Is forgiveness without a price a virtue?

[Justin108]

Is it a good thing to be able to forgive without any price?

If so, is God imperfect for being unable to forgive sin without Jesus' sacrifice?

[The Tanager]

- I honestly do not know enough to have an opinion about this. If you can convince me then go ahead

I can only share why I am convinced. Most scholars believe that 1 Cor 15:3-5 is something Paul quotes from an older Christian formula that he received and passed on because of how it is formulated. From Paul's writings (namely Galatians 1:18) it seems that Paul was in Jerusalem 3 years after his conversion (which most scholars seem to put at around 33 CE and probably received this formula at least then, if not earlier. That would date this formula to within the first 5 years after Jesus' death.

Again, this doesn't mean the earliest Christians actually saw a resurrected Jesus, but just that it was their earliest claims.

- I believe this, yes

For those who may be following along and don't believe this like you and I do, I will only repost what I said earlier about why scholars believe this:

They point to Paul's writings, the empty tomb pericope in the pre-Markan passion story, the use of "on the first day of the week" instead of "on the third day", how the narrative isn't spruced up theologically or apologetically, the women being the ones that discovered the tomb, how the disciples could not have proclaimed the resurrection in Jerusalem without the tomb being empty, and how the Jewish case against Christianity assumed the tomb was empty.

- You would need to clarify what exactly you mean by this. I know Jesus had many followers before his death so that would suggest the Christian movement originated before the (supposed) resurrection

Yes, and the earliest writings we have point to Jesus even teaching the resurrection as being important to his followers. But I am talking about the movement that grew after Jesus' death, where the disciples began spreading the message of Jesus beyond their small group around the mediterranean to where they eventually get on the radar of Rome as a religious group

Here are these people following a Jewish rabbi who gets killed and then they begin preaching that his death held great importance for everyone, pinning everything on it. Paul's words in 1 Cor. 15:12-19 about Christianity being futile if the resurrection didn't happen spring to mind. That group came to be known as followers of the Way and little Christs. Without belief in a resurrection (true or false) the good news the disciples preached doesn't make any sense.

[Justin108]

(A) The earliest Christians claimed to have seen a resurrected Jesus

I can only share why I am convinced. Most scholars believe that 1 Cor 15:3-5 is something Paul quotes from an older Christian formula that he received and passed on because of how it is formulated.

Why do most scholars believe this?

That would date this formula to within the first 5 years after Jesus' death.

Again, this doesn't mean the earliest Christians actually saw a resurrected Jesus, but just that it was their earliest claims.

A lot can happen in 5 years. If we are to believe the scholars on this then the conclusion would be that the earlier Christians claimed they saw a resurrected Jesus, but we don't know if this sect was in fact the earliest.

- You would need to clarify what exactly you mean by this. I know Jesus had many followers before his death so that would suggest the Christian movement originated before the (supposed) resurrection

Yes, and the earliest writings we have point to Jesus even teaching the resurrection as being important to his followers.

Which writings are you referring to exactly?

But I am talking about the movement that grew after Jesus' death

Ok so it wasn't the Christian movement but rather a Christian movement that grew after Jesus' death. The Gnostics, for example, (a very early sect of Christianity), only believed in a spiritual resurrection rather than a physical one.

[The Tanager]

Why do most scholars believe this?

Yes, to go more in-depth (then just saying "how it is formulated" in the last post) the language that Paul uses for this formula, 'delivered' and 'received', mirrors technical language used by the Pharisees in what they say about transmitting sacred tradition. Some of the wording is not used elsewhere by Paul (according to the Scriptures, the twelve, on the third day). The structure of parallelism "that...according to the Scriptures" points to it being a statement of faith for early Christians. Paul using Peter's Aramiac name Cephas instead of calling him Peter.

A lot can happen in 5 years. If we are to believe the scholars on this then the conclusion would be that the earlier Christians claimed they saw a resurrected Jesus, but we don't know if this sect was in fact the earliest.

Not enough time to go against what those who were alive and knew Jesus and his disciples and what happened. These were ascribed to the disciples, those closest to Jesus. We have no literature from an earlier tradition. Other traditions come later.

Which writings are you referring to exactly?

Paul's letters and the canonical gospels. But I only said this as an aside, not as part of the argument. I wrongly used the word 'originated' for the movement associated with Jesus' disciples after his death as though it was something completely new from the followers of Jesus before his death. I was just saying that the form the movement has after Jesus' death (of the actual disciples/apostles of Jesus and Paul) claims Jesus also taught about the importance of his death and resurrection. But we can be agnostic on whether that movement is accurate concerning Jesus' true teaching for the argument I'm making right now.

Ok so it wasn't the Christian movement but rather a Christian movement that grew after Jesus' death. The Gnostics, for example, (a very early sect of Christianity), only believed in a spiritual resurrection rather than a physical one.

It's the earliest Christian form we have evidence for (by a good amount). Some scholars believe Gnosticism predates Christianity and (even if they don't believe that) see Jewish and Christian forms of gnosticism becoming popular in the late first century and second century, not 5 years after the death of Jesus.

[Justin108]

Yes, to go more in-depth (then just saying "how it is formulated" in the last post) the language that Paul uses for this formula, 'delivered' and 'received', mirrors technical language used by the Pharisees in what they say about transmitting sacred tradition. Some of the wording is not used elsewhere by Paul (according to the Scriptures, the twelve, on the third day). The structure of parallelism "that...according to the Scriptures" points to it being a statement of faith for early Christians.

For "early" Christians, yes. But there is no way of knowing if they were the earliest Christians.

A lot can happen in 5 years. If we are to believe the scholars on this then the conclusion would be that the earlier Christians claimed they saw a resurrected Jesus, but we don't know if this sect was in fact the earliest.

Not enough time to go against what those who were alive and knew Jesus and his disciples and what happened. These were ascribed to the disciples, those closest to Jesus. We have no literature from an earlier tradition. Other traditions come later.

And what did they "know" about Jesus and what happened to him?

It's the earliest Christian form we have evidence for (by a good amount).

It still doesn't necessarily follow that they were in fact the earliest Christians. Is them being the earliest Christians important to your argument or can we move on?

[The Tanager]

For "early" Christians, yes. But there is no way of knowing if they were the earliest Christians.

I see no evidence that points to a different tradition being earlier, so as with all history we aren't 100%, but this is really the only viable candidate on the table. I think we should follow where the historical data points (or if there was a philosophical argument for a specific point or scientific evidence, etc.) and not rely on speculation just because it is a slight possibility.

And what did they "know" about Jesus and what happened to him?

My point was that if this was just a group making stuff up, it would not have really gained much steam. People would just say something like "that was only a few years ago and nothing you are saying actually happened. Jesus is buried over there. We know Mary and Jesus' brothers and those who were his disciples" and other things like that.

It still doesn't necessarily follow that they were in fact the earliest Christians.

We are talking about what is most probable. And it seems to me most probable by far.

Is them being the earliest Christians important to your argument or can we move on?

I'm not sure. I mean just because you get your story in first doesn't mean it is necessarily more likely to be true. But the closer you can get it the more credibility there is because it's much harder to have legends move in and take over the actual history. These are the disciples, those who walked with Jesus the closest. What do you think?

[Justin108]

For "early" Christians, yes. But there is no way of knowing if they were the earliest Christians.

I see no evidence that points to a different tradition being earlier

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The oldest human fossil ever found is a 400 000 year old fossil found in Portugal. Are we to conclude that this was the first ever human just because we haven't found evidence of older humans? What if the oldest Christians were a small, insignificant group that never made much of an impact? We don't know. And you keep expecting me to make knowledge claims of things I do not know.

I think we should follow where the historical data points (or if there was a philosophical argument for a specific point or scientific evidence, etc.) and not rely on speculation just because it is a slight possibility.

Assuming you know what the first Christians believed is speculation.

My point was that if this was just a group making stuff up, it would not have really gained much steam.

I expect you're not a Mormon? Didn't Joseph Smith make stuff up? And didn't it gain a lot of steam?

We are talking about what is most probable. And it seems to me most probable by far.

Fine, I'll agree that it is probable. But I'm not going to say that this happened for a fact because I simply do not know.

[The Tanager]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The oldest human fossil ever found is a 400 000 year old fossil found in Portugal. Are we to conclude that this was the first ever human just because we haven't found evidence of older humans? What if the oldest Christians were a small, insignificant group that never made much of an impact? We don't know. And you keep expecting me to make knowledge claims of things I do not know.

I'm not saying it is. Are you saying we should just assume that humans did exist 2 million years ago without any evidence of it? We are talking about what probably historically happened and there is no evidence of an earlier Christian tradition. And not only that, but if there was an earlier Christian group that was closer to Jesus and the disciples (the truth), then this alternative tradition would not have gained a footing just a few years after those events. This isn't expecting you to make knowledge claims of things you don't know. It's asking you to be reasonable about history.

Assuming you know what the first Christians believed is speculation.

If by speculation you mean looking at the historical evidence and coming to a reasoned conclusion, then sure.

I expect you're not a Mormon? Didn't Joseph Smith make stuff up? And didn't it gain a lot of steam?

And we have evidence of people countering Joseph's message and methods from this time. They had to move multiple times in order to get away from this and in a place where their stories could gain a hold.

We don't have any evidence of another Christian tradition giving any counter during the time period we are talking about with Christianity. The movement was gaining converts in the area the main event happened in with a people that would have had many obstacles to wanting to believe in Jesus' resurrection.

Fine, I'll agree that it is probable. But I'm not going to say that this happened for a fact because I simply do not know.

If we go through the argument from these very probable occurences and, hypothetically, you agree it is a rational case, will this mean you would say "but since this fact is just probable, this isn't really a rational argument and you have failed." Again, I'm only asking this to avoid wasting your time and my time.

[Justin108]

We are talking about what probably historically happened and there is no evidence of an earlier Christian tradition.

The fact that there is no evidence of an earlier Christian tradition does not mean such a tradition did not exist...

And not only that, but if there was an earlier Christian group that was closer to Jesus and the disciples (the truth)

Why are you calling Jesus and the disciples the truth?

then this alternative tradition would not have gained a footing just a few years after those events.

Why not?

It's asking you to be reasonable about history.

I am being reasonable about history. By admitting that I do not know what happened.

Assuming you know what the first Christians believed is speculation.

If by speculation you mean looking at the historical evidence and coming to a reasoned conclusion, then sure.

What's the difference between a reasoned conclusion and speculation?

I expect you're not a Mormon? Didn't Joseph Smith make stuff up? And didn't it gain a lot of steam?

And we have evidence of people countering Joseph's message and methods from this time. They had to move multiple times in order to get away from this and in a place where their stories could gain a hold.

We don't have any evidence of another Christian tradition giving any counter during the time period we are talking about with Christianity.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... rsity.html

Not that any of this matters. You said "if this was just a group making stuff up, it would not have really gained much steam". Joseph Smith proves otherwise. And now you're moving the goalpost to "ok it wouldn't have gained steam unopposed". So first you claim it wouldn't have gained steam, and now you're changing your claim to it would have been opposed.

Whether they gained steam or not and whether or not they were opposed, it still doesn't change the fact that it could very well be a group making stuff up.

If we go through the argument from these very probable occurences and, hypothetically, you agree it is a rational case, will this mean you would say "but since this fact is just probable, this isn't really a rational argument and you have failed." Again, I'm only asking this to avoid wasting your time and my time.

If something is probable, it is rational to me.

[The Tanager]

The fact that there is no evidence of an earlier Christian tradition does not mean such a tradition did not exist...

As I said before, I know. Also, the fact that it is still logically possible that an earlier Christian tradition existed does not mean that such a tradition did exist. So, do you want to go with where our best (and only) historical evidence points or do you want to hold onto mere possibility, however improbable?

Why are you calling Jesus and the disciples the truth?

I'll rephrase it: "And not only that, but if there was an earlier Christian group that was closer to the truth of who Jesus and the disciples were (and thereby showing the traditional Christian tradition as being fictional)..."

Why not?

Those who knew Jesus and the disciples, those around that area would have laughed them off because they actually knew what happened.

I am being reasonable about history. By admitting that I do not know what happened.

I don't think it's reasonable to then act like all accounts of history are equally speculative, though. And that is what it seems like you are doing.

What's the difference between a reasoned conclusion and speculation?

To me speculation seems to mean there is insufficient evidence to know what probably happened so anything is basically a guess. A reasoned conclusion would be looking at the evidence and coming to what is the most likely explanation and to have good evidence for coming to that explanation as most likely.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... rsity.html

Not that any of this matters. You said "if this was just a group making stuff up, it would not have really gained much steam". Joseph Smith proves otherwise. And now you're moving the goalpost to "ok it wouldn't have gained steam unopposed". So first you claim it wouldn't have gained steam, and now you're changing your claim to it would have been opposed.

Whether they gained steam or not and whether or not they were opposed, it still doesn't change the fact that it could very well be a group making stuff up.

I'm tired of this double standard. I misunderstand you and then you clarify your position and it's clarifying your position, but I clarify and I'm moving the goalpost. I've been more than patient on these claims, but do it again instead of actually dealing with my clarification and this conversation is over.

As far as the link goes there are different kinds of diversity. Diversity within a movement that preaches Jesus crucified and resurrected, the diversity that comes later within and against that tradition and the diversity you want this to be pointing to (people from the beginning countering that Jesus historically resurrected). What texts is Attridge pulling from to say the movement was more diverse than the Book of Acts (and the rest of the New Testament) suggests? He doesn't mention them. That reads as speculation without actual evidence for it. Hendrix' and White's parts talk about the 2nd and 3rd centuries, not the 1st. These excerpts use "beginning" in very different ways.

If something is probable, it is rational to me.

Okay. We'll take the next step in my next post. It may be a few days before I can get back to it, but this will give you some time to apply to the above if you want to.

[Justin108]

The fact that there is no evidence of an earlier Christian tradition does not mean such a tradition did not exist...

As I said before, I know. Also, the fact that it is still logically possible that an earlier Christian tradition existed does not mean that such a tradition did exist.

And that leaves me with "I don't know"

So, do you want to go with where our best (and only) historical evidence points or do you want to hold onto mere possibility, however improbable?

What makes it improbable?

then this alternative tradition would not have gained a footing just a few years after those events.

Why not?

Those who knew Jesus and the disciples, those around that area would have laughed them off because they actually knew what happened.

So what? People laugh off religions and superstitions all the time and yet they persist. Just about everyone I know laughs off Scientology yet Scientology is still a very real and persistent religion. Ridicule and opposition is hardly ever successful in stopping a religion.

I am being reasonable about history. By admitting that I do not know what happened.

I don't think it's reasonable to then act like all accounts of history are equally speculative, though. And that is what it seems like you are doing.

I never said all history is equally speculative. But the cases you have provided thus far are.

I'm tired of this double standard. I misunderstand you and then you clarify your position and it's clarifying your position, but I clarify and I'm moving the goalpost.

Moving the goalposts is an informal logical fallacy in which previously agreed upon standards for deciding an argument are arbitrarily changed once they have been met.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Your original argument was "if this was just a group making stuff up, it would not have really gained much steam". I met the standards to refute this argument by presenting Mormonism and pointing out how it was just a group making stuff up, yet it gained steam. I met the original standards to refute your arguments. After having done so, you make changes to the argument to add further clauses such as "it wouldn't have gained steam unopposed". This is textbook moving the goalpost.

Anyway, whether they gained steam or not and whether or not they were opposed, it still doesn't change the fact that it could very well be a group making stuff up.