It seems this thread has run down to it's logical conclusion, which is that there are two distinct ways of viewing the subject, and neither side can be convinced, because they begin from different premises. The premise of Tilt, who I think has said every thing that needs to be said on the matter from the Therevada perspective, is that the Buddha was real, He was enlightened, and we should follow those teachings. Bravo, Tilt! It's case closed, at least for me.
But there is another way of looking at this, I like to call it the Spiritual Smorgasbord Syndrome. Just pick whatever you like from any tradition and call it real. No bother if you have to stretch the Dhamma to fit it into the mold that has been cast--how do we know if those are really his words anyway? And besides, goes this reasoning, many others have become enlightened along the way, there are many paths up the mountain, its all just culturally relative, blah blah blah.
Anyone locked into the Many Ways Up the Mountain theory has the burden of proof on them. I'd also like to draw your attention to the fact that by constructing your thought-world this way, you are running the risk of re-affirming to yourself what you already are predisposed to like. Blind spots are guaranteed.