User:Ari89/redefiningreliablesources

Over at Christ Myth theory what constitutes a reliable sources is reaching the climax of stupidity. The emphasis of what sources cannot be used as reliable seem to fall into the following categories:

Anything written by a Christian scholar - no matter what their expertise may be. The reasons for this are numerous. As user:SlimVirgin has argued, Christian scholars cannot make consensus statements on their area of expertise because cannot "put their prejudices to one side" and are "emotionally invested".
Anything by a Christian publisher - even if it is from a reputable academic press section such as Eerdmans, publisher of James D.G. Dunn's Jesus Remembered; James H. Charlesworth (ed.) Jesus and Archaeology; Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitness and many other important historical Jesus academic books; as well as Fortress Press having published books such as [[Geza Vermes]' Jesus in His Jewish Context and The Religion of Jesus the Jew, James M. Robinson's Jesus: According to the Earliest Witness, Annette Merz and Gerd Theissen's The Historical Jesus, E.P. Sanders' Jesus and Judaism, Richard A. Horsley's Jesus in Context, Dale C. Allison's Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet and many more influential studies on the historical Jesus.
Anything by a non-Christian that seems to confirm that the Christ myth theory is fringe.

This bring us to the question of what can be used as a reliable source. They generally are as follows:

Any source that supports the Christ myth theory by non-experts. For example, philosopher Michael Martin in his polemical book The Case Against Christianity is presented as a "more mainstream" source than relevant academic works on the historical Jesus. Note, these non-experts are subject to the above exclusions.
A source by someone with a "PhD in ancient history" as long as they (1) are not a Christian; (2) are not published by a Christian academic press and (3) not a non-Christian that does not note the fringe status of the Christ myth theory.