What do Christians who say Scripture is not History believe?

I've been watching lectures from [Centre Place](https://www.youtube.com/@centre-place) with interest. While they hold services and claim to be Christians, they seem to hold a minimalist view of the historicity of Scripture. They admit that the authors of the Gospels, for example, are anonymous and were not eyewitnesses, and that most of what they write is Theology rather than History. In [a recent lecture](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozPG-iVKHCE) , John Hamer says: > 10:26 Today we are talking about history, and we want to separate history from religion. So the Jesus christs of scripture are part of the religious experience of Christians that point Christians to the Risen Christ. The historical Jesus though that we're looking for today can be accessed only through the academic disciplines of History, literary criticism and other supporting disciplines like Archeology to some extent. (...) > 11:47 if you're coming to it religiously as a Christian, it shouldn't necessarily change any part of the religious authority of any part of the scripture because the scripture is not history anyway. I've said a bunch of times that if Christians are even worried about this, they should just take as a default assumption that it's not history (...) Here's a slide from the lecture to illustrate: Christianity has always made fundamental truth claims about History, in my understanding. That a man lived 2000 years ago, that he was God, that he died for our sins, saving us from death; that he was resurrected, that he still lives with us. What do those Christians who adopt a minimalist historical understanding of Scripture believe in? Would they maintain these truth claims as such?