The Judaic elements of his religion were, in time, nearly all eliminated, and the Pagan elements, one by one, were incorporated into the new faith.So even if Jesus is a historical myth (ie was a flesh and blood man) you could have the issue of the Gospel narrative being essentially false and telling you nothing about the actual Jesus other than he existed; as Robert Price puts it "For even if we trace Christianity back to Jesus ben Pandera or an Essene Teacher of Righteousness in the first century BCE, we still have a historical Jesus." The problem is that such a reductive historical Jesus is similar to Robin Hood or King Arthur, where the core person (if there ever was one to begin with) has been effectively lost, and potential candidates are presented as much as 200 years from when their stories traditionally take place.So the "historical Jesus" of modern scholarship is no less a fiction." But these theories like all the others are simply turning Jesus into a tabula rasa ventriloquist dummy and no more give a picture of the actual man (if there was one) than the Gospels do. His existence and death is a critical point for virtually all Christians, and his life being exactly as detailed in the Gospels is important to many Christians.As a result nearly all presentations of evidence gravitate to the Triumphalist end of the spectrum: "Either side of the historicity debate will at times engage in a fallacy here, citing evidence supporting the reductive theory in defense of the triumphalist theory (as if that was valid), or citing the absurdity of the triumphalist theory as if this refuted the reductive theory (as if that were valid)".
Unlike the cult of Jesus, the origins of which are not reliably attested, we can see the whole course of events laid out before our eyes (and even here, as we shall see, some details are now lost).100 CE); and what could be referred to as "the usual suspects", a lineup of writers generally consisting of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger - and, on occasion, Thallus. This article is NOT about the Jesus myth theory or Christ myth theory but about the quality of the evidence presented regarding his existence (both for and against).The debate will come up for context but this article is NOT on the debate.My point here is simply that, even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered.If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more.