Jamie, the only other option to deny that Jesus was not married is to acknowledge that he was a liar.
No, that's not true, Ben.
I was curious about that point myself. I found some discussion on the point in the Jewish stack exchange that seems helpful.
מי שחשקה נפשו בתורה תמיד ושגה בה כבן עזאי ונדבק בה כל ימיו ולא נשא אשה אין בידו עון והוא שלא יהיה יצרו מתגבר עליו, אבל אם היה יצרו מתגבר עליו חייב לישא אשה ואפילו היו לו בנים שמא יבוא לידי הרהור. Rambam Hilchot Ishut 15:3
The translation given was that a man who desired to study Torah and who can control his passions does no wrong, but else should marry.
Another response:
"In response to this part of your inquiry, I can answer you that, by the time of Jesus, the title "rabbi" and correlates were not exclusively used in a formal manner as it is today in judaism in reference to authorized clergy. On the contrary, it was sometimes used in reference to non-clergy and non-pharisaic individuals who had acquired a religious following as a means of attributing honor. Also, not all recognized pharisaic authorities (that time's rabbis) had the rabbi title attached to their names, as was, for example, the case for Hillel The Elder. Later rabbinc authorities also don't always have the title, as is the case for the Sage Shmuel, and many others.
All this to say that: even if it could be proven that in rabbinic judaism historically one would have to be married to be a recognized rabbi, it does not follow from it that Jesus was married just because he was called a rabbi, since the title was not exclusively used in this formal manner by that time, being some times attributed to religious leaderships independent of formal training, recognition and, needless to say, any other requirement for official ordination as a rabbi."
There was a good bit of interesting discussion like that and this:
"It was certainly very common, but I can't find a requirement in the talmud (which was written in the few hundred years around your target timeframe), and I find one talmudic counter-example:
On Kiddushin 71b R. Yehudah of Pumbeditha is asked why his son, R. Yitzchak, is not yet married (and is an adult).
Kiddushin 82a does argue that an unmarried man cannot teach children, but this appears to be a concern about the appearance of impropriety, not a question about his ability or knowledge."
But what is it to you? I think it's clear from your larger efforts that your aim is simply to discredit and cast doubt, which is true of all those who oppose Jesus. But you won't have any better luck with his reputation than people of your mindset had with his body.
Do you remember what he said in Matthew 5:17-19? That he had not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it down to the letter.
Barnes has it:
"to complete the design; to fill up what was predicted; to accomplish what was intended in them. The word "fulfill" also means sometimes "to teach" or "to inculcate," Colossians 1:25. The law of Moses contained many sacrifices and rites which were designed to shadow forth the Messiah. See the notes at Hebrews 9. These were fulfilled when he came and offered himself a sacrifice to God..."
Gills Exposition:
"I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. By "the law" is meant the moral law, as appears from the whole discourse following: this he came not to "destroy", or loose men's obligations to, as a rule of walk and conversation, but "to fulfil" it; which he did doctrinally, by setting it forth fully, and giving the true sense and meaning of it; and practically, by yielding perfect obedience to all its commands, whereby he became "the end", the fulfilling end of it."
And, mind you, that's a commandment upon the man to make the first move by proposing. If Jesus came to fulfill the Law down to the letter, do you prefer that he was a liar rather than a married man? I am serious, lady! What do you say?
I say you're arguing God's word with God, but don't understand either.
