After I know this how could I leave the church?

[JesusHChrist]

To the OP -- now your argument has been torn to shreds by the Unholy Hounds of Satan, do you see why it is Not A Good Argument at All? And to not use it again?

Pro tip - try leading with your one, BEST argument why rational, intelligent people living in the 21st century should believe a 1st century mishmash of Jewish/Hellenistic mythology, is actually true.

Now, what would that be exactly?

Think carefully grasshopper. Snatch the pebble from my hand...

[Minimalist]

The question then is obviously how trustworthy are they?

They are not trustworthy at all.... unless you think that a Roman stenographer was sitting in the Carthaginian senate while they debated going to war on Rome in 218 BC as Livy would have us believe.

This sort of thing was a common mechanism for an author to explain issues and events. It was all invention.

And your gospel writers were the descendants of such fabulists.

[Michael]

That just comes across as pejorative and polemical dismissal Minimalist. I think that damages, rather than supports, the atheist cause. It's just the flip side of 'the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it'. It comes across, to me, simply as fundamentalism from another perspective. When you look at the scholarly world, generations have engaged with Tertullian in a much more considered and balanced way.

[Tonus]

I would think that the only thing that would damage "the atheist cause" would be if god showed up. Otherwise, Min can do as much damage to the cause as he pleases, since it makes no difference to me.

[Cyberman]

Did I miss a memo? What is this "atheist cause" of which you speak?

[JesusHChrist]

That just comes across as pejorative and polemical dismissal Minimalist. I think that damages, rather than supports, the atheist cause. It's just the flip side of 'the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it'. It comes across, to me, simply as fundamentalism from another perspective. When you look at the scholarly world, generations have engaged with Tertullian in a much more considered and balanced way.

Michael, several of us have presented the case why Tertullian is not a worthy source on this subject: distance in time, lack of objectivity, lack of support for his claims of Tiberius' alleged conversion, lack of any such claimed records, ax to grind, etc.

What can you offer for your scholarly, much more considered and balanced way?

[Minimalist]

That just comes across as pejorative and polemical dismissal Minimalist. I think that damages, rather than supports, the atheist cause. It's just the flip side of 'the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it'. It comes across, to me, simply as fundamentalism from another perspective. When you look at the scholarly world, generations have engaged with Tertullian in a much more considered and balanced way.

The day I care what you think I'll let you know. Meanwhile...your gospels are the same as all other ancient writing: Unreliable. In the case of the gospels we have actual evidence of them being edited....either accidentally or deliberately over time.

You should read Bart Ehrman's Jesus Interrupted to find out how.

[Bibliofagus]

Well, what we have copied was Tertullian's record; that's what the early scribes (copyists) would have had access to.

I'm saying Tertullian had access, and the means, and the motive to copy them and make them available.

[JesusHChrist]

Even some Christian scholars find the claims of Tertullian...less than believable:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/actspilate.html

F. F. Bruce writes (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?):

...

Then Tertullian, the great jurist-theologian of Carthage, addressing his Defence of Christianity to the man authorities in the province of Africa about AD 197, says: 'Tiberius, in whose time the Christian name first made its appearance in the world, laid before the Senate tidings from Syria Palestina which had revealed to him the truth of the divinity there manifested, and supported the motion by his own vote to begin with. The Senate rejected it because it had not itself given its approval. Caesar held to his own opinion and threatened danger to the accusers of the Christians."

It would no doubt be pleasant if we could believe this story of Tertullian, which he manifestly believed to be true but a story so inherently improbable and inconsistent with what we know of Tiberius, related nearly 170 years after the event, does not commend itself to a historian's judgment.

...

It seems at least one respected New Testament scholar is also quite dismissive of the Tertullian story, however unpleasant it might be.

[Mudhammam]

Magical events! Recorded! In! History! ...as they are reported in similar fashion today. Assuming irregular, or what you might deem magical, occurrences sometimes happen in nature, specially in your perception, say, an unexplainable event, it doesn't amount to evidence for claiming that in the empirical (objective) world aliens arrived on Earth and transported you to another dimension where they bestowed on you true wisdom and peace of mind, or anything else that is even more ridiculous as found in the Bible. So, remind me what is supposedly impressive again?