We're talking about the proven fact that it's a lot easier to embellish and glorify a fictitious individual who supposedly lived a while back somewhere over there - distant enough in the First Century to be beyond all capacity for fact-checking by the local audience - than it would be to embellish and glorify a real man with feet of clay.
Writing took a lot of time back then. It was not as quick and easy as it is now. Why would the authors go to so much trouble to create and support a myth? Whats in it for them? They were to a man persecuted...i see no examples of an author or supposed author benefitting personally from spreading the story.
What gets me is the fact that because and only because it is Jesus being discussed, emotions run at a fevered pitch. For some reason, people either worship the guy or hate the guy. Yes, hate. If it were an argument trying to prove or disprove the history of Ordinarius Maximus, normal citizen, the argument would scarcely draw a whimper were it proven either way. Given that it is Jesus Christ, man, myth, or legend that we are talking about, suddenly the outcome of such a debate assumes unreasonable importance.
Why does it really matter? If the guy may have existed, so what? whats the big deal??
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.' Lewis Carroll
* * * * * * * * * * Half of the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important.~T.S.Eliot