After I know this how could I leave the church?

[Ben Davis]

Hi Ben

As a Christian, I would be wary of putting too much weight on this. As a Christian, this can be used as secondary supportive material. But if you're not a Christian there are ways to reject it. I think the primary reason for being a Christian, or at least starting to walk down that path, is always the question of whether you find Jesus a compelling character: a person, or even an idea, that you think leads us somewhere better than where we are right now.

Hi Michael,

It's the OP's claim, that the writings of Tertullian are a good reason to accept that Christian claims are true, that I'm railing against. One has to have a pretty low standard of evidence to consider those writings conclusive. It may not be a position that you hold but Tertullian is an authority figure and since obedience to authority is a virtue in Christianity, it's easy to understand why some would consider this claim as historic evidence of Jesus' divinity. By any honest standard, it's most certainly not.

[Bibliofagus]

Bibliofagus, one of the 'rules' of canonisation was that they must have been derived from apostolic times or earlier, and they must have had use in the church's liturgy. But it's worth also noting the early Church had a high view of other writings, such as those of the church fathers, or the Didache. It is perhaps a little anachronistic to look back at other early writings with post-Reformation eyes.

I don't understand what you are saying. These records (if they ever existed) would be from the correct time and the bible is full of stuff thats of no use in terms of church ritual. Furthermore the unknown writers of the NT bent over backwards to lend credibility to their claims about the messiah. Thats why all the prophesy stuff is in there right? I find it hard to believe they wouldn't have been all over these records of supernatural stuff - if - they ever existed.

Copying important texts was standard practice in these days, because you could expect the paper to rot away or the tablets to be broken or lost. It was the - only - way to distribute important information. It's anachronistic to suggest they wouldn't have felt the need to copy this stuff - if - it existed and was considered important.

And who were the early christians trying to convert? I believe it was mostly romans. Romans who trusted the records left to them. It would have made a - lot - of sense to present them. Yet, they didn't.

Thats kinda what I was thinking.

[Michael]

If it wasn't read as part of the community practice (as, for example the Hebrew Scriptures were, the gospels were and the letters were) then it would not be up for consideration for the canon. That doesn't mean they didn't value other sources (they clearly did; we have many respected writings of the Church Fathers), but the canon was something different. We just need to be careful to distinguish the canon from all early writings; just because something wasn't canonised didn't mean it was considered worthless.

[Jenny A]

I know that you are going to laugh. I only hope an explanation for this. I would like to think that these facts were not true. I was more happy when i was not a christian.

Not laughing, just puzzled. About the evidence, Ben Davis and others have it exactly right. It's no more compelling that the Gospels themselves, less so because it's written even later. I just have a hard time imagining anyone converting involuntarily, as it were, based on such evidence.

[Minimalist]

I dont see how he can lie when he says the romans should read their archives to validate the portent at Jesus death.

So I guess when whoever wrote the koran claimed that mohammed split the moon in two he wasn't lying either?

[Mister Agenda]

Bibliofagus, one of the 'rules' of canonisation was that they must have been derived from apostolic times or earlier, and they must have had use in the church's liturgy. But it's worth also noting the early Church had a high view of other writings, such as those of the church fathers, or the Didache. It is perhaps a little anachronistic to look back at other early writings with post-Reformation eyes.

Your reasoning is sound, but lack of such documentation, while understandable, is a problem for corroborating what actually happened.

[Minimalist]

Bibliofagus, one of the 'rules' of canonisation was that they must have been derived from apostolic times or earlier

All of which assumes (emphasis on the "assume") that there were "apostles" and that they were not a literary device created later to give the equally phony jesus an "entourage" like today's rappers.

[JesusHChrist]

I know that you are going to laugh.

No doubt.

I only hope an explanation for this.

Explanation = iron-age mythology believed by people who should know better.

I would like to think that these facts were not true.

What "facts"?

I was more happy when i was not a christian.

It's never too late to give up bullshit belief for reality.

Tertullian was a roman lawyer that becomecome a christian. He had access to roman documents and made some declarations about 1st century A.D like this:

Tiberius6 accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favour of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal. Caesar held to his opinion, threatening wrath against all accusers of the Christians. [3] Consult your histories; you will there find that Nero was the first who assailed with the imperial sword the Christian sect, making profess then especially at Rome.

Considering he was born in 160AD, that would be the 2nd century and he lived well into the 3rd century. Where are these alleged records? No doubt destroyed. How convenient. And Tertullian was an apologist with a bias to promulgate Christianity. Sorry bud. Not compelling. At all.

The thing that dont let me go from christianity is the fact that he says that in roman documents it is registered that when Jesus died there was a big portent in the sky; so we are not talking about an story recorded only in the gospels.

He exhibited many notable signs, by which His death was distinguished from all others. At His own free-will, He with a word dismissed from Him His spirit, anticipating the executioner's work. In the same hour, too, the light of day was withdrawn, when the sun at the very time was in his meridian blaze. Those who were not aware that this had been predicted about Christ, no doubt thought it an eclipse. You yourselves have the account of the world-portent still in your archives.

And of course everyone rushed to read this marvelous tale in these "archives", but of course no one did. Other than Christian apologists, writing as far from the event in time as we are from the Civil War. Not compelling. At all.

It is SUCH a pity Christians don't have any contemporaneous writings. It's almost as though it never happened.

[Bibliofagus]

If it wasn't read as part of the community practice (as, for example the Hebrew Scriptures were, the gospels were and the letters were) then it would not be up for consideration for the canon. That doesn't mean they didn't value other sources (they clearly did; we have many respected writings of the Church Fathers), but the canon was something different. We just need to be careful to distinguish the canon from all early writings; just because something wasn't canonised didn't mean it was considered worthless.

Thats my point. They wouldn't consider that record worthless. Quite the opposite. And in a culture where copying texts is the only way to conserve them and - more importantly - to make them available in a large region they would have copied it.

Consider Pauls letters. How did they survive? I'm no expert on the subject but I suspect the Ephesians didn't have to send them to the canon making people when they heard a canon was being made. They were copied before they were ever sent (if etc.).

[Michael]

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

The reality is that much of history, especially more ancient history, is recorded through secondary sources. The question then is obviously how trustworthy are they? But historians are well used to dealing with this. For example, Geoffrey of Monmouth's 12th century "The History of the Kings of Britain" is universally dismissed as entirely unworthy of serious study of history; Geoffrey has no credibility in his recording. But Tertullian has face credibility, because of his extensive writings and known activity. So a historian is not going to dismiss Tertullian lightly. That is not to say that a historian will therefore trust everything written by, or is said to be written by, Tertullian. Rather Tertullian's writings (or pseudo-writings) should be put outside of the polemics of either trying to just dismiss them out of hand, or saying that they completely substantiate the historicity of the person Jesus. When historiography gets wrapped up with polemics I think you may as well say goodbye to any credible conclusion (in either direction); scholarship has been trampled by polemic agenda, and Tertullian is worth more care than that for those with genuine thinking and enquiring minds.