Reconstructing the Historical Jesus

Two problems with this argument:
1) The burden of researching claims is on those who make the claim.2) The historicity of Pontius Pilate is closely linked to the historicity of Jesus, to say the least. If there were documentation of Pontius Pilate it could provide a possible way of lending credulity to a historical Jesus. So it would seem to be an appropriate line of discussion. Why don't you get off the high horse and back up your claims, assuming you can (Which I for one, doubt).

If there were no independent evidence for PP than the historical accuracy of the Biblical interaction between Jesus and PP would be suspect. Since this is a key moment in the life of Jesus according to the gospel accounts, it would raise a lot of questions about the historical trustworthiness of the gospel accounts.Even more beneficial would be independent confirmation of the interaction between PP and Jesus (or at least a person who could have been Jesus)Edited by deerbreh, : Clarification

My point was it is up to those making claims to back them up.

Pilate is relevant because if there is no historical Pilate there is no historical Jesus - at least not a Jesus crucified at the direction of Pilate. There could be a Pilate without a Jesus, there cannot be a Jesus without a Pilate. As to presenting evidence for the historicity of Jesus - I am not making the claim so you will have to look elsewhere for that.