Historical Jesus?

Ah, Christmas, that magical time of year when Christians of all stripes cease their infighting and turn to the real enemy - the ACLU. It's those pagans that are destroying Christmas. You know, the ones who argue that freedom of religion in America means freedom FROM religion, yet they curiously want December 25 off with pay .... I hear a common refrain from the choir of the politically correct - "We believe in the historical Jesus, but not the theological Jesus." This is an interesting concept: that they trust the historical record of the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth, but they deny the theological implications of his life.

Let's review the facts established, uncontested, by the historical record. Jesus was born to a young, unmarried woman in Bethlehem. He was raised by a carpenter, and around age 30, began travelling around with a small group of followers and teaching. People attributed healings and miracles to him, and no one was able to dispute the impact he was having on the region. His divisive teachings wrought the ire of the religious leaders in the community, and he was delivered to the Roman government and was crucified. He died on a cross, and after three days, he was resurrected. The claims of his resurrection were met with resistance by the religious leaders, but no one was able to produce a body to counter the claim.

These facts are accepted by those that believe in the "historical Jesus." What is it about the theological Jesus that they don't accept?