I've been thinking about it. Mainly my imagination was peaked when you think that after jesus dies and comes back, he doesn't actually look jesus. He isn't immediatley recognised by his followers.
What if Jesus was a timelord that just got a bit caught up in a social upheaval and now is thought of as the son of god.
I dunno about the timelord thing, but the fact that nobody recognized him is definately something to think about. Something I hadn't previously thought about before.
I predict major discussion coming...
If he was a TimeLord he was going against trying not to change time. So, no, I don't think he was a Time Lord.
-MillsJROSS
Oh come on Rogue timelords weren't uncommon. The Master for instance. And The Doctor originally which is why he was banished to earth when everthing kicked off (I mean the Doctor Who series started).
Hmm, if no one recognized him, maybe Jesus and one of his followers planned the whole thing. Fake his resurrection?
Maybe all major deities are people from the future who realised they could travel back in time and assume the rool of deities in order to be worshipped forever.
Think about it... the year 3218... Bill puts on his invisible hoverboots, dresses up like Jesus and steps into a time machine. He can walk on water now.
It's an interesting thought.
Thing is though, Jesus is the son of God, so he has all God's powers. I'm sure he could travel through time if he WANTED to, but why would he? He had other plans.
Great topic, Kandy!
everyone knows that Jesus is the buddha.
he can fly too, and make toast using his
LAZ0R EYES!!!!!!
Quote from: Hammerite on Sun 30/07/2006 08:31:10
he can fly too, and make toast using his
LAZ0R EYES!!!!!!
He's Jesus, I'll bet he could.
In ways, Jesus was like Buddha, except Buddhism has nothing to do with the Bible. Buddha himself said that one shouldn't believe in Jesus. Ick. :P
All religions should join together to form a SuperReligion that totally contradicts itself and destroys the universe.
Oh yeah, and Jesus may be powerful and crap, but he still can't fit 2000 doughnuts in his mouth.
hasn't that already happened... the super contradicting religion i mean.
yeah, but i mean one colossal contradicting religion, not loads of little ones that contradict themselves.
Quote from: Hammerite on Sun 30/07/2006 09:45:28
Oh yeah, and Jesus may be powerful and crap, but he still can't fit 2000 doughnuts in his mouth.
He can, it's bigger on the inside than it is on the outside.
Sorry.
Quote from: Evil on Sun 30/07/2006 06:21:47
Hmm, if no one recognized him, maybe Jesus and one of his followers planned the whole thing. Fake his resurrection?
Probably. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jesus first claim to be the son of God
after his resurrection? And with the newly discovered Gospel of Judas, it would seem more likely most of it was a set-up.
Hey, with both Charles Manson and Jim Jones fresh in memory, it's possible, right? :)
Or maybe he just died.
If he didn't claim to be God before his resurrection, why would the Pharisees/Jews want to kill him in the first place? If all he did was minister to others and heal, he would not have been charged with blasphemy or mocked as "King of the Jews".
The disciples did recognize him (a great number of other people did as well. over 400, IIRC), it simply was not instant. It makes more sense that they would doubt at first, anyway.
Also, how would a couple of fisherman been able to steal his body from the Roman guards? Bribery would be out of the question - a guard's penalty would be a gruesome death. The disciples had little money in the first place.
Considering that Jesus predicted his death numerous times (for example, 'this temple will be destroyed and rebuilt in 3 days'), he would have needed to have been a part of the great resurrection conspiracy too. And why would he willingly die for what he knew was a lie?
Talk about a "set-up" like this has existed for a very long time, however, I have yet to see any real evidence for it.
Well how could he travel back in time or fake is own death when he was nailed to that cross?
OK, my 2 cents.
I'm not very much familiar with Dr. Who series but I imagine the Time Lords require very advanced equipment to travel through time and, I think that's important, an energy source to initiate the process of bending the continuum. If they don't - Dr. Who is nothing more than an enormously popular and fun piece of science fiction with science cut out.
Such an energy source would be, oh, I don't know, some bloody huge reactor or a medium-sized supernova.
I never read the Bible thoroughly (I guess I should've, though, me being Christian an all) but I'm quite sure that no great big time travelling mechanisms were described there.
No, the Ark of the Covenant doesn't count, it's too small and everyone knows its primary function is to make people's eyeballs explode (see Riders of the Lost Ark).
OK, back to Jesus. If he could, however, travel in time without all this heavy gizmos he himself would have to generate enormous amounts of energy. Now the fun part: no human can do that (NO, rubbing an inflated balloon against a sweater won't be enough, anyway he'd have to be doing it for a few million years, and I don't think they had sweaters in Jerusalem back then, not to mention balloons*). Furthermore a person with such an ability (generating cosmic amounts of energy, not rubbing balloons on sweaters) would have to have godlike powers.
Basically if you're an all-powerful entity going back in time to fake your own death (with all the mucking about the time-space continuum, dealing with some potentially dangerous paradoxes and making calculations that'd make Stephen Hawkins' eyes water) would take much more effort than simply resurrecting yourself.
That is why I don't think Jesus was a Time Lord.
*inflated animal bladders don't count.
No, he couldn't have been a rogue time lord, because something big enough to change all of human history would have been stopped.
If we assume he was a Time Lord, though. Is Judas a Dalek?
-MillsJROSS
Maybe Judas was a timelord as well, but Jesus thought "oh no, not in MY bible!" and made him into a villain.
You all are forget the most basic proof that Jesus isn't from the future:
He was born in Bethlehem in a manger. His mom could vouch for him for that one. He didn't just randomly turn up one day and say "I'm the Son of God."
Again, He COULD go back in time, but why would he need to? He's Jesus. After the Ressurection (and talking to the Apostles) He flew up into Heaven to go live there forever.
yeah and jesus couldnt run 88MPH with a flux capacitor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_capacitor) straped to his back
Sure he could. He's Jesus. He's like the bionic man, but with flashy lights.
Well, what I meant to say was Jesus wasn't some guy from the future pretending to be the messiah.
[serious]You forget:Ã, a) That physics say that time travel is impossible...
Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, b) That all the supernatural stuff seen in the bible is probably invented[/serious]
[joke]Well, except for a newyorker artist who mesures 30 feet...[/joke]
Quote from: Alliance on Sun 30/07/2006 21:41:31
Well, what I meant to say was Jesus wasn't some guy from the future pretending to be the messiah.
No... he was an ANDROID from the future programmed to save the world...
...
...
and
kill Sarah Connor...
I don't know, time traveller seems just about as likely as any of the other theories... ;)
I think that if someone is smart enough to be able to time travel, he'd be smart enough to cover his trails and assume the identity of a real person.
But I think the crux of this argument is that... Doctor Who is a television series...
[controversy]and the Bible's a book[/controversy]
Quote from: Hammerite on Sun 30/07/2006 21:52:45
Quote from: Alliance on Sun 30/07/2006 21:41:31
Well, what I meant to say was Jesus wasn't some guy from the future pretending to be the messiah.
No... he was an ANDROID from the future programmed to save the world...
...
...
and kill Sarah Connor...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESKnQr-5sXw&
he's also the island from Lost, that's why it heals people because what that guy said about a man not being an island is wrong because Jesus is.
Quote from: Nacho on Sun 30/07/2006 21:47:53
physics say that time travel is impossible...
Says who?
Admittedly, it seems logical that if one travels back in time for a purpose, and creates such a purpose, there is no more need to go back in time, thus creating a paradox.
However, who's to say time is like a stream?
Just because we percieve time to only move in one direction and to be unchangeable doesn't mean that it DOES move in one direction and IS unchangeable.
After all, we can, in no way, percieve magnetism. However, we know that it exists.
Long ago, however, we didn't know it existed at all. So who's to say for sure that time can't go backwards just because we don't percieve it to?
If time were, for example, like a river with different branches (because rivers DO have branches... I think....), by going back in time, it's like building a dam at one particular part. You've stopped anyone from going in that particular direction, and so float off in another part entirely.
\ /
|
By going back in time, you build a dam at, say, the left \ of the extraordinarily simple diagram above. This doesn't create a paradox, leaving nowhere to go, as you can just as easily simply float down the / of the 'stream'.
Now, if time were more like this:
\ /
|
/ \
Going back in time could create a problem, as several streams can lead to the same event, by going too far back, you could unravel a completely different string of events that, short-term wise, have the same result, but long-term wise can be devastating.
Your thoughts?
Time is not a big truck. It's a series of tubes.
Even if he were from the future, though, that would not explain the many miracles he performed.
He didn't use any strange herbs or items that the witnesses who saw him perform these were unfamiliar with.
And about Jesus using hover boots on the water... One can say that's through lack of observation on the apostle's fault, but how does that explain changing the weather? Or that one of his apostles was also able to stand on the water?
Certainly he didn't strap on an extra pair of hoverboots for his disciple.
And he was sleeping in the boat before the storm started. Don't you think the apostles would have noticed something if he'd been carrying so much as a remote to control the weather?? He would have had to pull it out, and then click the buttons. But the apostles said all he did was tell the storm to quit, and it did.
These are just arguments, though, saying he wasn't a time traveller, not a time lord.
I don't think he was a time lord because he was changing society, not trying to keep it the way it was. His teachings were of peace, mercy, and only one God, whereas the culture in that day was war, vengeance, and many many Gods.
That was, after all, why he was executed. Because he was teaching something they considered to be hypocrisy of it's time.
It's also seen in Socrates, who was condemned to death for similar reasons (but one of his disciples fed him poison, instead of simply breaking him out of the prison).
Jesus seemed to me like the opposite of a time lord....
I think he was a time-travelling wizard with a companion who is a talking ham (wait for that in the half-arsed Disney adaptation of the 'New Jesus Adventures!!1!')
Quote from: Hammerite on Tue 01/08/2006 07:40:29
I think he was a time-travelling wizard with a companion who is a talking ham (wait for that in the half-arsed Disney adaptation of the 'New Jesus Adventures!!1!')
You should see the comic book.
Seriously, people... maybe Stalin was a puppy? And maybe rocks can speak latin? Stop with the "maybe"- it's a bit pointless. Got proofs?
Does that YouTube video count cuz in that case, I've got more proof than priests here! I could start a new denomination of Christianity right here right now where we just believe Jesus was some real nice guy who helped people and wasnt actually god's son at all!!
Quote from: Hammerite on Tue 01/08/2006 08:06:31
I could start a new denomination of Christianity right here right now where we just believe Jesus was some real nice guy who helped people and wasnt actually god's son at all!!
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of thing Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunaticâ€"on a level with the man who says he is a poached eggâ€"or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
There is no halfway house and there is no parallel in other religions. If you had gone to Buddha and said 'Are you the son of Bramah?' he would have said 'My son, you are still in the veil of illusion'. If you had gone to Socrates and asked, 'Are you Zeus' he would have laughed at you. If you had gone to Mohammed and asked 'Are you Allah?' he would first have rent his clothes and then cut your head off. If you had asked Confucius 'Are you heaven?' I think he would probably have replied, 'Remarks which are not in accordance with nature are in bad taste.' The idea of a great moral teacher saying what Christ said is out of the question. In my opinion, the only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete lunatic suffering from that form of delusion which undermines the whole mind of man. If you think you are a poached egg, when you are not looking for a piece of toast to suit you, you may be sane, but if you think you are God, there is no chance for you. We may note in passing that He was never regarded as a mere moral teacher. He did not produce that effect on any of the people who actually met Him. He produced mainly three effects â€" Hatred â€" Terror â€" Adoration. There was no trace of people expressing mild approval.
C S Lewis
SSH, You are forgetting something... Jesus didn't write the Bible. He didn't say he is the son of God. It all started as a cult about a great guy who died for his believes. You know what the sad part is? I think Jesus was against the Big Religion(tm) that ruled your life and he just wanted people to be good to each other. Sadly, his "fans" turned him into an idol and his name now represents what he was against - the institution of faith.
Jesus is as dead as Elvis. Still some belivieve in all the crap people made up about them after their death... Time makes small innocent lies into a huge relligion.
Lewis also briefly addresses that objection to this trilemma, that Jesus never in fact made the claims that were attributed to him. He rules out the possibility of misrepresentation by the original disciples on the grounds that they were also Jews: it is as unlikely that they would have falsely attributed the claim to Jesus than that he would have falsely made it. In one passage he says "That theory only saddles us with twelve inexplicable lunatics instead of one." Presumably, one could respond "But the disciples might have been liars, or fools, or bad men", to which Lewis might have said "Why should liars, or fools, or bad men go to such trouble to create a religion they themselves did not believe in?". Remember that it is well established outside the bible that far from being some kind of big business for the early disciples, they were persecuted, tortured and killed for their beliefs. Many would not recant them even when offered freedom rather than death as a result. Is that what someone who had just made it all up would do?
CS Lewis was a scholar of ancient legends at Oxford, and a great firend of Tolkien. He considered the possibility that what we have read about Jesus are only legends. This he rejects on literary grounds: "I have read a great deal of legend and I am perfectly sure that they are not the same sort of thing." In a separate essay, Fern Seed and Elephants he argues, from style and internal evidence, that the gospels are "reportageâ€"though it may no doubt contain errorsâ€"pretty close up to the facts."
Y'know, SSH, I don't really remember reading that in "The Chronicles of Narnia"... ;)
Well,the legnds are to believe in,or not to believe in.
Isnt that what the holy book is all about.
Have faith....believe no matter what.
(Not to mention the Davinchi code)