Al, I really don't know or care about Schweitzer. Honest.<quoted text>
Again you distort the words of Albert Schweitzer to suit your beliefs just as you do the words of Jesus.
"Albert Schweitzer argued against those who denied the historicity of Jesus, but he also had a few things to say about the way in which the debate between mythicists and historicists was conducted in his day." - Neil Godfrey
Schweitzer was referring to the "mythical Jesus" not the "historical Jesus".
"The historical investigation of the life of Jesus did not take its rise from a purely historical interest; it turned to the Jesus of history as an ally in the struggle against the tyranny of dogma." - Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus
Then you give me the Jekyll and Hyde theory of the teaching of Jesus. The flesh an blood Jesus saw things completely differently than spirit Jesus? I think it a much more rational conclusion that Paul, having never heard the teachings of Jesus, went off on his own tangent.
And frankly, I don't need the sanctimonious comments either. You want to discuss this
fine. Provide a comment or citation and I'll discuss it, take any one of the citations I've provided and refute it, change the biblical direction and I'll attempt to respond. If you've got nothing left but secular nonbelievers, I'm not interested.