*Btw, I believe that Jesus, the man, existed. But he was most unlikely to have been born on Dec 25th
Here's what we know historically:
- Wasn't born on Dec 25th (if born at all)
- Very unlikely to have been born in Bethlehem
- There was no star that people were able to follow from country to country
- There was no census
- King Herod never ordered the mass murder of babies & toddlers
- No trial took place over Passover & no thief was released (and wouldn't have been being crucified either)
- No darkness covered Jerusalem, the curtains in the Temple did not rend and no Zombies invaded the city
- Pilate in real life was a bit of a shit - not the decent man portrayed by the gospels
- Also worth noting that a death from crucifixion a long time - you are gradually suffocated under the weight of your own lungs. Very unlikely that an otherwise healthy person would die in a matter of hours
Up until about 6 weeks ago, I would have agreed with you that Jesus probably existed as a man, just not as a divine being. In fact, I started my thread from that position - and this was because the scholarly consensus is that he probably existed. I'm all for scholarly consensuses - if all the experts in a field appear to say one thing, I respect that.
But as I was writing my posts on that thread I was thinking "Why do they think he existed again?". I realised there were certain inferences that could be drawn, but they were beginning to look mighty weak. So I went searching with my historian hat on (history is my subject).
What I've found is genuinely shocking. The "scholars" are almost entirely theologians with literature degrees in the NT NOT historians. There are not actually that many real historians who have addressed this - although there are some. The kind of rigorous methodology we would normally expect in a situation like this has been largely ignored and far too much emphasis has been placed on rather shaky inferences, which cannot themselves be supported. I'd also say, that evidence from the Bible itself seems to have been completely ignored.
For example - Acts tells us about some trials that very early Christians find themselves involved in. They are asked to prove before judges that this Jesus character they worshipped was real. Not one of them mentioned any aspect of his life on earth - his parents, his family, his miracles in front of thousands. They only blather on about visions they've had and revelations. This is like if I had to prove that Tony Blair really existed but could only offer my dreams about him as evidence 
(NB: I have never dreamt about Tony Blair. To be clear). That's one example out of many.
It looks very much as if the earliest Christians of all (including Paul) had no earthly idea that Jesus was supposed to have been an historically existing person.
I still have lots of reading to do - but, thus far, my mind is largely changed. I think he is entirely mythical and was never intended to be seen as anything other than a sky god, which would have fit perfectly with the type of gods people worshipped back then.