There’s some strawmanning going on here.
I don’t reject Christian theology on principle. I said critical historians as such do so. Instead of dismissing Christianity to focus on something else, I’ve written dozens of articles that engage with Christian apologetics on philosophical, scientific, and theological grounds.
I don’t defend some mythicists’ view that Christianity was taken wholesale from Egyptian theology, because those connections would necessarily be weaker than the links to Judaism and Hellenistic cults and philosophy, given the time and location in which Christianity arose. I focused more on the midrash, which doesn’t entail that Christianity is entirely unoriginal; instead, my point was that the so-called historical details found specifically in the gospels are bogus.
As a synthesis of Judaism and Hellenistic philosophy, Christianity is likely original, since the synthesis may be more than the sum of its parts. Christianity was the first Jewish version of the Mystery cults, so it both was and wasn’t so original, depending on how you look at it.
Finally, you’re mixing up the question of whether Jesus existed with that of whether Christianity is important. Unlike certain new atheists perhaps, I’ve never contended that Christianity is unimportant. Obviously Christianity is historically and politically important, for example, especially in the United States at the moment. Again, I’ve written so much on Christianity because I think the religion is important. The importance of that religion is almost entirely negative, so recognizing that importance is like recognizing the extent of an enemy’s dastardliness.
I’m curious to read your views on the theological Christ, Graham.