Exactly my point, presenting him as either married or unmarried has no basis in the Bible text. Yet for centuries He has been presented as an unmarried man. The flaw is only apparent to many when the opposite stance is taken than what they have accepted as fact.
The married/unmarried question doesn’t have equal sides. A wife WOULD have been in the narrative.
Don’t mean to sound rude, so forgive me in advance.
The flaw in this “logic” in agreeing with the premise that Christ could have been married vs. the mormons saying He was married is, that based on mormon teachings and beliefs, in order for a man to be exalted (become a GOD) and to be able to achieve the celestial kingdom he MUST be married, have taken out his temple endowments and passed other various checkpoints.
Since the purpose of the temples was eliminated via the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, how could Christ have taken out His endowments in order to attain that which mormons teach and claim is absolutely essential to attaining the CK? IOW, temple marriage?
Were the temples of that era busy in performing celestial sealings, marriages and necro baptisms? I don’t think so...
Be careful in entangling yourself with the mormons...their doctrine is a web of confusion...