geo wrote:you can't prove that Jesus didn't exist based on lack of evidence.
Consider that argument for other fictional characters.
How do we prove that Bilbo Baggins did not exist? For a start, we know that hobbits were invented by Tolkien. We also know that he wrote it as fiction. But some people may believe in Middle Earth, just as people believe in planet Elron or planet Mormon. In these cases we have active evidence of invention, and that is enough proof of nonexistence.
How do we prove that Don Quixote did not exist? This is slightly harder, because Cervantes maintains vigorously throughout the book that the events described are true in every respect. However, it is also very easy to tell that he is satirising claims of historical veracity made in medieval chivalric romances.
Turning then to those romances, how do we prove that Lancelot, Galahad and King Arthur did not exist? Maybe they did, but is it obvious that the fables that grew up around them bear only the slightest relation to any historical reality, and evolved by folk tradition over a period of centuries in oral story telling.
A similar case can be made for Jesus Christ as for Sir Galahad. There is no evidence whatsoever for either of them, except for vigorous assertions by their proponents. It may even be that the idea of Jesus Christ began as oral story well before it hit the presses. It seems the Essenes may have expected an "Anointed Savior", a "Christ Jesus" as part of their secret mysteries, and so started telling fables about this Jesus character. This powerful myth of a dying and rising savior, updating the old archetype, could then easily latch on to any number of pretenders.
those who take their (Christian) faith seriously are never going to be convinced that Jesus wasn't a historical person. Indeed, they believe that he was the Son of God, that he was born of a virgin, and that he performed miracles. Who's going to try to convince believers that he wasn't a historical person? So if this is indeed one of mythicists' subconscious motives, it's never going to be very effective.
Don't be too hasty geo. As more people come to the view that the invention of Christ presents a more ethical, coherent and compelling account of the available evidence, it is entirely possible that Christianity will evolve to a new phase in which the Gospels are regarded as fiction. After all, Jesus said he came into the world to bear witness to the truth. We can hardly call ourselves followers of Jesus if we insist on believing something we consider false.
Treating Christ as a myth does not necessarily criticize the ethical content of the Gospels, only the gullibility of believers and the duplicity of the church. Recognising that people have been extremely gullible and the church has manipulated this to gain power meshes well with the sense of 'total depravity' in Calvin's theory of the fall from grace. Part of the fall is that people were duped by the Gospel fiction promulgated by the church. Redemption will involve recognition that the story of the Historical Jesus is fiction.
I don't know why you call the motive of mythicists 'subconscious'. Most mythicists I have read are conscious and deliberate about wanting to convince Christians of the flimsy and erroneous basis of traditional faith.