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