*Hello everyone - I was the one who started this discussion last night. Apologies if the topic has come up before, but I checked the Talk tab and couldn't see a discussion on it. 
 I'll make 2 assertions - each of which I believe to be true - and see what people make of them: 
 a) 100% of the priests & seminary teachers quoted in this article confirm the historicity of Jesus. 
 b) <100% of the non-priests & non-seminary teachers quoted in this article confirm the historicity of Jesus. 
 / In combination, those two things do not feel intellectually satisfying to me. It leaves a slightly unpleasant taste. 
 Thought experiment: If priests are as wholly legitimate a source as anyone else, then it means this article could in theory become a Featured Article by only using priests as sources. At that point we'd have a situation where a Featured Article about the Historicity of Jesus is 100% sourced from priests, 100% of whom would agree that Jesus was historical. These sources would not only all come to the same conclusion, they would all also earn a living from institutions who's central tenant they've just confirmed. 
 According to the internal logic of the thought experiment & above assertions, none of this would be a problem. I make no comment on substance, but from an approach POV this all feels not quite right.