Interesting post! I've long wanted someone to refute "The Jesus Puzzle".

I find it odd, however, that you maintain that this response was "amazing". The ancients had many cults that did not refer to living historical figures but were undestood to be based on myth. If greeks spoke of Prometheus bound to a rock, they did not imply a living historical figure. If egyptians spoke of Osiris dismembered, they did not imply a living historical figure. What is it in Paul's epistles that singles out his Christ figure as living and historical? In other words, what is it about Paul's epistles - taken in isolation from the gospels - that you think warrants a living and historical figure, unlike, say the cult of Dionysus? How can one be sure that Paul did not have a mythical being in mind?

I would very much like to see some evidence in Paul's epistles that Paul could not have been referring to anything other than a historical figure, born under Herod, killed by Pilate, etc, etc. Unfortunately, all I find is Paul referring to an other-worldly being that may or may not have been historical. Paul is frustratingly ambiguous. Of course, that doesn't mean that Paul DIDN'T have someone historical in mind - however I just find him totally ambiguous.