Does Historical Jesus matter?

It is an often trouble spot of anticipating post modern Christianity. We have four Gospels and Acts, historical evidences of a real person walking on this Earth. We have letters that have been built on historical Jesus.
Does Christianity need historical person? Can we prove existence of such a person? Can we be sure of Jesus' existence...? What is the exact problem?
There are two major issues:
-first is that we base our views on understanding of truth. If we say he didn't exist: it may mean that Bible statement of his existence is a simple lie is untruth, the consequences are: speaking about Jesus we are touching the problem of objective judgement, as we need objective answer /yes or no.
-second is that we believe that Christianity is based on concept of resurrection. For resurrection we need a real person to die and to arise. Myth or a legend of arising God is simply not enough.
Paul says "If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith": the consequences are that the truth of Christianity lays in objective, able to be recorded fact
Those two aspects a majors of apologetics, based mainly on textual criticism and historical evidences.
Post modern critics noticed that the idea of objectivity had been falsely switched with approximation. Objective yes/no was changed into most likely, almost certain, according to our evidences, more "true" than the other.. etc.
Another case flows from my own reflections: believing in historical Jesus is mainly believing, that humanly authorised evidences /textual, historical/, that bible is true, are true. Modern method of deciding that one text is truly well preserved and we have it as a adequate copy of the original is basically a cover up for human decision. By human decision I mean a movement of subjectivity: decision is an act.
It looks that we can not be sure of Jesus existence: does it sound weird? It is at some point, but surnlessness is a space for faith. We can not prove Jesus' existence in terms of objective requirements. Christianity in fact need historical Jesus, but the fact of his existence comes from different source: subjectivity.

Am I Christian?

That would be fair to ask that q. Skipping the above mentioned case with identity and definitions, I would like to maybe say sth on the level of inwardness, in the relation to my deep subjectivity.
By asking that q, we may understand few things: am I born again Christian, am I part of evangelical fellowship, am I baptised, am I ethical, do I believe in Jesus Christ, did Jesus die for me, etc. Those qs are right to some extension. Those qs reflect contexts and ways of grasping the idea of "to be Christian", however my answer - story - will be different a bit.
The case is that a group of people was called Christians. None of them, as far as we know, called himself Christian. Would they called themselves sth, if haven't been called Christians. Would they search for a name, for a new identity?
It is not particularly my drift to find an exact name or description of who I am. Descriptions are to be used, without them we have no language, no communication, no thinking, no precisely planned action.
Am I Christian? I am to be called Christian, maybe. I would like to know what does it mean to be Christian. Definitely I experienced "historical" person Jesus from Nazareth, as a personal Christ. Do I believe in historical Jesus, it is different case. I experienced the message of Jesus from Nazareth as subjectively ultimate for my self. I am not sure who he was. I am lost in theological concepts of deity. He knew he was a God, He became God. He discovered a God part in him. He was authorised by God to be more than a regular human. I find those aspects having minor weight for my subjectivity.
Am I Christian. I am. I experience Jesus message moving my inwardness on highest levels of subjective reflection of my self. For some people, however, I may not be.

Am I post modern?

Am I post modern? I regularly ask myself that Q. On one hand sound it is all about definitions, on the other hand we are speaking on definition-less paradigm (if using word paradigm is ok and fits post modernism or post modernity).

Lack of identity specification.
I would say, that I feel - to feel is not to think - freedom from defining my identity by terms I know from scholar works. I would say, that the issue of identity is secondary case for me. It is useful for some agendas to use co called "my inner need for designation my identity" for selling their product to me. whatever it is: politics, media, book, apple, vegetarian meal, sugar free meal, porn film, World Press Photo calendar. If I am a Christian and young, I am potential "Young Bible" buyer... If I am vegan and anarchist I am easy to be managed to buy v-marked products in shops. Each identity, positive or negative, may be abused and designate list of products I will buy. Do not want to simplify it, as there is a huge potential threat to do so.

Truth definition less.
What is truth. Is there a truth. Truth categories. Truth is, I believe, central point of philosophy. No doubts that truth is essential and a major case in philosophy. There were different ways of asking for truth, different perspectives and contexts. Skipping the history of philosophy, I would like to mention, that certain language valid for certain circles determinated in the past, not so far past, ways of asking for truth, and obviously the effects of those questions. Is it objective or subjective? Is it relative or absolute? Modernists debate truth in above mentioned categories - language or dictionary - and often describe post modern truth as relative or subjective, doing a mistake of debating post modern truth in modern categories. What is the truth then. For Kierkegaard truth is subjective reflection on subject related to the relation between itself and the relation. What does it mean. Firstly truth is relational, is about relation. Secondly, truth is subjective, so it is about subject. The consequences are: Truth is dynamic, as relation is, and truth is not an object - truth is not about sth which is out but in the subject. What is the truth - what is the relation of the subject, relation to the subject, relation within the subject. Questions on "Is it true that that glass is empty or not" has not much to do with the real case of truth.

meta-narrative

I believe, that Soren is the most influential person in terms of post modern Christianity. I believe, that he is one of major influential philosophers in terms of post modernity at all. On this blog I would like to share some of my reflections on post modernism, post modernity, existentialism and Kierkegaard's writings.

Let me start with on a reflection. Recently I figured out that he quotes or mentions narratives as regular texts without hierarchy, I mean, he gives examples of Bible verses next to Goethe or Grimm, without pointing which text has higher or deeper authority. I am wondering why. I may have some assumptions, some ideas. Starting this journey...