[ QUOTE ]
You could then argue that although a Jesus esisted, he wasn't who most think he was and thus in a way the traditional Jesus never really existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I think. I actually agreed with something Phil said in another thread, and responded to RJT with:

I mean, I'm sure SOME guy named Jesus existed... and some of the details are probably accurate... but which ones, and how many... that's definitely questionable. And, in the end, if you don't know which details of the Biblical Jesus are true, it's hard to say that that Jesus actually existed.

So, how many of the details of Jesus have to be true for us to say that Jesus existed? For Christians, of course, he has to be God incarnate, died & raised from the dead, because if he wasn't, then their Jesus doesn't exist, and their religion is worthless.

One significant point is that most religions don't require their founders to have been real people. Their religion can still exist regardless of their founder. (Not all, but most that I know of.) Christianity is not like that -- if Jesus was not God incarnate, died & resurrected for the sins of the world, then Christianity is pointless. Confuscisim doesn't need Confusious. Buddhism doen't need Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha). Judaism doesn't need Moses or Abraham. Islaam doesn't need Mohammed. Sure, those people play a very important role in the religion -- but the religion's value isn't based on those actual people. Christianity is worthless without the actual Jesus.