I was referring to his completely discounting the facts that point to the historicity of Jesus because he was hurt by Christians in the past, and is still mad at them (and me now, actually).
His emotions have overtaken his brain on this one.
There are, of course, many separate statements about Jesus, and not all of them are necessarily true to the same degree, any more than a careful news story is completely factual.
There are several ways of approaching this. One is to assert that God has taken action to ensure the inerrancy of the Bible. Another approach is to study the Bible as a document like any other. Another approach is to assume that the teachings of Jesus stand on their own without regard to historical inerrancy. I happen to believe this.