That Christ had a wife is a fiction of the 20 century. Christ had many women followers during his ministry. However he knew his ministry would be short and that death was coming both because of his claims and his ultimate purpose. That he had no romantic interests is documented by writings attributed to his mother. Though the home of lazarus, Marthur and Mary he frequently visited and shared his ministry with them.

That the Roman Church has a record of supposed celibate vows individuals were not capable of honouring them. Western Society has put marriage to the back of carrers so it places sex outside marriage within the field of careers, rather than family.

What I mean by deny, is assume another thought position. However I believe marriages ought to happen in the early 20s, and have some family input.

Josephus, I don't get it, how you dig up some mouldy old text and "attributed" to this one or that one to satisfy your case. The truth is this, like the majority at the time, Christ's mother, God bless her soul, was illiterate. If you take the Biblical account to be true then Christ actually lived for about the average life expectancy for the times 30 to 35 years. If he didn't mess with the Romans he might have lived a bit longer. Wives were inconvenient for the narrative so they got left out. Back then if your brother died it was acceptable for you to take his wife, along with your existing wife, two wives, three or four if you were unlucky with brothers, this is most likely the case with Joseph taking Mary. The alternative is the "old man" Joseph being in his early 20's took the young Mary between 12 and 14 to be his wife. Mary had lot of pregnancies and many children, she lived to be a very old woman of about 50.

Pauliar,

You quote me and instantly show that you are a liar. I never said that Porter would have a $10m payday and you just proved it. I also said that the payment to Porter and court cost could exceed $10m if the ABC pursued the case which they didn't.

I said that to get out of a court case the ABC would have to release a grovelling apology which they did. The apology from the ABC essentially admitted that there was absolutely no substance in their article.

It looks like both you and Pascoe like to make up bullsh1t.

shonky, I'll repeat what you said;

<<the damages (to Porter) will likely reach several $m with costs > $10m. The ABC will need to make a grovelling apology and fire another 100 employees to pay for it.>>
Posted by shadowminister, Tuesday, 11 May 2021 11:30:10 AM

Now there is nothing in the above which states "payment to Porter and court costs could exceed $10m if the ABC pursued the case" You have added the bit about "if the ABC pursued the case". The case was brought by PORTER not the ABC, PORTER dropped the case not the ABC.As for how much PORTER was going to pocket, a big chunk of over $10 million. You were wrong on three points, no >$10m, no grovelling apology from the ABC, and no 100 ABC employees sacked.

shonky, you need to stop making out you are a high flying LEGAL EAGLE, when it comes to the law you really are a PLUCKED CHICKEN. After being so wrong in the 'Beat Up' Bolt case, you can now add the 'Cry Baby' Porter case to your long list of failures.

Pauliar,

A quote from a previous post.

"Assuming the judge accepts these imputations, IF it wants to defend itself on the basis that the article was true, the ABC will need to prove that the rape actually occurred. They will also need to prove that it contributed to the woman’s suicide. The police cannot prove these things. The ABC cannot prove these things. Nobody can.

Or, as The Australian’s Chris Merritt gleefully put it: “Milligan and the ABC are in a dreadful position. Their best option is a long, grovelling apology accompanied by a very large cheque. They have been snookered.”

I would think that there are a lot of puckered anuses at the ABC.
Posted by shadowminister, Thursday, 18 March 2021 7:23:07 AM