thoughts of higher critisim

Most of whatI have heard about higher critsim seems to be more excepted statements from agnostic premises that are then used as foundations to approach the scriptures. Specifically what i feel like talking about are statements and arguments. Why are statements accepted for arguments? Another thing that is bad about high critsim is that they talk about a type of Jesus known as the Historical Jesus that is Jesus was 'real' in history possing that the Biblical account of whoJesus is is not who Jesus really is. The Biblical Jesus according to these men is merely an embelishment from a community into the ideal Jesus. The fact of the matter is there are no documents that support such a transition from their historical Jesus to the true Biblical Jesus. Sorry this stuff just anoys me because you have to defend these statements put up as arguments. An argument is a statement supported with evidence. Evidence is not merely what I can conjure up in my mind. Those are things that must be held with skepticism.