Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians

[TheMessiah]

Hence, Tacticus made it clear that he would not repeat hearsay - it becomes difficult to imagine why he would repeat the claims of a group of people he hated.

So, I take it, you will not read up on what modern history has to say about Nero and Tacitus and what the word historian meant in the old days. Fine with me, just don't expect me to take you seriously.

And look at the previous page for what I said about transporting an agenda.

I can only say, I have it up to the eyeballs with people not knowing the first thing about the scientific methods of historical text analysis and take everything they learned at school or gathered from the internet at face value.

I have read about Tacticus and I'm aware of historians from the Greco-Roman world - and I still think you're shifting goal-posts from saying there was no evidence, to then trying to undermine the scholar himself; Tacticus is considered one of the greatest and most skeptical historians of the time, yes, historians are better now-a-days, but what Tacticus noted was actually not that big of a claim - just acknowledging cruxification.

I think I am just going to have to respectfully agree to disagree with you.