Virtual Teen Forums
 

Go Back   Virtual Teen Forums > >
Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read Chat Room

Rate this Entry

For My Viewers

Posted January 13th, 2009 at 02:16 AM by ThatCanadianGuy

aaronk1994: Did Jesus Exist?

Me: I can't give a definite answer on whether or not the Jesus "of the bible" ever actually existed. It is my OPINION that its most likely just another rehash of old messianic stories that had been circulating not only at the time Jesus is said to have lived, but for THOUSANDS of years before.

There is still a possibility that there was a kooky Jewish rabbi named Yeshua that got his story told WAY out of hand. I have no problem admitting that Jesus might have existed (although I haven't seen good enough evidence presented to support it). This does NOTHING, however, to prove that any of the supernatural claims about Jesus are true, not in the slightlest. Not a SINGLE supernatural or miraculous event has EVER been witnessed, at least as long as the easily verifiable time of modern history (where records can be kept much easier of such an occurrence).

So in any case, the definitive answer would be NO. Not that a man named Jesus NEVER could have existed. But an actual supernatural being/son of God? NO. The burden of proof is on YOU people who want to believe that claim.

aaronk1994: The case for the existence and resurrection of Jesus is overwelming. Please do some research.

Me: If you came her to private message me just so you could make the SAME bullshit assertions as EVERYONE before you, then go fuck yourself.

I was ATTEMPTING to be civil. I needn't mention your GROSS misrepresentation of my opinon on your videos where you quote-mined and MANIPULATED my own thoughts to conform with your strawman version of what I actually believe.

You aren't worth my time. YOU are the one that believes in this bullshit. It's up to YOU to do the research, and prove it if you believe so strongly that OTHER people should believe it too. So far you've done a piss-poor job.

aaronk1994: We've proven it.

Me: You're such a fucking mindless Christian automaton. I ask continually for ANY proof. All I hear is "we've proven it" without ANY evidence being presented. This is SAD.

If you had actually proven ANYTHING in regards to the "truth" of your supernatural claims, then EVERYONE would believe it. Luckily its only brainwashed children or mental midgets such as yourself that can warp reality this far.

aaronk1994: So, you don't accept the existence of the Jesus Described in the Bible? Even if he was just an ordinary man?

Me: He's NOT described as an ordinary man in the Bible. He's described as the son of God (duh). If he DID exist, he could ONLY have been an ordinary man from which religious leaders deified him for their own personal gain. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to assert that he DID exist without a doubt, but IF he did exist, then the HUGE burden of proof would STILL be on you people to prove the supernatural aspect.

aaronk1994: Watch KabaneTheChristian.

Me: No Thanks.

If you want to prove your point, YOU do the work. You came here looking to start something obviously. If you even had any arguments going for you then you would have presented them by now. But you don't have shit, so I'm not surprised.

Come back when you actually have something meaningful to say; rather than spouting the religious nonsense you've had shoved down your throat since birth.

aaronk1994: Please explain Tacticus, an EXTREMELY reliable historian that recorded Jesus being judged by Pilot in 66 A.D.

Me: Your source sucks, your argument is stupid, and your dates are blatantly WRONG.

Tacitus was BORN in 56 A.D. so I doubt he wrote about Jesus when he was only 10 years old. BESIDES that, you're arguing for a guy that supposedly wrote all this super-accurate information when he wasn't even ALIVE for 20 years after Jesus supposedly died, and lived an entire generation after him.

This is really sad. Tacitus isn't even ON your side! His writings weren't given much attention by Christian scribes because he was CRITICAL of Christianity, even blaming them for setting fire to Rome! All he gives account for is how Emperor Nero persecuted Christians for the Great Fire of Rome (64 A.D.). He doesn't go ANYWHERE near the direction of trying to support Christians or even acknowledge that Jesus ever existed, he just blames them for starting a fire and for Nero shitting on them.

Of all his works, this ONE passage has been disputed as being an indroduction by Christians scribes (i.e. he never wrote it) since he's apparently so accurate of a historian that he gets the title of Pontius Pilate WRONG. He calls him a procurator instead of a prefect, a mistake that Tacitus would never have usually made (his other works show that he KNEW to call people like Pilate a prefect).

SO.... try again mindless drone

aaronk1994: Well, why didn't I think of that? Why didn't ANY historian think of that? Why are you parroting this stuff that you heard from the latest "sceptics.blogspot.com"? Why are you parroting this? That's not used by any historian as criteria.

I know he wasn't for Christianity, that's what makes his testimony important. He's a SECUALR resource. If an Atheist records the existence of Jesus, then you’re in trouble.

Me: Nope. An atheist wouldn't believe he was supernatural, because he's an ATHEIST (DUH). If we had accurate secular accounts of Jesus then we could DEFINITIVELY say that he existed. We don't, so we can't say that. IF that happened it still wouldn't bring you ANY closer to saying Jesus was the son of God (since no secular account will EVER say that). Any account given to us so far has simply been a historian saying "there are these christians who believe in a guy called Jesus". That doesn't at all go towards deifying him from a secular standpoint.

YOU are the one that believes the Jew Zombie was God. YOU are the one that has to prove that. Even if I be nice and just for the sake of argument say that Jesus existed FOR SURE. Then you'd still have to prove he did miracles/resurrected etc. Which NO ONE has ever proven.
aaronk1994: Put up, or shut up.

Me: Fuck you. I answer these ridiculous claims, yet I still don't EVER have to "put up". That is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY since this is YOUR BELIEF that you are trying to PROVE.

Hope the bad words don't make you cry. They hurt baby jesus' ears oh so very much.

aaronk1994: grr............... Tacitus recorded the EXISTENCE of Jesus. that is what this argument is about. When I refered to Tacitus, I said nothing about the resurrection/ Jesus being the son of God. Strawman. "YOU are the one that believes the Jew Zombie was God." What kind of stupidity is that? We don't argue that Jesus was a Zombie. Strawman. SECUALR SOURCES HAVE RECORDED THE EXISTANCE OF JESUS. GET OVER IT.

Put up, or shut up.

Me: Then provide these secular sources that actually describe ANYTHING that Jesus EVER did. All of them so far have been blabbing about Christians and the early church and how THEY worshipped Jesus (without commenting on his godliness).

I've already said that this doesn't matter. I have NO PROBLEM with Jesus existing. Just like Muhammad and Islam, there is still no proof of the supernatural claims.

YOU PUT UP OR SHUT THE FUCK UP

SUPERNATURAL CLAIMS! Got proof? No? THEN GTFO!

aaronk1994: Bye
Posted in Uncategorized
Views 1579 Comments 5
« Prev     Main     Next »
Total Comments 5

Comments

  1. Old Comment
    A bit harsh, yet true. I can't say I agree with EVERYTHING you say, or maybe just the way you say some things, but I can say I DO agree with most of what you say.
    Posted January 13th, 2009 at 09:15 PM by theOperaGhost theOperaGhost is offline
  2. Old Comment
    ThatCanadianGuy's Forum Picture
    This was a useless PM battle on youtube between me and that fundamentalist idiot. I just posted the comments here because on my youtube video I wanted my subscribers to be able to see all the PM's unedited.

    The video that was inspired by these comments can be found here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9-JsbHA2B4
    Posted January 14th, 2009 at 12:02 AM by ThatCanadianGuy ThatCanadianGuy is offline
  3. Old Comment
    The thing is...I don't think there is any point in trying to change the mind of "fundamentalist idiots" so why try? It just causes a pointless argument that wastes time and energy.
    Posted January 14th, 2009 at 12:21 AM by theOperaGhost theOperaGhost is offline
  4. Old Comment
    I think you'll like this... I got it from [URL="http://homepage.mac.com/bahlberg/iblog/B1386252977/C715152919/E467503953/index.html"]http://homepage.mac.com/bahlberg/iblog/B1386252977/C715152919/E467503953/index.html[/URL]

    4) Religious Fanatic:
    This type has given internal logic up for the external imposition of logic. This is usually due to severe bullying and ridicule as a child, which causes this INTP to be crushed to an empty shell – the perfect vessel for religion. These INTPs have no need for mere objective logic; they become masters of their religion, able to counter any argument logically within the confines of said religion. They accept the tenets and scriptures on "faith", and then feed it into their pool of logic. This type of INTP is incapable of losing an argument as they can creatively invent new logic off of old ideas. If their religion tells them the sun is a big chocolate square, they WILL FIND A WAY to deflect any argument that points out that the sun, in fact, is not a big chocolate square at all. The easiest way to end a debate with this type is "you are right" (due to the fact that they are incapable of being wrong, as that would require more pages of the dead sea scrolls which have yet to turn up).
    Posted January 14th, 2009 at 08:00 PM by theOperaGhost theOperaGhost is offline
  5. Old Comment
    TigerLily's Forum Picture
    I'm not especially Christian (parts of my family are, but I'm not so convinced) and I, having attended a fundamentalist Church in the past, do heartedly agree that there are problems especially with regards to telling small children about they need to be saved from going to hell when they're what, six? But I must say that I found your arguments offensive, even from a non-Christian viewpoint. Obviously you have the right not to believe in Christianity, but others have the right to do so also. I don't quite see how its your place to try and change their minds - using terms like "Jew Zombie" is just plain offensive, whatever your personal opinion. So I might not believe in Hinduism, but I wouldn't be offensive to Brahman because I have respect for other people's beliefs. I ask you to reconsider being so downgrading to the beliefs of others, even if they dont happen to be your own. People can believe what they want to believe, and I would say it is important to respect that.
    Posted February 18th, 2009 at 09:47 AM by TigerLily TigerLily is offline
 

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright©2000 - 2020
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018, VirtualTeen.org