I have yet to have any exchange with a Christian who would accept anything but evidence that corroborates their apologetic viewpoint. You cherry pick the evidence that suits you and you ignore the evidence that does not. This is dishonest. Your argument with Tacitus is a good example. You cite the quote and give the dates for Tacitus' life as if to suggest an original exists. But that work is not extant from the 1st. C. It comes from only one document that was written in the 11th. C. That is a gap of nearly 1000 years. This ought to give you some pause. It ought to beg a question in your mind, but it never does. Why? You only want to defend what already believe.
If Tacitus was the ONLY document on which our faith hinged, you might be right. However, the fact of the matter is that Christians base their belief on 20 or more things making a CUMULATIVE case. So if even 1/20th or even 5/20ths have problems, that’s not enough to sway. It’s like a court case where not everything is figured out, but there’s enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s true of almost all cases.
Now if you DO want one thing to shake up Christians, disprove the resurrection. But beware, almost all who try it end up becoming Christians. (C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, Jim Warner Wallace, Gary Habermas, Frank Morison, Sean McDowell, etc.)
Ditto for Aristotle.
The Church also finished the rest of Homer's works too.
Going by your “expertise” of how literary works were derived from antiquity; Herodotus, Polybius, Thucydides (LOL), Hippocrates, Isaeus, Sextus Empiricus, etc... literary undertakings were all created from Church manuscripts, thus all forgeries in your view.
Do you have any idea how all these manuscripts are created and then put under historic review?
If you have proof Tacitus was a forgery, then you would be the toast of academia. Never heard of anyone proving this though.