See also related article here:
TITLE: Christian Scholars Not Fazed by ‘Gospel of Jesus’ Wife’
There is no evidence either way proving Christ was single or married. I go with married since it would be hard for a man of his age to be single in that time period.
The guy in this lead article gives An awfully wimpy defense. This by a FReeper, Gen-X-Dad, from another thread, in but a few paragraphs does a much bettter job, in my opinion:
“Ancient documents written by gnostics, heretics, and opponents of the first century church get dug up by todays media in an attempt to demoralize Christians. Gnostics, heretics, and opponents of the first century church wanted to redefine Christianity in their time. They were booted out and their documents and alternative beliefs were not considered relevant by the early Christians.
Two thousand years later, these alternative documents are presented as more accurate, revealing, and credible than any other historical Christian document. Even though historical Christian documents have been scrubbed inside out by archaelogists and historians in an attempt to prove or disprove the Bible. This is being done because the alternative documents promotes the agenda of the anti-Christian faction, that permeates media and entertainment, to redefine Christianity in modern times. So in some sense, the modern day gnostics, heretics, and opponents of Christianity are picking up the baton from their ancient counterparts.”
Ray-gun and I really liked How this guy, Gen-X-Dad, put it.
ping for later
“For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
I believe Our Lord was referring to Himself in that last phrase.
I recall reading, a long time ago, about some Muslims somewhere (Pakistan? Afghanistan?) who believed that they were descendants of Jesus. So the idea isn't new--but their belief may have nothing to do with some gnostics in Egypt.