Jesus time-travel adventure thread

[Perfection]

Because you're misreading what I said. .

Actually, that's what you're guilty of. I was questioning the first statement, not your hypothetical example.

Where did I say anything of the sort? What I said was that I had participated in a long discussion over how time travel and the effects of it could be resolved without paradoxen.

Well, you're the one making all the fancy claims! Like history must heal itself and all that good stuff.

 

[warpus]

I also dislike the idea of time "healing itself" - it basically forces the introduction of an entity that watches over time and heals it when necessary.

Causality is kinda messed up in our universe anyway, so maybe what to us is a time-travel paradox is not a paradox at all.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

No entity is involved - apparently the word "healing" was a bad one. How about "Time gravitates towards a certain stream of events" instead? It's not like gravity forces the introduction of an entity that pulls rocks towards the ground when necessary. (*cough*intelligentfalling*cough*)

Well, you're the one making all the fancy claims! Like history must heal itself and all that good stuff.

Compare it to a river. I'm saying that if you throw a stone into the river it'll keep going like it was a few moments later; you're talking about infinite possible multiple rivers. Now that's what I call "good stuff" .

Besides, I feel that "infinite universes" is something of a cop-out. (From Are Universes Thicker Than Blackberries?)

 

[Red Stranger]

I'm guessing not much would change. I don't even know why Jesus had to die for our sins. Couldn't God just forgive? I'm not religious, but I'm guess if Jesus didn't die, we would still be forgiven, since it's part of God's plan.

 

[warpus]

No entity is involved - apparently the word "healing" was a bad one. How about "Time gravitates towards a certain stream of events" instead? It's not like gravity forces the introduction of an entity that pulls rocks towards the ground when necessary. (*cough*intelligentfalling*cough*)

So what would happen if you went back in time and did something significant and virtually opposite of what happened the first time around? How would time heal itself?

 

[Souron]

If you throw a rock down a mountain it could cause an avalance.

But argueing by analogy is silly.

The trouble with "gravitating towards a certain stream of events" is who desides which events are should be gravitated toward. Why are some events (such as significant events in recorded histroy) gravitated towards more than others (such as a bug not able to make a nest in the spot it would otherwise have)? And if this tendancy does not pick favorites, how does history deside when each change will be undone?

Forthermore, such a "gravitating towards a certain stream of events" would violate Newtons laws of motion, which accurately model most events. Newtons Laws are reversible in time, such that there is ony one possible cause for every event. A healing effect as you discribe would violate this becouse then there would be multiple possible causes for the same event: there would be the natural course of history and the course of history with the time traveler whose changes got undone. Now it is true that Newtons laws do not provide a fitting model for processes involving heat (where enthropy significantly increases and it is no longer possible to back track history), but most of history (birth, life, death . . .) can be describe in terms of Newtons laws of motion.

 

[shadow2k]

In Warpus's alternate history scenario, Christianity would fizzle out since there would not be a Messiah (Jesus) that died for our sins.

Christianity never would have existed. Christ = Messiah. If he's not the Messiah, he's not called Christ, and there's no way for something called Christianity to ever be formed.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

basically if god does exist then he knows all that will happen, thus the technology for a time machine will never work (he just wouldnt let it) then jesus would die and all is forgiven

if god does not exist, it would be plausible and this world would be all muslim and jewish (dear lord, imagine that world)

 

[shadow2k]

if god does not exist, it would be plausible and this world would be all muslim and jewish (dear lord, imagine that world)

Uhhh...same God.

And I'm not so sure why a bunch of Muslims and Jews would be any worse than a bunch of Christians. Not trying to get into a flame war here, but your tone is pretty disrespectful to those two religions.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

well yes but with jesus gone christianity wouldnt

as jesus didnt really affect judaism and islam

i didnt mean that islam and judaism where bad either, i apoligize, i just pictured a world wide middle east

 

[shadow2k]

well yes but with jesus gone christianity wouldnt

as jesus didnt really affect judaism and islam

Yeah, it was just worded strangely. Jesus not dying on the cross wouldn't mean God doesn't exist though. Just that Christianity wouldn't, or maybe it would be called something else.

 

[Souron]

Well if Jesus had, instead of dieing on the cross (and rising again), been saved by a bunch of people who apear out of nowere with magical weapons, I'm sure there would still be a religion in his name.

 

[cgannon64]

Not neccesarily, but being able to hold it off for 34 years is an important thing to note.

More like 3 or 4. Jesus didn't preach for very long.

 

[cgannon64]

then it wasn't demonstrated very well. he could have done it in a more populous place than judeah and maybe he could have just written in the sky you're forgiven that would be a great demonstration. and while 5 hours of torture would suck plenty of people have endured worse.

The general point I intend to make is stronger, but I figure I'll respond to these individually as well, since I can:
a. How could Jesus have reached a wider audience than (at this point), the entire world?
b. The sky thing misses the whole 'sacrifice' part.
c. And plenty of more expensive gifts are being bought for Mother's Day than you or I could ever give. So?

Overall, however, I'll say this: Debating the circumstances of Jesus' sacrifice, and saying that there were better ones, is absurd. To claim that there were better times, and God - despite his omniscience - somehow missed them, while implicitly acknowledging that God was spot-on in his whole intention with the project, isn't exactly the best argument in the world.

EDIT: Damn. I keep on forgetting that I want to copy these into my previous post, and not make them seperate. Ah, well.

 

[warpus]

^^ I think the argument is that if this whole crucifixion and resurrection story was true - it would have happened at a different place & time.

 

[The Last Conformist]

If someone prevented Yeshua ben Yoseph from getting crucified, we'd have no Zombie Jebus.

 

[Vietcong]

well if ppl 3 thousand years from now travel back in time and save jesus, then jesus never whold have died in the first place. the bible whold say that ppl came from "the hevens" *since the writers wholdnt know thear time travlers* and save them. unless it was an alternate universe. in witch it was writen already allso