I have long argued it makes little difference whether an historic Jesus actually existed or not, all the while suspecting there had to be some element of truth. Over the past several years or so books by Richard Carrier, among others, has begun pulling me more or less into the mythicist sphere. The following link is to one of the best discussions I have found by Carrier of his key findings and, if you have an hour to waste, is fascinating:
Your post has brought up another point that I used to make when I would argue religion with people. My contention was that it did not matter what you have written on a piece of paper. Instead what defines your religion is the actions of the practioners. Thats how you actually define the religion. Actions speak louder than words and belie the underlying beliefs that a practitioners feels and how far they can act and still be in graces of their religion. If words and actions match, great. If not then judge them on their actions. Words are cheap. Just sayin'