Thread 18150245

>not a single one of them recanted after Jesus was allegedly resurrected
>any one of them could've squashed Christianity completely
>instead they decide to create a new religion despite already being Gods chosen people and not needing to do so if they were Jewish
I don't get it

Pretty simple. They know the resurrection happened and behaved accordingly.

>>18150245 (OP)
None of the stories written about their martyrdoms are real. For all that is known they all died in the Sacking of Jerusalem considering the Church was centered there and Antioch before the end of the Second Temple period. They were all clearly opposed to converting the Gentiles since they fought with Paul over it.

Why is simon a separate person from peter in op image?

That isn't really shocking. None of the people Joseph Smith used to verify the Book of Mormon later recanted either, even when some came to be enemies of Joseph Smith.

>>18150277
Simon Zelotes, see Luke chapter 6.

"And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;
Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,
Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes,
And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor."
- Luke 6:13-16

>>18150283
Book of Mormon doesn't read like any of Joseph Smith's revelations and makes sense as an artifact of God like the ark of the covenant, esp if from Africa

>>18150245 (OP)
>DEUS VULT

>>18150245 (OP)
>not a single one of them
... existed.

>>18150245 (OP)
>he thinks any of them existed in the first place

Prove it

Fact is we don't know what happened to them. Even your gospels are anonymously written

>martyrdom porn
No historical evidence. Mostly made up by the catholic church later on. That's why they're called "christian tradition" instead of actual history

>>18150245 (OP)
Literally the only one of the 12 that we know died due to their faith is Peter, and we don't know when, where, how or why it happened. If it weren't for 1 Clement all we'd have are legends and we wouldn't know anything about him either.

>>18150256
That's not what the Gospel says

>>18151937
IHS

Myths don't need to be true they just need to be uniting and motivating.

>>18152261
Not true, the book of Acts says that James the brother of John was killed by the sword on Herod Agrippa's orders.

>If it weren't for 1 Clement all we'd have are legends and we wouldn't know anything about him either.
The New Testament says plenty about Peter actually. Not sure why you're writing such falsehoods about this.

>>18152813
The book of acts is highly fictional and probably 2nd century, but even if I grant you that James was martyred, that means 2 out of the 12 died for their faith. I also think it's pretty telling how 1 Clement only uses Peter and Paul as examples of martyrs, because the other stories were probably made up later, James included.
>that pic
It's almost like the christians who took over the Roman empire thought it was really important to preserve the bible. Unlike those other texts (Homer excepted) however, the new testament was born in obscurity, and we have no historical refrences to any Gospels existing before Papias and Ignatius, and we don't even know if those are the gospels we have today.

>>18152850
>The book of acts is highly fictional
I tend to take the book of Acts more seriously than some anon on the internet who says otherwise just because he doesn't personally like it. Some guy not liking it really isn't a convincing reason for anyone else to dismiss it.

>we have no historical refrences to any Gospels existing before Papias and Ignatius, and we don't even know if those are the gospels we have today.
No amount of historical evidence or documentation will be enough for radical skeptics. The problem with their approach is simply that they only selectively apply radical skepticism to what they personally do not like. If they applied it equally to everything, they would have to admit they cannot prove anything at all, even what happened yesterday. And there are schizophrenic people who also do that as well and are wrong for similar reasons. Since radical skeptics do not apply radical skepticism to everything, they are inconsistent.

You haven't shown me a single reason why everything written in the Gospels can't be true, and I side with what the evidence clearly points to. The Bible as a whole is also clearly a work of divine inspiration, and its claims are fortunately quite consistent with what the preponderance of evidence indicates, whether you want to talk about cosmology or anything else.

>>18152850
>no historical refrences to any Gospels existing before Papias and Ignatius
Except for the Gospel of Luke itself
>we don't even know if those are the gospels
When Josephus described the Old Testament canon he said "one of them is a book of hymns". Now, we can apply common sense and suppose that is a reference to the Psalter, or we can do what secularists do with the gospels and make up a completely different book of hymns the existence of which has no evidence and ignore the entirety of the rest of history, justifying this fiction on the basis of our own ignorant prejudice because we really, really, REALLY wish Christianity was false.

>>18152904
>who says otherwise just because he doesn't personally like it
There are many reasons for thinking it's ahistorical. As mentioned, 1 Clement doesn't mention any famous martyrs except Peter and Paul, something they surely would have done if acts were historical. Stephen is particularly interesting here, and his death speach is laughably unrealistic, even if magic is real.
Secondly, there are a number of weird things in the text which makes no real sense.
The jews in acts are constantly persecuting the christians, and yet when the Romans arrive they never mention the fact that the christians are worshipping an executed "criminal" who they claim was raised from the dead, and that there is an empty tomb they can point to.
This would be an obvious way for the jews to get the romans on their side, but the topic is never brought up somehow, instead we get this:

>While Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews of Corinth made a united attack on Paul and brought him to the place of judgment. “This man,” they charged, “is persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law.” Just as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to them, “If you Jews were making a complaint about some misdemeanor or serious crime, it would be reasonable for me to listen to you. But since it involves questions about words and names and your own law—settle the matter yourselves. I will not be a judge of such things.”
Acts 18:12-15

An unfathomable interraction if the jews accused Paul of worshipping a man the Romans had executed.
>>18152905
>Except for the Gospel of Luke itself
Which is 2nd century, it might predate Ignatius or Papias, it might not.
>Psalter
We know it was a popular text among 2nd temple jews, the gospels before 150 AD are an inigma, and Ignatuis' gospel isn't a canonical one.
>we really, really, REALLY wish Christianity was false.
I don't want to live in a universe where 99% of humanity is damned forever, that's true.

>>18153102
>when the Romans arrive they never mention the fact that the christians are worshipping an executed "criminal" who they claim was raised from the dead, and that there is an empty tomb they can point to.
They wouldn't mention the tomb since that evidence would be in Christians' favor.

>An unfathomable interaction
Why would the Romans care either way? They were usually indifferent, if not hostile, to the religion of the Jews of that time.

Also, Acts 21:37-38 shows an example of the lies spread by anti-Christian elements. It's also mentioned by Matthew 28:11-15.

The oppositional Jews would be motivated to distort the actual doctrines of Christianity, as we see mentioned in Acts 21:37-38. But Paul does testify to the Romans accurately in Acts 24 (to Felix) and in Acts 26 (Agrippa and Festus).

So if your point is that the writer of Acts was not aware of the doctrines of Christianity or something to that effect, you're sorely mistaken.

>This would be an obvious way for the jews to get the romans on their side
I don't think they would be able to get the Romans on their side that easily. They tried to frame it various ways before the crucifixion, depicting Jesus as basically a threat to Caesar, and threatening to revolt if nothing was done. But after the resurrection and ascension, they would have seemed incoherent to the Romans no matter what they tried to say. According to Acts 21:37-38, they made up a story about Jesus being an Egyptian, but they were grasping at straws to make it seem like a bad thing to the Romans. They wouldn't have wanted to inadvertently spread the doctrine of Christianity, so representing it honestly to anyone, such as by mentioning the tomb, would seem to go against their goals.

Paul brings up these things continually in Acts, accurately mentioning that the dispute is actually about resurrection from the dead. The oppositional Jews probably wanted to frame it as something else, to avoid that subject. See Acts 23:6, Acts 24:21.

>>18153102
>Which is 2nd century, it might predate Ignatius or Papias, it might not.
That's what came to you in a dream, the Gospel was written before the death of Paul let alone the 2nd century.
> the gospels before 150 AD are an inigma
No they aren't.
>Ignatuis' gospel isn't a canonical one.
We have gone from "who knows what Gospels Ignatius was using" to "Ignatius was using non-canonical Gospels" in just one post, like everything else you're saying it's based on dreams and fantasies. None of this can be justified on the basis of actual historical evidence. Among other things, Ignatius quotes directly from John.
>I don't want to live in a universe where 99% of humanity is damned forever
Sugarcoating the real truth that you don't want to face justice for your sins. But you have no excuse, you have a delusion, and it cannot save you from the judgement. When you die (which will be whenever it pleases God to bring His wrath upon you, even today or tomorrow, and is not far in a distant future) you will go to a very real hell where the fire will not be quenched and the worm will not die. And that is certainly what will happen if you do not turn away from your evil deeds and seek reconciliation with God in Jesus Christ, who secured eternal redemption for everyone who trusts in Him.

>>18153202
>They wouldn't mention the tomb since that evidence would be in Christians' favor.
According to Matthew the jews said the disciples had stolen the body, so they would just claim this is what happened, but either way they'd mention that Paul was worshipping an executed criminal, of course they would.
>Why would the Romans care either way?
You're asking why they would care people were claiming a criminal had survived his execution?
>Acts 21:37-38
Says nothing about Jesus, this is about Paul.
>But after the resurrection and ascension, they would have seemed incoherent to the Romans no matter what they tried to say.
Yeah right.
>>18153218
>the Gospel was written before the death of Paul
Lol no.
>No they aren't
Point me to a single piece of writing we can confidently date to before the mid 2nd century that explicitly mention any canonical gospel.
>it's based on dreams and fantasies
Here's what Ignatius has to say:

>How, then, was He manifested to the world? A star shone forth in heaven above all the other stars, the light of which was inexpressible, while its novelty struck men with astonishment. And all the rest of the stars, with the sun and moon, formed a chorus to this star, and its light was exceedingly great above them all. And there was agitation felt as to whence this new spectacle came, so unlike to everything else [in the heavens]. Hence every kind of magic was destroyed, and every bond of wickedness disappeared; ignorance was removed, and the old kingdom abolished, God Himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life. And now that took a beginning which had been prepared by God. Henceforth all things were in a state of tumult, because He meditated the abolition of death.
This is not material found in any canonical gospel, note that this is talking about the death and ressurection of Jesus based on the details he gives.

>>18153218
>Among other things, Ignatius quotes directly from John
Nope, he has sayings that are similar to some parts of John, but he never directly quotes it, we also don't know if John took inspiration from Ignatius or vice-versa, and this is Ignoring the fact that the Ignatian letters are highly disputed items to begin with.
>the real truth that you don't want to face justice for your sins.
I do not consider any "sin" no matter how grave to warrant eternal punishment, but I have no problem with repenting of my sins, whatever you think they are, what I have a problem with in christianity is the doctrine of hell itself, in-fact it's the only doctrinal problem I have with it, really.

>>18153251
>Point me to a single piece of writing we can confidently date
We already confidently dated the New Testament itself to the First Century earlier, anon.

>>18153284
We certainly did not, Paul's letters, Hebrews, James and (maybe) 1 Peter are 1st century, my guess is that Mark and Matthew are aswell, but you have not given me a good reason to think Luke, Acts, or John are 1st century writings.

>>18153251
>Lol no.
Not an argument.
>Point me to a single piece of writing we can confidently date to before the mid 2nd century that explicitly mention any canonical gospel.
Not that in any way would they first being referenced then imply they began to exist then, but the New Testament itself is an example as stated before.
>This is not material found in any canonical gospel, note that this is talking about the death and ressurection of Jesus based on the details he gives
I don't know what you think you read, but you did a good job of embarrassing yourself. He's talking about the birth of Christ, not the death or resurrection of Christ, which is why he repeatedly refers to how God was manifested in flesh, and in the part you cut out: "For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water. Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world". See Matthew 2:2

>>18153277
>Nope, he has sayings that are similar to some parts of John, but he never directly quotes it
He directly references John 3 in the letter to the Philadelphians
>we also don't know if John took inspiration from Ignatius or vice-versa
We don't know what shape the earth is under your methods
>I do not consider any "sin" no matter how grave to warrant eternal punishment
Who asked for your opinion? Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? It is not the place of the creature to pretend to God's throne and dictate the darkness of their own hearts to Him as though it were moral law.
>I have no problem with repenting of my sins
Clearly you do, here you are proudly declaring your refusal to repent of the sin of rebelling against God. If you have issue with one doctrine you have issue with all of it, the question is not whether you reigning on high shall judge God to be justified, if you should do so you will die in your sins, but you must abandon your pretenses and submit yourself humbly to God your King, and anything less is not repentance.
>>18153306
There's no good reason to think anything in your worldview.

>>18153306
You assume a priori that the Bible is false because you don't like something in it, then you work backwards to some presupposition that arrives at that conclusion. In your case what you've chosen is to assume, for no reason, that both Luke and John were lying about who they really were.

But you've never proven any of it. You haven't even so much as attempted to prove this. It's simply assumed without evidence. Why would anyone have any reason to think this?

>Says nothing about Jesus, this is about Paul.
This is an incoherent response that makes me doubt whether you read the post at all.
>Yeah right.
Incoherent.
>You're asking why they would care people were claiming a criminal had survived his execution?
The oppositional Jews were hoping to suppress Christianity so they never brought it up and hoped Paul and the other believers would be executed without a hearing.
>According to Matthew the jews said the disciples had stolen the body, so they would just claim this is what happened,
They would just ignore the fact that the tomb is empty obviously and not tell anyone since it doesn't help their case. They would lie about what Jesus and the apostles did (see Acts 21:37-38) and hope that those who do talk about the Gospel would be killed before having a chance to properly explain themselves.

>but either way they'd mention that Paul was worshipping an executed criminal,
Do you think the Romans in Corinth cared about someone who was executed in Judea years earlier, or even knew who he was? It doesn't make any sense. Nothing you've said on this point is coherent, anon. It's just grasping at straws. The narrative in Acts makes perfect sense considering everything that happened.

>Point me to a single piece of writing we can confidently date to before the mid 2nd century that explicitly mention any canonical gospel.
In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul quoted Luke 10:7 directly, calling it scripture.

>>18153308
>Not an argument.
You never presented one to begin with.
>Not that in any way would they first being referenced then imply they began to exist then, but the New Testament itself is an example as stated before.
So... circular reasoning?
>I don't know what you think you read, but you did a good job of embarrassing yourself
Ignatius says that every kind of magic, every bond of wickedness, and the old kingdom was destroyed. These are events associated with the death and resurrection, not Jesus' birth.
For all I know he might have had access to Matthew aswell, but he doesn't seem to describe the birth here... Ignatius is very concerned with a group of christians who claim Jesus in some way didn't have a body (usually claimed to be "Docetists", but we really don't know) so that's why I'm assuming he's so keen on "in the flesh part".

>a conspiracy of just 12 people is somehow impressive

KEKKK!!!

>>18153346
>You never presented one to begin with.
You're confused, that Luke is from the 2nd century was your claim which as my brother pointed out you haven't even pretended to justify. It is not for me to refute your baseless assertions.
>So... circular reasoning?
No.
>Ignatius says that every kind of magic, every bond of wickedness, and the old kingdom was destroyed. These are events associated with the death and resurrection, not Jesus' birth.
You have weakly invented in your head a Christian theology where the defeat of evil couldn't possibly be ascribed to the incarnation, then without any reason or self-awareness imputed this to Ignatius despite the context. His meaning is simply that Christ's birth was the beginning of the end for the kingdom of darkness and the start of the process whereby it was destroyed, which he wrote as he was to be put to death by the pagan Caesar.
>but he doesn't seem to describe the birth here
As long as you completely ignore the context, no wonder you don't know anything.
>usually claimed to be "Docetists", but we really don't know
Docetism is taken from the Greek word for "seem", because they said Christ merely seemed to have a body. The reason they're called that is because that's what the word means, so this comment makes me suspect you're trolling.
>so that's why I'm assuming he's so keen on "in the flesh part".
Maybe that's why he's so keen on the incarnation part too...

>>18153334
>He directly references John 3 in the letter to the Philadelphians
Nope, and the passage you're talking about doesn't indicate he knows Jesus said it, which is a bit wierd under your assumption.
>We don't know what shape the earth is under your methods
The bible indicates that the earth is flat, so perhaps we should go with that?
>The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment.
Job 38:14
>>18153337
>You assume a priori that the Bible is false
No, and I'm not even sure if the bible ever claims that all it's writings are scripture or that they are meant to be read in unison, but regardless.
>This is an incoherent response
Uhh
>And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek? Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?
This is about Paul, not Jesus, are you actually ok?
>The oppositional Jews were hoping to suppress Christianity
The jews manige to get Paul arrested in the end, and yet they NEVER bring up an empty tomb, weird.
>They would lie about what Jesus and the apostles did
Probably by claiming they stole the body, as Matthew says they did.
>Do you think the Romans in Corinth cared about someone who was executed in Judea years earlier
They would probably give it a hearing rather than dismissing it as mere doctrinal disagreement.
>1 Timothy 5:18
Ignoring the authorship issue of the pastorals, he's quoting Deuteronomy, he doesn't show signs he knows Jesus said any of this.

>>18153418
>The bible indicates that the earth is flat, so perhaps we should go with that?
Where would that be sir, can we see it?
>Job 38:14
In this translation it says the earth has a shape, not that its shape is flat (note also that the word "shape" is not in the Hebrew and does not refer to the dimensions of an object in your loose translation [NIV] but its formation, "take shape"). From the context it appears it is not even talking about the planet but the ground, which is also called earth.

>>18153418
>This is about Paul, not Jesus
I guess you can't read. One of the lies being told was that Jesus was an Egyptian and his followers during the feeding of the four thousand were "murderers." The Roman captain had no idea who this was and thought it might be referring to Paul.

He also didn't know that Christians actually taught that Christ had resurrected from the dead since it had never been properly explained to him. Typically, a sect or cult will be followers of some living person, not someone who is said to have been raised from the dead, thus leading to the possible confusion. Notice that the captain really has no idea who the original target of the false rumor was, so he was asking Paul if it was him.

>>18153418
>which is a bit wierd under your assumption.
It's not weird if he expects his audience to be familiar with John.

>>18153418
>Ignoring the authorship issue of the pastorals, he's quoting Deuteronomy,
1 Timothy 5:18 is a quote of Luke 10:7. See the following:

"For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward."
(1 Timothy 5:18)

"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn."
(Deuteronomy 25:4)

"And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire."
(Luke 10:7)

Paul quotes Luke directly alongside Deuteronomy, calling both Luke 10:7 and Deuteronomy 25:4 as Scripture.

>The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment.
Inaccurate translation. What it actually says in context is this:

"Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;
That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment."
(Job 38:12-14)

In other words, the earth is crushed under God's power, and the wicked stand with the same level of fortitude as a piece of clothing. Just as it says in Hebrews:

"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail."
(Hebrews 1:10-12)

Also, as it says in Job 26:7, "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."

The above refers to the earth being suspended in space. The book of Job even talks about the atmosphere being reflective, long before that was known scientifically.

"Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?"
(Job 37:18)

Looking glass = mirror
Molten = fluid (i.e. the atmosphere)

>>18153388
>that Luke is from the 2nd century was your claim
It seems more likely given how acts seems to show knowledge of Josephus, but whatever. Why should I assume Luke wrote it before Paul died?
>No.
Yes.
>You have weakly invented in your head a Christian theology where the defeat of evil couldn't possibly be ascribed to the incarnation
The defeat of death came when Jesus died and rose, not when he was born, that is standard christian doctrine.
>as he was to be put to death by the pagan Caesar.
The martyrdom story is highly implausable, which is why many scholars now doubt whether Ignatius even wrote most of these.
>despite the context
He says
>Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring, and the death of the Lord; three mysteries of renown, which were wrought in silence by God.
So... yeah.
>Docetism is taken from the Greek word for "seem"
It can also mean "imagine", but leaving that aside my point was just that we don't know exacrly what they were saying. Later heresiologists think docetists are something completely different from what people assume Polycarp and 1-2 John are talking about, and neither one goes into detail.
>>18153457
>One of the lies being told was that Jesus was an Egyptian and his followers during the feeding of the four thousand were "murderers."
You're making a lot of unwaranted logical jumps here that are never stated in the text.
>>18153462
>It's not weird if he expects his audience to be familiar with John.
I suppose, although I'd expect him to show awareness that he had. Regardless it can't be used as evidence he knew the gospel since it could be either way, or he could know the saying by tradition or some lost source.

>>18153495
>Polycarp
I meant Ignatius ofc.

>>18150253
Fpbp

>>18153495
>It seems more likely given how acts seems to show knowledge of Josephus
Or perhaps he knew of things of which Josephus also knew, nah couldn't be it must just all be fake
>Why should I assume Luke wrote it before Paul died?
Because Paul quoted it in 1 Timothy 5:18
>Yes.
No, sir, that is not what circular reasoning means. The fact of New Testament books referencing other New Testament books is not "circular reasoning".
>The defeat of death came when Jesus died and rose, not when he was born, that is standard christian doctrine.
I accept your concession.
>The martyrdom story is highly implausable, which is why many scholars now doubt whether Ignatius even wrote most of these.
I gather from this that you are actually ignorant of the history of these letters and the debate around them. There are a number of issues surrounding their authorship, such as the shorter recension (not that they arbitrarily selected a few they liked, like you imply) which we could literally fill an entire 4chan thread with and not scratch the surface, which are not remotely reducible to "yeah it just sounds totally fake or whatever". The exact content of the authentic Ignatian corpus has been a subject of extensive debate since the Reformation at least, and is not a modern idea that scholars "now" doubt.
>So... yeah.
You say this like you just won the argument, when you haven't even entered the race yet
>we don't know exacrly what they were saying
We do know through these writings.
>Regardless it can't be used as evidence he knew the gospel since it could be either way, or he could know the saying by tradition or some lost source.
That's not how history works, we don't put dreams on the same ground as evidence and ignore all historical context so that it's easier for us to "not know"

>>18153473
>Luke 10:7
He never says this is where he got it from, since we know the NT authors had various different manuscripts of the OT this could just be a refrence to Deuteronomy 24:15, or to some lost writings we don't have, Jude after all considers 1 Enoch (or some variant of it) to be scripture. If he had said Jesus said so I might believe it, but he never does.

>>18153526
Sir, nobody cares "what you would believe". I think this conversation has been very teachable because despite the pretense of the skeptics it is a skepticism which seeks doubt in order to find an excuse. This whole thread you have done nothing but sought out any excuse you could possibly find to say we don't really know the grass is green, and this is another example. How convenient these lost texts are, they say the exact same things as the New Testament, and nobody in history heard of them.

Also, Jude never identifies those books as scripture, he no more considers it to be scripture than Paul considered the hymns to Zeus to be scripture.

>>18153526
>He never says this is where he got it from
He quotes directly from Luke 10:7 verbatim in Greek, although he does not include the word γὰρ (which corresponds to the word "For" in Luke 10:7). Paul calls it "Scripture" (γραφή) meaning that it's written down, just as Deuteronomy is. Paul's quotation of Luke 10:7 also has no parallel in the Old Testament. He clearly quotes Deuteronomy right next to the gospel of Luke, calling both references Scripture.

There are many examples of New Testament writers quoting multiple Scripture passages simultaneously. Mark quotes from Malachi and Isaiah together in two combined quotations in Mark 1:2-3, attributing this to "the prophets" according to the received text. The writer of Hebrews quotes from four different Scripture passages in a row, in Hebrews 1:5-8. Paul himself, in Romans 3:10-18, quotes from no fewer than ten distinct Old Testament passages, back-to-back, from Psalms (14:1-3 or 53:1-3, then 5:9, 140:3, 10:7, 64:3 and lastly 36:1), Proverbs (1:16, 10:29, 13:15) and Isaiah (59:8).

There is no reason to think why Paul isn't quoting from Luke in 1 Timothy here. Also in 1 Corinthians 15:3 he again writes that Christ died for our sins, "according to the scriptures" (κατὰ τὰς γραφάς). This would be in reference to the Gospels which had been written already by that time.

>>18153523
>I gather from this that you are actually ignorant of the history of these letters and the debate around them
I'm aware that the reformers already questioned some of the Ignatian letters, my point is that even the "authentic" ones might be later than traditionally assumed, and might just be straight up forgeries.
>You say this like you just won the argument, when you haven't even entered the race yet
His argument is that three secrets were kept from the devil, the third being Jesus death, he then goes on to explain how Jesus was made manifest.
>That's not how history works
It actually is, given how short his statement here is, and that he never says he got it from somewhere else, we actually don't know where he got it from. If you assume John was written before Ignatius' letters then it is very likely, but we don't really know when either of them were written.
What we can be pretty sure of is that the gospel of John as we have it was not actually written by John, since even the author denies being the beloved disciple (who isn't even identified as John).

>>18150245 (OP)
Because Jesus actually is God and actually did rise from the dead. That simple

>>18153549
>Also, Jude never identifies those books as scripture, he no more considers it to be scripture than Paul considered the hymns to Zeus to be scripture.
Paul quotes from Greek poets in several places, such as in Acts 17:28 where it says,

"For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." - Acts 17:28

This is from Aratus, "Phaenomena" chapter 5 (c. 275 BC). Another example is in Titus, where Paul quoted from Epimenides, "Cretica" (c. 600 BC). See below.

Titus 1:12
"One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies."

The original poem from c. 600 BC said this:

"They fashioned a tomb for you, holy and high one,
Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies.
But you are not dead: you live and abide forever,
For in you we live and move and have our being."

Just because Paul quoted from these sources doesn't mean they are considered inspired Scripture. Furthermore, it is entirely possible that Enoch himself preached the words attributed to him in the book of Jude, in whatever language they spoke back then, and then God divinely inspired Jude to realize this, just as God revealed details of Old Testament-era facts in other parts of the New Testament. For example, the details in Stephen's speech in Acts 7, the fact that Paul knew the king Saul's reign was 40 years long (see: Acts 13:21), the fact that Matthew 27:9 informs us that Jeremiah also spoke the same prophecy that was later written in Zechariah, and other examples of the New Testament revealing details that are not already recorded in the Old Testament. Jesus in the Gospels also made many statements about Old Testament times that are, of course, new revelations from God. None of this is really inconsistent, if you believe the Biblical narrative as a whole that God divinely inspired the entire Bible, as I do, and as it says in 2 Peter 1:20-21 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

>>18150245 (OP)
>not a single one of them recanted after Jesus was allegedly resurrected
How do you know that? Because some Christian writer said so?

>any one of them could've squashed Christianity completely
Really? So Judas Iscariot already betrayed Jesus to death, but you think a second disciple turning against Christianity could somehow make everyone quit?

>instead they decide to create a new religion despite already being Gods chosen people and not needing to do so if they were Jewish
They created a new sect of Judaism, something there were many of at the time. Why not another?

>>18153549
>How convenient these lost texts are, they say the exact same things as the New Testament, and nobody in history heard of them.
Many patristic writers from the first 2 centuries of christianity quote now lost or not considered canon writings as scripture, 1 Clement, Barnabas, etc. do this. Either way I think it's likely from a Greek version of Deut 24:15 since he quotes Deuteronomy in the other passage aswell.
Whatever the case is, the strongest evidence here presented that Luke was written during Paul's life is that a highly disputed letter at one point quotes a saying of Jesus which could just as well be pulled from the old testament (which Jesus quotes a lot mind you) without him even stating that Jesus said it.
>Also, Jude never identifies those books as scripture, he no more considers it to be scripture than Paul considered the hymns to Zeus to be scripture.
Enoch was already a prophet in jewish tradition, so I'm sorry if I assume Jude saying "Enoch prophecied it" and then goes on to quote 1 Enoch means that... he thought Enoch wrote it, and hence what he quoted from was scripture.
>>18153555
>Also in 1 Corinthians 15:3 he again writes that Christ died for our sins, "according to the scriptures"
He's obviously talking about prophecy here, c'mon now...

>>18153689
>He's obviously talking about prophecy here
In 1 Corinthians 15:4, it further says, "And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:" Again using the same phrase, "according to the scriptures."

This is talking about the Gospels.

>>18153697
This is obviously not what he means, and I doubt you believe it either. You're free to abandon this point since it's a silly one, I won't hold it to you.

>>18153705
>I doubt you believe it either.
I believe it completely, see the following as my reasons:

"For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels."
(Luke 9:26)

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."
(Romans 1:16)