Say whatever you will against the Son of Man, for it shall be forgiven. Yes, I suppose the details of Jesus' personal life might have been left out of the scriptures in order to stress the importance and meaning of his mission as Savior.
Whether he married as a man or not is really beside the point. His office as Christ, the Son of God is where the story is. There was a point that he yielded his will to the will of God and thereafter forsook his rights and self-interests as a human, even refusing to defend himself when his life depended on it.
But to defend himself, thereby saving his body, he would have to take back his statement that He was the Son of God when if fact he was, and is. The law at that time said it was blasphemy and punishable by death to claim to be equal with God. His resurrection proved the matter and mankind found no defense for their actions. No where to go for atonement except through the one that they killed, his body being the last and perfect sacrifice which they knew not until later.
From thence, any blood-offering for sacrifice for atonement was a rejection of the true sacrifice which had already brought the laws of sacrifice to fulfillment.
There are many who practice some sort of sacrifice to atone for their 'sins' who do not understand and refuse to admit that God had already provided the perfect sacrifice -- His own express image whom we call the Son of God.
I think it would be wise to let the future reveal the truth of the matter on whether or not Jesus was married, rather than reject the notion out of hand and refer to him as a 'lecherous, two-timing cheater' if he did exercise his human-ness as the Son of Man. Wouldn't it be more proof that indeed his body was real flesh and blood, and felt pain and passion, rather than some ethereal phantom apparition that wouldn't be able to relate to the problems that humans have on human terms?
Why should it make a difference anyway, insofar as our salvation is concerned?
There's no doubt that Jesus was a man who exercised his humanity. But he was just as much God, free of sin and perfect in every way. As a result, he would not have taken another bride beside his church, the bride that scripture says is his.
It truly would be all wisdom to trust that Jesus would seek his Father's will and be true to his divine in rejecting any other bride but the one that his Father has provided for him. I am not the one calling him a "lecherous
two-timing cheater." Those who claim that he would take a second bride are saying that.
What difference does it our salvation? If Jesus would be unfaithful to his true bride, he is not the Lamb of God, the perfect attoning sacrifice for all of our sins. If he married Mary, then he offers no salvation.
So, it makes all the difference in the world. This is totally like the Enemy, who offers little lies that seem so harmless and innocent. After all, why can't we consider that Jesus would marry? It sounds so reasonable. So understandable.
Of course, it's actually the difference between Heaven and Hell.
Oh migosh = what are you doing on this thread???? the voice of reason - finally.
Jesus spent three years teaching His Gospel - trying to teach us The Way. He told us we could be like Him, do the things He had done ( John 14:12 "... He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father."
I've always believed that Jesus, in teaching us to follow Him, and telling us that we could, if we believed what He taught us, do the things He had done - to be like Him - was the crux of His message. That has always comforted me. Was He some ethereal, untouchable being whose life was unreachable for us? That would sadden me.
If his being married would make him a 'lecher" and a "liar" and a "cheat" - where would that leave us?
Being married in the time of Jesus was Jewish Law, particularly for a rabbi. It was as expected and accepted as that the sun rises in the east. It would therefore not have been a thing that would be 'news' or 'different' needing comment.
If, however, He were not married, in contradiction to the Law - then it would seem it WOULD be loud and clear in the Gospels along with the precept for it