See: Pilate stone Miistermagico (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- That has absolutely nothing to do with the Historical Jesus. Nobody doubts that Pilate, Herod, and some other members of the ruling elite mentioned in the Gospels were actual people.Smeat75 (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Dear Smeat75, How can you be so sure "Nobody doubts?" Have you questioned every one? The Pilate stone presents physical evidence that at least one main character in the Jesus story did exist. This does not prove Pilate had Jesus crucified but it does suggest this incident may be fact. Miistermagico (talk) 08:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I think that it should be pointed out in the article that most critical historical reconstructions of Jesus have a purely hypothetical value, since they are based on a priori philosophical bases. The encyclical Pascendi provides a insightful critique of “historical-critical” methods:
“The first is a sort of transfiguration of the phenomenon, by its elevation above its own true conditions, by which it becomes more adapted to that form of the divine which faith will infuse into it. The second is a kind of disfigurement, which springs from the fact that faith, which has made the phenomenon independent of the circumstances of place and time, attributes to it qualities which it has not; and this is true particularly of the phenomena of the past, and the older they are, the truer it is. From these two principles the Modernists deduce two laws, which, when united with a third which they have already got from agnosticism, constitute the foundation of historical criticism.
We will take an illustration from the Person of Christ. In the person of Christ, they say, science and history encounter nothing that is not human. Therefore, in virtue of the first canon, deduced from agnosticism, whatever there is in His history suggestive of the divine, must be rejected. Then, according to the second canon, the historical Person of Christ was transfigured by faith; therefore everything that raises it above historical conditions must be removed. Lately, the third canon, which lays down that the person of Christ has been disfigured by faith, requires that everything should be excluded, deeds and words and all else that is not in keeping with His character, circumstances and education, and with the place and time in which He lived. A strange style of reasoning, truly; but it is the Modernists' critique.” Josebarbosa (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- This is original research and cannot be included per our policy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- It's a complicated way of saying that historical scholarship follows the empiric-analytic model and does not pander to piety/Church dogmas. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
So. Now that it has been pointed out that this article presents the opinion of a number of writers as fact "ie: that the existence of an historical JC is generally accepted" what does one do about it? Should disclaimers be added? Should the article be rewritten from a more neurtral viewpoint?
Thus far. On the talk page these problems have been pointed out, and yet the article remains in it's original biased form.
I am not one to do article editing myself, but do wish to see this article fixed.
So where do we go from here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- See WP:NOTNEUTRAL, WP:RS/AC, WP:GEVAL, WP:ABIAS, WP:FRINGE and WP:ACTIVIST. These all say that the article won't be "fixed" as you intend. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)