Your thoughts on this? http://www.unbiasedtalk.com/the-intellects/historical-evidence-that-proves-jesus-christ-never-existed-and-was-created-by-constantine-romans/ This seems to be a bit short on proof. I don’t know enough about the subject, but he is never mentioned in “newspapers” of the time. You’d think that walking on water and feeding 5000 would get a mention somewhere or was it seen as parlour tricks not worth the parchment? But if you are going to create a god would you do not do a better job?
Christopher Hitchens raises a very interesting point in this video. (You can FF>> to 0:02:50).
The existence of the historical Jesus figure is very well researched and as you say there is no evidence except a brief mention by Josephus (Antiquities VIII: 63-64)(which was later found to be a fraudulent insertion into his writings). Indeed the myths around his life were preceded by similar legends (virgin births, resurrection etc) such as Horus, Krishna, Mithra etc.
FWIW from what I can gather: historians get really upset about all the online (atheist) rhetoric over Horus. Much of it is bogus, that particular legend is supposedly not really all that similar to the Jesus legend, and what similarities there are, are largely based on guesses.
I looked Horus up just now and I thought the bible was confusing! 
the point is that myths about virgin births, raising from the dead etc have been quite common: it’s all about marketing: St Paul (of Tarsus) was the one who created most of these myths regarding Jesus to sell a new religion that included Gentiles (before only Jews were destined for heaven)…this pissed off the Jews big time and they threatened to kill him. (Acts 9:29) and also Acts 15.)
I’m lost at what he’s trying to say.
Is he saying Jesus is a complete myth or is he saying Jesus only became Jesus Christ at the Nicean counsel in the
form of them deciding that he is now a God?