to see exactly where historians draw the line between what qualifies as “history” and what goes beyond that into religious faith. This is a major issue with Kevmo, who seems pretty confused on the subject.
***Feel free to point out where I am supposedly confused on the subject. BTW, The Jesus Seminar stuff is complete hogwash.
FRiend, you are deeply, deeply confused about the difference between "history" and "religious faith".
Your religious faith drives you to justify what the Bible says, and to ignore all other data.
Nothing wrong with that, it's what we practice in Church and in our lives.
But it's not history, which requires us to consider the reliability of every available source and to examine discrepancies for what they may mean.
If you pretend that your religious faith is "history", then you are obviously confused.
A good example of the kinds of work that historians do can be found in the books of Crossan.
As for the Jesus Seminar, again, I don't know enough about them to speak of it.