@Sea Breeze: There is a difference between biblical/religious scholarship and archeological scholarship. The biblical and religious scholarship, even the atheist ones, do not deny that a Jesus-character existed in Abrahamic mythology, nobody really does, but that character is also tied to other characters that came before, similar messianic figures came both before and after.
The archeological scholarship however does not presume a real Jesus existed (at least not since the 1900s) when the Bible said he did. There is no archeological evidence of the person Jesus existing, his birth place of Bethlehem did not exist until decades later, there is no evidence of a person named Jesus of Nazareth being crucified in Roman records, there is no evidence of him or his family (Josef, Mary etc) in any Jewish records either, there is no evidence of any notable magician or prophet in contemporary writings either and all of the gospels were written generations later than when they were supposed to be. Even the lineage of David has recently been proven to be completely mythical, there are no other records than the Bible to prove David existed or any of his children down to Mary.
Jesus is commonly accepted to be an amalgam of several Jewish scholars and the stories based on sectarian writings from the era with heavy influences from other religions. Jesus has always been a myth based on older myths.
If someone finds a Tolkien book in the 30th century, they would be able to make pretty much all the same arguments that Christians use to defend Jesus to defend the existence of Frodo and Sauroman, actually, the Tolkien books, even those written after his death, are much more coherent than the Bible stories.