Attn:Another_1 Re: The Trinity

That�s the �Augustine�. Only other of that name of any consequence dear old Augustine of Canterbury � Apostle to the English �converter of the heathen Anglo-Saxons.

I�d forever counsel caution with regard to merely cut�n�pasting second(third�fourth�)- hand accounts of sources that are themselves translations.
The manuscript history of Tacitus is not entirely clear: some would argue (as in the much more hotly debated passages in Josephus) that they are later interpolations.
There are two first century/ early second century sources: Tacitus, of course, writing perhaps 50 years after events (and with a very strong bias against the Caesars) mentions Pilate and Nero�s persecution. He seems to have regarded Christianity as a purely Jewish sect.
And Suetonius (writing perhaps 70 years after the events) who speaks of the Jews in Rome being aroused by �Chrestus� and consequently expelled by Claudius. He also mentions Nero�s treatment of Christians � which he describes as a �new and evil superstition!
It is not inconceivable that Suetonius is largely repeating Tacitus.
We assuredly cannot simply equate �Chrestus� with �:Christus�. Nor can we be sure that either historian really knew any more than a name or two.

Incidentally, it�s a never-ending source of entertainment to see how rapidly a religious thread can be hi-jacked. Not a mention of the Trinity for a page now.