Wow, I'm the one who is ignorant? You people see what u want to see and I'm trying to tell you the Truth.
How about I'll give u a link to another discussion and then you'll let me know what you think:
I did, thank you. The title of the thread was "HISTORIANS AT THE TIME OF JESUS".
Way down on the page someone cited Flavius Josephus, Tacitus and Julius Africanus.
In the quote from the work of Flavius Josephus the writer says he believed Jesus was the Messiah but Josephus remained a Pharisee -- in modern terms an Orthodox Jew. Josephus' writing was about 95 AD. He was born about 37 AD in Israel. Early Christian writers looking for authorities to cite in support of their belief never cite him. Eusebius is the first, around 324 AD. Eusebius praised lying to indoctrinate the lower classes as a virtue taught by Plato who learned it from Moses.
Tacitus' writing was about 115 AD. He was writing about Nero's persecution of the group called the Christians. He does not say he researched anything about Jesus himself and has apparently taken the claim on face value. He also says the Christians deserved what they were getting because of their "odium humani" which would mean "hatred of the human race" or "hatred of everything human and decent". If you want to take him as someone with authentic knowledge of the Christians from sound research then take that, too. He was born about 60 AD.
Suetonius was writing about 120 AD. He says there was trouble in the Jewish community instigated by Crestus. (Greek was dialectic at a level hard to believe compared to modern languages. Some cities rejected the kh sound. Crestos is a possible dialectic variant of Khristos or just a mishearing.) From that he seems to think that this Crestus was alive. Clearly he is relating hearsay. He was born about 70 AD.
None of these were literally "HISTORIANS AT THE TIME OF JESUS".
Julius Africanus wrote around 220 AD. Why did the poster even mention him?