I've been thinking about this question ever since Thinker first raised it and Spectator (Observer?) voiced it again. The more recent debate between PD and Observer re: Whose interpretation of scripture regarding Israel is correct finally focused my thinking to where I may be able to say something about a complex topic in relatively few words.
It seems like people get caught in "either/or" thinking, as in, my Jesus is real and theirs is false. Either my interpretation of scripture is correct or yours is, but we can't both be right. As any atheist or detractor will point out, there are loads of contradictions in scripture and in claims made about Christianity. Some Christians come back with, "No, there aren't, you just don't understand the nature of revelation." Then both sides start firing off 10 Questions You Can't Answer about Truth.
For me, its not about choosing sides in the debate over competing definitions of "truth," where logic and reason are pitted against faith and revelation for the upper hand. From a standpoint of logic and reason, I've come to a realization and acceptance that faith in Jesus and bible-based theology is highly contradictory. There's always a tension between what is set forth as an ideal and what people who proclaim and embrace that ideal actually do with it. I'm not as concerned about how close I can come to being right about the ideal, as with how well I can live with the tension between the ideal and what is manifest within me.
From a standpoint of faith and revelation, I've come to a realization and acceptance that logic and reason set up moral delimnas for which there are no definitive answers, no ideals--just choices to be made between varying standards of good and bad. Logic in particular is brutal: It has little power to engender hope that there is a way out of a series of bad choices.
I believe it is the real Spirit of Jesus who has lead me to a point in my journey where I can say both/and to these competing truth claims. Despite this apparent contradiction and individual scriptures one can cite proving "you either for me or against, but not both," I beleive the Message as a whole says something different. People who appear to be "against" are an integral, necessary part of the story--Judas, the pharisees, and the Romans, for example. And people who appear to be "for" may have done more damage in the long run than good--Constantine, the First Council of Nicea, and many of the people who call themselves Christians, for example.
This is a major reason I decided to identify publically as a Christian. I've followed the Lord, my Jesus, for a long time now. I finally got fed up with watching assholes claim all the territory. That doesn't mean I'm not an asshole, too. I'm sure I am, or maybe something worse. I can only hope for God's grace to deliver me in due time from my essential jerkitude. In the meantime, I work hard at not getting into a headspace where I've got all the right answers about who Jesus is or was. Those who knew him during his life on earth were pretty clueless most of the time. Why should I be any different? All we can do is believe, or not, according to God's grace.