David Friedrich Strauss, answered from the texts and cited to the page.
No. The Christ of faith and the Jesus of history are two figures, and a theology that keeps both is keeping a historical figure it has already given up the means to reach.1234
Hegel's dialectic apparently succeeded sufficiently in overcoming antinomies that the theodicy problem disappeared. Strauss unavoidably had an optimistic view of man in the modern technological world. With no fundamental plight to which redemption was an alternative, it was meaningless to speak of a redeemer. Accordingly, Christology had no future in the world. But still, there is this man Jesus.The Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History, pp. 92–93
Only when we appropriate his sinlessness in the most intimate fellowship with him, "the way everything is common to friends," will we become participants in redemption and in its fruits." This is, as Schleiermacher furthermore ex- 159. [This represents a serious misinterpretation of Schleiermacher. See note 35.The Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History, pp. 169–178
In Part One he criticizes the work of the editor Riitenik, then deals with Schleiermacher's theological presuppositions and his view of the Gospels. In Part Two he takes the reader through Schleiermacher's lectures and puts his finger on important problems; his own critique is woven into the discussion at certain points. In Part Three he sums up the issues as he sees them.The Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History, pp. 83–84
CHRISTOLOGY INTERPRETED SYMBOLICALLY. KANT. DE WETTE. The attempt to retain in combination the ideal in Christ with the historical, having failed, these two elements separate themselves: the latter falls as a natural residuum to the ground, and the former rises as a pure sublimate into the ethereal world of ideas.The Life of Jesus Critically Examined
The sharpest single argument in the authorship, and the one that shaped twentieth-century theology most directly.