you keep ignoring everything written about Chrest and Chrestians

All things pertinent are well known to the like of the folk of the Jesus Seminar, and they find nothing in it.

You won't find anyone making anything of it aside from people who are identifiably anti-Christian.  That's not a term I like to use, but it happens to be factual.  I assume you like facts.

One can go on and on with spinning out increasingly bizarre and complicated theories — such as that Paul's letters are an unknown someone's inexplicable later fabrication — and really get nowhere useful.

You can deny it, but here and on other threads I have pretty much substantiated my every claim.  As to one's faith ...

There is my whole, old, other thread, "Faith, Facts and Unprovables" ...

... in point of fact, as far as I can tell, the bases for my religion are every bit as provable (or not) as are the bases for yours.  To dispute that is merely a question of asserting this, ignoring that, and who runs the board; IOW I will not be permitted to make any pertinent case.  Also, just as most of the bizarre revisionist scenarios would be put to rest by any examination of what the texts say (Do Paul's letters sound like some unknown person's later inexplicable fabrication?  Has anyone around here besides me read them? The texts that use "Chrest" — what do they say about this person?  Do they fail to portray him as the savior of the world?  Not necessarily my own position, but what do they say?); there is also still for me of what this purported individual Jesus purportedly said.  Which has, itself, if one examines it, enough merit to provide basis for one's religion.

That religion won't be Judaism.  But it can be mine.

P.

“What I admire is honesty and truth, no matter who, or what, the sources are.”
— Uri Yosef