Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Rhythmcs]

Yes, my grammar is so bad, lets focus on that, because god forbid we have to deal with the content of my comments.  

The consensus of scholars, which you have previously referrred to in order to poo-poo other opinions, which you acknowledge that your comments are...rejects the johannine text as historical.  

Discuss.

It's your attitude. If you want to fight, I am armed to the teeth.

:chokes on drink:...Is that what this looks like?

If you want a civil discussion, I am still armed to the teeth.

Pick your poison, because I'm good with it either way.

Already did, The Consensus™ you have earlier referrred to as truthmaking.  It says you're full of shit about this "event" in john.

Now what? Do you or do you not think that The Consensus™ is truthmaking?

Ultimately, this is really simple. There either is or is not a consensus about a historical jesus....and this shit either does or does not make jesus shit more palatable, historically. If there is one, and it does, then you are plain and simply worng..in your opinion - and that's assuming jesus did exist. Your Johannine story is garbage by literally everyone's metrics - even jesus freaks. If a historical jesus did exist he never said that shit. So pick one or forever miss me about some hilarious consensus.