Pletho, despite you being a little kooky, I actually kinda like you and think that you really do mean everything you write, even if you do so sometimes in an entirely frustrating manner. But the fact that you can't tell if I was being serious or not is a bit of a problem.

My post was rather obvious sarcasm to point out that I and most other people who read your OP (and who know your posting history) knew where you were going with this thread.

Your real question here is about the evaluation of historical documents. How do we decide what we find credible or not?

There is not much physical evidence except a inscription dedicated to Tiberius. He was an ordo equester so it is hardly surprising he does not have monuments built to him. Both Josephus and Tacitus speak about him, Tacitus calls him the procurator which is a finance minister with no real power. I have always thought he had the misfortune of staying in the city during passover while the other Roman officials took off and so became famous.

It is impossible to prove that Pontius Pilate existed, but there are at least 5 different sources that mention him; and since none of these authors had a motive to invent Pilate, there is no reason to believe they did.

While I can't make any statements about the veracity of the above statement, if true it establishes a basis to believe that it is very likely that PP existed.

The same goes for Jesus, I think. It is very likely that a man named Jesus existed. Just like a man namedd Mohammed very likely existed. Whether they were devine or had contacted devinity is what is much less likely.

The only thing we can do when analyzing anything is look at the evidence and try to come up with a logical conclusion. Most skeptics don't feel attached to their theories in the same way that a theist does. A skeptic will say this is the best belief we have based on the current evidence. When evidence comes along to refute it, they will alter their opinion.

This problem goes far deeper than biblical studies. Read any history book about a war written by the winners, and you will likely see a very different story than the ones written by the losers. We have to take all written accounts with grains of salt.

I don't think that anybody doubts that he existed.

Nobody ever claimed that Pilate walked on water, healed the blind, or rose from the dead.

Small difference there.

Mayby he did, and Jesus was just the patsy...

Did you actually call conservopedia a good source? That would have to be the first time I have ever heard that.

That article just re-hashes the bible accounts and dishes is as true without pause in the first passage, then it blends it with some historical sourcery in the 2nd passage which is far more unclear than this article lays it out to be.

That article is manure.

[x] just got levelled

Oh no, my intellectual integrity is in ruins.

I as honestly trying to give you the benefit of doubt, I do not want to develop an automatic negative and sceptacle resisitance to people who ask questions about God, even though this is very hard to balance on this forum.

Thats why I gave you the benefit of doubt, just that I asked you should alert you that I sense sacrcasm..... If I happened to be wrong I wanted to give you a chance.

happens to the best of us!