1. Dr. Carrier's naturalistic worldview is evidence against supernaturalist Christianity.
2. Summaries of Dr. Carrier's debates with Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey on the historicity of Jesus.
3. Evidence and scholarship establishing that the current ending of Mark was not originally in the text, as well as critiques of attempts to portray Jesus as a brilliant Hellenistic philosopher ahead of his time.
The article by Dr. Carrier is overall reliable and trustworthy, though it does have some potential biases and one-sided reporting that should be noted. The article presents Dr. Carrier's own naturalistic worldview as evidence against supernaturalist Christianity, which could be seen as biased or one-sided reporting since it does not present any counterarguments or alternative views on this topic. Additionally, some of the claims made in the article are unsupported or lack evidence, such as when discussing how much Jesus is an imitation of Musonius Rufus or when critiquing attempts to portray Jesus as a brilliant Hellenistic philosopher ahead of his time. Furthermore, there are some points that are missing from consideration in the article, such as possible risks associated with using Bayes' Theorem for testing claims about Jesus or other historical figures, which could lead to inaccurate conclusions if not used properly. Additionally, there is some promotional content in the article regarding Dr. Carrier's book On the Historicity of Jesus and his chapters in The Empty Tomb which could be seen as partiality towards his own work rather than presenting both sides equally and objectively. All in all, while this article is generally reliable and trustworthy, readers should be aware of its potential biases and one-sided reporting when reading it for information on Jesus studies by Dr. Carrier.