What do the 'Historists" believe?

[DeistPaladin]

As it turns out, I too have the same problem with the HJ position. The fuckers cannot decide what they mean by it...

I don't have a problem with the stubborn insistence that there must be some "historical core", which in turn has to be some sort of mortal human religious leader. As I said, Ehrman is welcome to his Ivory Tower musings.

I don't have a problem with the fact that this Historical Jesus is never defined beyond some sort of religious teacher.

I am perplexed by both their insistence on carrying the water for the apologists and their habit of becoming enraged over any skeptic who gets too close to the Bible like a mother bear defending her cubs. That's the question I'm throwing out there. What do you people want? And where do you draw the line between what you consider "serious history" and Christian fantasy? OK, that's two questions.

Anyway, happy to oblige. Cinjin and I will someday remake these videos with his special effects magic. I need to get around to sending him my *.mp3 files of my spoken parts.

Here's my current version with my limited video making skills:
Introduction to The Jesus Timeline




After getting a butthurt Ehrman groupie complaining about my lack of respect for his idol, I offered an apology followed by the start of my cross-examination:
Cross Examining the Synoptic "Eye-Witnesses"




Cross-Examining the Gospel of John




The Assembled Jesus Timeline: What a Mess!




The Apologists Strike Back




Coming Soon to the series:
The Jesus Itinerary: Synoptic Gospels? Not So Much.

The Jesus Itinerary: John's Jesus: Same Name, Different Character, Different Story.

The Jesus Moot Theory: What, If Anything, Can We Actually Know?