PS - for Minimalist. Why are you so against the idea that Tacitus was reporting what Christians believed early in the 2nd century? You're happy to refer to Lucian not mentioning Jesus in 160 AD and Celsus being the first writer to mention the name in 180 AD. Tacitus doesn't mention Jesus any more than Pliny and Lucian did and he doesn't mention crucifixion either - he just says executed. The only thing about Tacitus's report is that it mightn't have been what Christians believed in 64 AD because he wrote the Annals 45 years later.
--------
There is no question that people were "believing" something by the 2nd century - however - what they believed was NOT the christianity of today - which changed radically over the time before the bible was made canon.
In fact - there were LOTS of different beliefs - just as there are arguments among xtians today - that resulted in many different churches.
However - if the early mentions of the christ were to be significant - why do they not mention his miraculous rising from the dead ? Maybe that was NOT made up to be part of the MYTH yet?
--------
There is no question that people were "believing" something by the 2nd century - however - what they believed was NOT the christianity of today - which changed radically over the time before the bible was made canon.
In fact - there were LOTS of different beliefs - just as there are arguments among xtians today - that resulted in many different churches.
However - if the early mentions of the christ were to be significant - why do they not mention his miraculous rising from the dead ? Maybe that was NOT made up to be part of the MYTH yet?
