Christ's birthday

[rjh4 is back]

Just in case you wondered why I said fictional Jesus, have a look at this article:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historic..._live.html

I wonder what you would say about the following passage from the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus in Annals XV, 44:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

Also, here is an article which cites many scholars who have studied the works of Tacitus which addresses criticism of this quote. Tacitus and Jesus

Do you just dismiss this as being Christian garbage? If you dismiss this as being a forgery, how do you address the argumentation set forth by the author of the website? Furthermore, how do you discern from historical documents what is true and what is not? Do you dismiss anything refering to Jesus Christ because it must be a forgery without looking at the evidence? Given the paltry evidence provided here that Jesus is fictional, it seems to me that what I have cited is sufficient to rebut such a claim. Do you agree? (I am not holding my breath. )