Excellent! Then you should have no problem telling me why Tertullian doesn't use the names "Jesus" and "Christ" in Ad nationes. Quote Doherty if you like, though better if you use your own words, in case, you know, Doherty dodged the question.
I never even heard of
Ad nationes until a few weeks ago, and now I need to be an expert on it?
I started reading it, and don't see how Tertuallian is evidence that people didn't talk about Jesus although they believed him. Tertullian is answering a particular argument, that Christians have a bad reputation. He responded by pointing out that one should not judge all Christians just because some Christians misbehaved. If that was the issue he was addressing, why would you expect him to discuss the earthly life of Jesus in order to make that point?
And he does mention that Christians are called Christians
because of their founder:
But the sect, you say, is punished in the name of its founder. Now in the first place it is, no doubt a fair and usual custom that a sect should be marked out by the name of its founder, since philosophers are called Pythagoreans and Platonists after their masters; in the same way physicians are called after Erasistratus, and grammarians after Aristarchus. If, therefore, a sect has a bad character because its founder was bad, it is punished as the traditional bearer of a bad name. But this would be indulging in a rash assumption.
The first step was to find out what the founder was, that his sect might be understood, instead of hindering inquiry into the founder's character from the sect. But in our case, by being necessarily ignorant of the sect, through your ignorance of its founder, or else by not taking a fair survey of the founder, because you make no inquiry into his sect, you fasten merely on the name, just as if you vilified in it both sect and founder, whom you know nothing of whatever
So it is difficult to see how anybody can read that and not believe he was talking about an earthly Jesus.
Tertullian, writing around 200 AD, is writing in an age where most all Christians believed in an earthly Jesus. We do not find such clear references to an earthly Jesus in the writings of many earlier Christians.
And you can tell me why Tertullian writes this:
"This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus; under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity; under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned, and you may weigh its worth and character even from the person of its persecutor."
Where is the historical Jesus in there, merle?
I don't know how Tertullian put together this rather disjointed book. Possibly he is copying somebody else here.
But this is a good question for you: If Tertullian is right here--and we don't know for sure that he is--how is it that the name
Christian arises in the reign of Augustus, who died in 14 AD, before Jesus began his public ministry? Could it be that the name comes from people in the reign of Augustus who, like the later Valentinus, looked to an AEon Christ and called themselves Christ-ians before your Jesus was known? If they were following "Christ" before your Jesus began his public ministry, does that mean they were following something other than your earthly Jesus? Is it possible that Tertullian was copying some source that said people were called Christians in the time of Augustus, without realizing that quote refers to a Christ before a historical Jesus would have lived? I don't know.
At any rate, Tertullian clearly refers to his belief in the founder of his faith, so that really is not a question.
Why the vague reference to "the name" taking its rise under Augustus, "the name" being taught under Tiberius and "the name" being condemned under Nero? Wouldn't you expect Tertullian to have made some mention that God Himself had incarnated during that time?
He is referring to the term "Christian" and those who condemned the word itself. He points out that the name comes from the founder, and has been around for a long time. That seems appropriate to me.