Was Paul Married?

Many (especially immigrant or anthropocentric preachers?) presume that Paul was
married because they first tried to speculate Paul was a Rabbi or a
member of Sanhedrin from certain parts of the Bible and then referring
to the Judaic tradition which favors a married Rabbi or Sanhedrin
member because as some believe, a married man would be more "merciful".

Therefore,
their conclusion would be that Paul's wife either left him when he
became Christian or that she has passed away, as he had identified
himself with widows, but also with the unmarried. (1 Corinthians 7:8)

I
would not have problem with the speculation of Paul being a Rabbi or a
member of Sanhedrin, but I would question the historical origin of this
traditional Jewish belief on who must be married. According to Third Millenium Website, the first recorded account that is still in existence today of such requirement postdates Paul.

If Jesus had corrected so many of the Jewish
"evolved" traditions in the first century A.D. despite their ignorance, so that they see the true meaning
of the Mosaic Laws, then it is fair to conclude that aside from the
Bible, especially the Mosaic Laws, any "new" Judaic traditions or
requirements should not be held so reliable to their historical
accuracy and loyalty.

Now on account of Paul's marital state, it
would be rather strange that he had not mentioned the existence of his wife if he had at
anytime gotten married, whether that had been be a happy marriage or
not, but instead, he had emphasized on his celibate life as to
encourage widows and the unmarried, thus indentifying with Jesus'
statement in Matthew 19:12 "Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake".

Therefore,
to say that Paul was married, would require one to trust other sources
such as the Judaic traditions or a lot of conviction that one can
presume "A" if the Bible never says "A" is not true.

I personally believe that Paul was never married, based on 1Corinthians 9:5. "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
" For this is a good testimony of Paul's particular authority. It might not have been a
good witness if it leaves room for others to challenge him: "Have you
not power to do such? Well your wife left you!" or "You stayed single
because you miss your wife!".

Celibacy is a giving up by
calling, not by vow or rules of office as the hypocritical Papists
would like their priests to believe. Biblical Celibacy is not lacking
affection towards or treating the opposite sex as dull or uninteresting
creation of God, but a matter of priority of God's Kingdom, a special
priority given to not all believers but some to obey. Some have even
gone as far as treating celibacy as similar to the presumed "biological
defect" of homosexuals, which is ridiculous because if one pretends
himself long enough to be disgusted by the opposite sex or denying the
beautiful relationship between husband and wife, he has covered himself
with a pride that questions against God's perfect creation.

Bottom
line, the real question would be, why would one be so insistent that
Paul was married? If the purpose of such is only to refute the belief that
"Paul was not married", then it is better for them to say "I am uncertain if Paul was married or not" instead.