An Italian court has agreed to hear a lawsuit alleging that a priest deceived the public when he taught about Jesus. The plantiff claims Italian law was broken because Jesus didn't exist.
This is the wrong line of attack, I think. There's enough evidence that Jesus existed to satisfy most people. If the plantiff wants to accuse the priest of swindling the public why not suggest that a law has been broken by using stories of Jesus's divinity and miracles to raise money?
How is promising someone eternal life in exchange for a few dollars less of a fraud than selling him the Brooklyn Bridge? Or, if you're a certain kind of rebba, how is taking payment for removing ayin harot reconciled with Torah laws against theft and fraud?