• PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      Oooohhhh

      I mean, yes, obviously. It all of a sudden makes the other commenter’s steadfast insistence against me make sense, if they thought that I meant this person actually existed who could do real life magic tricks and came back from the dead and he still watches to see if you’re masturbating.

      Yes, I was talking about the historical figure, not the superhero. I thought that went without saying but maybe not.

      (Edit: What the heck, their original argument is clearly saying that they think there’s no evidence that the historical figure existed. But whatever, we got there in the end, I guess.)

      • JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        22 days ago

        (Edit: Also I think it is dishonest of them to edit their comment…

        Dude, I did nothing of the kind.

        Wow, it’s almost like you managed to copy-paste the known fact that the body of Christian scholars agrees that someone existed, later known as “Jesus,” and then seemingly couldn’t deal with a rebuttal upon your notion of ‘that clearing up everything.’

        So now you’re getting weird about the fact that I had to re-do my comment, simply because I responded to the wrong commenter at the time? So, did not see my rebuttal at all? Did you not see my attempt to explain that?

        Go ahead, tho-- consider this your opportunity to fairly reply to what I said above. Sound good?

        EDIT: Hahaha, instant downvote!