The Historicity of Jesus - The Spread of Christianity in the 1st Century

[Insula Dei]

Is there anyone who seriously doubts the 'person' Jesus Christ?

[Insula Dei]

jmfcst, when dealing with ancient historians it's important to remember that none of them are all that trustworthy in the way you and I would define 'trustworthy'. Tacitus isn't the worst offender by far, but he still is prety worthless as a chief witness for the defense. In general anything beyond direct eyewitness acounts from antiquity can be disregarded if it isn't corroborated by other sources and/or archaeological findings.

[Insula Dei]

jmfcst, when dealing with ancient historians it's important to remember that none of them are all that trustworthy in the way you and I would define 'trustworthy'. Tacitus isn't the worst offender by far, but he still is prety worthless as a chief witness for the defense. In general anything beyond direct eyewitness acounts from antiquity can be disregarded if it isn't corroborated by other sources and/or archaeological findings.

But it is corroborated!  That’s my point - If nonChristian (both Roman and Jewish) accounts are wrong, then why does Acts have the same objections being presented by nonbelievers as indicated in both the Roman and Jewish records?!

Doesn’t the fact that we have 3 differing historical groups (Christian/Roman/Jewish), who have no reason to agree on this subject, all agreeing on the nature of the argument, prove that these were indeed the arguments of that day?

I won't disagree with that. Just don't overtly rely on Tacitus alone in your argument. (Which is a bit on the trivial side, but that isn't that important.)

[Insula Dei]

my point is that since Jesus was portrayed as someone well known to both the public and to the authorities (both Roman and Jewish), how could such a myth gain acceptance?  After all, would you buy into a story of a man who supposedly was well known yet no one you know had ever heard of him?  Now, such a tell might possibly sell in BFE, but not in Roman ruled towns that were hooked into the goings on.

How do you explain so many buying into the existence of a previously unknown gospel written down on golden plates never shown publicly?  The fact is that it's not at all uncommon historically for religions to grow quickly despite being considered a myth by the vast majority.  The rapid growth of Christianity in general, and the Pauline version of it in particular is but one example of many.

Except that the majority didn't consider the existence of a religious leader named Jesus (Christ) a myth.