• PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    23 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
      23 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!