Anti Anti Anti

AGF

Please do not violate the rule of Wikipedia:Assume good faith regarding the intentions of others. Thank you. John Carter 21:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No Assumptions but based on your arguments:

1. Insertion of Religious Sources into Non-Religious Page Discussion
2. Suggestion that Religious Sources outweigh other Sources in page content
3. Ignoring Sources in Page that do not fit into your critique
4. Making Blanket statements that affect POV Content
5. Arguing for Pro-POV weasel words insertion into otherwise neutral page
6. Ignoring key dialogue in preference for a semantic style argument

Finally you are arguing for a particular POV on a particular subject. Arguments to the contrary of your POV are therefore deemed an attack on your POV. ie. You are too sensitive -it's nothing personal. Anti Anti Anti 22:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

By your own statements above, accusing me of things I have actually not done, you are in fact proving that you do not only fail to assume good faith, but that you are also making judgements about the motivations of others, which is also clearly and explicitly not allowed. Please actually try to pay attention to what others say, rather than to your own pre-existing biases. Alternately, please point to me specific cases in which I made the statements you, I believe, falsely claim I have made. My argument has basically been as follows:

• (1) There is good, at least assumed, evidence, that when Emperor Titus sacked Jerusalem, many documents relevant to the recent history of Israel were destroyed. The lack of documentation on just about anyone from this era at least points to that possibility, including Pontius Pilate, and there are, if I remember, some sources which specifically refer to such destruction.
• (2) The word "myth", as the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology know, is a potentially problematic one, given its own ambiguity. There is also, frankly, no good evidence that there is a "myth" relating to this subject. As indicated above, lack of corroborating evidence for this era is not in and of itself evidence, as even Pontius Pilate was considered potentially hypothetical until recent centuries, based on lack of contemporary corroboration.
• (3) The argument that Jesus is/was a myth is itself, to a degree, at least a pseudo-scientific theory. It is reasonable to describe something which purports to be scientific by scientific terminology. The word "theory" is almost as ambiguous as the word "myth", and we do try to avoid ambiguity wherever possible. "Hypothesis" is not necessarily a better word, but it does at least indicate that the argument has at least not been tested. "Theory" implies that it has been tested, and has not been found false. Unfortunately, Occam's Razor is a standard for testing theories, and the argument in (1) above is sufficient to explain the lack of corroborating evidence, and the specific proposal here is not separately supportable or unsupportable one way or another. There really is no way to test, one way or another, this proposal if the basic information one would generally expect is missing, as it seemingly is for not only this particular subject, but most of the 1st century regarding Jerusalem and its surrounding area.
• (4) Personally, I would think that a longer, more clearly specific, title would probably be the best one for this article. Partially this is because, given the tremendous amount of stories which have arisen about the subject, and the incredible amount of conjecture of all sorts about him, there's a real chance that a number of articles relating to this subject could and should exist, and I at least don't want to try to shoehorn them all into a few articles, where not all the information will inherently make a good fit. By giving this article as specific a title as possible, we leave open the opportunity for other articles with equally specific titles as well. I think excluding the word "Christ" from the title would be a good idea, so that that word can be used later in the title of articles about the stories which have arisen subsequently about the post-ressurection Jesus. I would personally like to use the word "Argument", "Contention", "Proposal", or something similar in the title of this article, because there really isn't a lot of hard evidence which can be presented on its verifiability one way or another. This would allow differentiation from other similar articles, some of which might have more or less hard data to support the ideas put forward in them. However, the first two words are "argumentative" and "contentious", so something without those emotional underpinnings would probably be preferable, if such a synonym is known to exist.
• Anyway, just a few ideas. John Carter 14:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that several of your claims above should be on the "Jesus Christ as Myth" page under the subheading "Criticisms". The thesus: "Jesus Christ as Myth" has been well established by proponents of the principle rather than by their critics.

I should point out that the idea that Pointus Pilate existed is irrelevant. Here is a breakdown of the logic that you are using.

1. J = Jesus Christ existed historically
2. P = Pointus Pilot existed historically
3. J and P
4. P is true
5. Therefore J

This is just wrong.

This whole argument is based on semantics which by your own admission is because you don't feel that the subject is worthy of the well known subject "Jesus Christ as Myth". Regardless of what you or I believe; in order to make an encyclopediac article with a neutral POV -we should not simply insert semantics into the subject matter to make ourselves feel better. The subject is the subject -if we must insert criticism; then do it under the subject heading. Anti Anti Anti 20:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)