" 

 ::::You know, if you're going to complain that Eugene is making inflammatory comments, you shouldn't say he has ""minions""; that's an insulting and inflammatory thing to say! It's a good idea to assume that other editors are capable of thinking for themselves, especially when you're making your first appearance on a talk page with a Wikipedia career of 15 edits. 

 ::::I'm puzzled by comments that Crossan isn't a good source. Last time I checked, DePaul University was regarded as a decent school, and Crossan taught there for a long time. His work is well-regarded in the field, and often cited. On this talk page, the objections seem to be either 1) he was a Catholic priest or 2) he used to be a Catholic priest, and now he's changed his mind...so you can't trust him. Neither of these objections mean that his works aren't reliable sources (in the Wikipedia sense). If these objections lead individual Wikipedia editors to distrust Crossan's work...well, who cares? Wikipedia isn't based on editors individual opinions, it's based on what reliable, scholarly sources say. 

 ::::Literdball said: ""most nonreligious and many religious scholars would admit that there is no solid evidence for his earthly existence."" Can you provide us with some scholars that say this? If you have some, let's put them in the article. 

 ::::Also, for everyone who says that Christian belief would be threatened if the theory of a non-historical Jesus was valid, please note that Robert Price says he attends church regularly (at an Episcopal church, I think), and happily recieves the Eucharist. If he's any guide, a historical Jesus isn't essential for a religious worldview. (The converse is also trueone can be an atheist and still think there was a historical Jesus. Try it, it's easy!)   "