He did not come here to live a carnal life...
__________________________________________________________
First, no one now knows if Christ was married or not.
Christ came to fulfill the law, one law was that a man marry. Jesus was called Rabbi. Although there are some examples today where a man might be an un-married rabbi but it would be rare, in the time of Christ ALL rabbis were married.
There have always been legends of Christ having children and them being carried off to southern France for their safety.
I would wonder why if Christ was married that from the cross He did not make an allowance for someone to take care of His wife and/or family, after all he did that for His mother and His mother had other sons and likely daughters to take care of her.
We don’t know and likely will never know, but, what difference does it make? With the exception of Paul the other Apostles had families.
Celibacy was not popular in The Church for nearly a thousand years
This is not a true statement. Christ was God with us in a flesh body. God created all souls, His children. It is likened to 'incest' for God in a flesh body to marry one of His children.
Furthermore, where in all of the Written Word, did God or Christ refer or call Christ 'rabbi'? There is great distinction in who does the talking.
The reason Jesus commissioned his beloved disciple John to take care of his mother, when normally this duty would pass to the next oldest son, I think is this: Jesus knew that each of his two brothers would soon be martyred themselves, and that John would live to the ripe old age of 90.
I'd posted earlier that the Lord told the prophet Jeremiah to not marry (Jer. 16:1-2) -- looking at the prophet's tumultuous life and the sufferings he endured as he warned Israel of the consequences of her faithlessness (Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jews were carried captive into Babylon) -- it's easy to see how having a family would have burdened him in his duties as a prophet.
Throughout the book of Jeremiah God refers to Israel as his (faithless) bride that He wishes to reconcile to Himself.
“Return, faithless people,” declares the Lord, “for I am your husband. I will choose you—one from a town and two from a clan—and bring you to Zion. " Jer. 3:14
Israel/The Church is Christ's bride.
Christ, in His human role as teacher, could not have been burdened with a family of his own. In His Divine role as husband of Israel/The Church, he could not have been married in the human sense.
on the contrary you have the example of Essenes during the same time who believed that sexual relations were evil.
part of their beliefs was a Savior who would be celibateThere have always been legends of Christ having children and them being carried off to southern France for their safety. -- err.. no, there have never "always" been these legends. There was none of this during the Roman era or the middle ages
More importantly, any Semites escaping from Roman authorities wouldn't head towards the Roman Empire but head the other way, to Parthia or India where there were Jewish communities from centuries BC.
The Frankish Kingdom was declared as kings in the line of David and Solomon -- NOT in Jewish blood.
sorry, but these are utterly wrong statements in your post.
Because Christ didn't have any children, nor any siblings from Mary.
In a Semitic society then as now, the care of the mother is with her sons. One does not entrust one's mother to the care of someone who is not her son or daughter. It is not done.
the only certainty is that Peter was married. Clement of Alexandria notes that Peter and Philip fathered children. It is highly probable that the others were married except possibly young John
depends on what you mean by "popular" -- monks were revered from the early centuries as holy men, while married priests, even devout still were perceived as less devout. It's the same today with pastors -- gossip about the pastor's wife etc. even when completely unfounded.
As time went by, people clamoured for more presbyters (priests) to be like monks..