOT know her until the birth.
This is plain, simple, and direct.
That is plainly and simply your interpolation of your ravings into the text:
καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκε τὸν υἱόν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον
And not he knew her until that she born the son her the first-born
No μετὰ "after" there. Except in your misguided and willful imagination.
It does occur in Matthew though:Μετὰ
δὲ τὴν μετοικεσίαν Βαβυλῶνος Ἰεχονίας ἐγέννησεν τὸν Σαλαθιήλ...Πᾶσαι οὖν αἱ γενεαὶ ἀπὸ Ἀβραὰμ ἕως
Δαυῒδ γενεαὶ δεκατέσσαρες, καὶ ἀπὸ Δαυῒδ ἕως
τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος γενεαὶ δεκατέσσαρες, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος ἕως
τοῦ Χριστοῦ γενεαὶ δεκατέσσαρες.
they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel...So all the generations from Abraham to
David are fourteen generations; and from David until
the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto
Christ are fourteen generations.
Your analysis suffers from problems of temporal limits and basic counting-from Abraham until David 14 generations are listed, not AFTER David; 14 generations from David until the Babylonian captivity, not AFTER; 14 generations from the Captivity to St. Joseph, not AFTER. St. Matthew doesn't count past David, the Captivity or St. Joseph to get to 14. But please, feel free to lose count.
οἱ δὲ ἀκούσαντες τοῦ βασιλέως ἐπορεύθησαν· καὶ ἰδοὺ ὁ ἀστὴρ ὃν εἶδον ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ προῆγεν αὐτοὺς ἕως
ἐλθὼν ἐστάθη ἐπάνω οὗ ἦν τὸ παιδίον·
When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till
it came and stood over where the young child was
Did the Star of Bethlehem keep on going once it reached its destination? Sort of defeats the purpose according to St. Matthew. But please, feel free to wander off. Or rather, continue on your way.
Like it or not, EO church tradition once again has scrambled the scriptures.
We like it, and you evidently do not, that EO Church Tradition once again knows our own Scriptures, and you again demonstrate that you haven't a clue.