The evidence for a historical Jesus is unconvincing
If a person accepts hearsay and accounts from believers as historical evidence for Jesus, then shouldn't they act consistently to other accounts based solely on hearsay and belief?
To take one example, examine the evidence for Hercules of Greek mythology and you will find it parallels the "historicity" of Jesus to such an amazing degree that for Christian apologists to deny Hercules as a historical person belies and contradicts the very same methodology used for a historical Jesus.
Note that Herculean myth resembles Jesus in many areas. The mortal and chaste Alcmene, the mother of Hercules, gave birth to him from a union with God (Zeus). Similar to Herod who wanted to kill Jesus, Hera wanted to kill Hercules. Like Jesus, Hercules traveled the earth as a mortal helping mankind and performed miraculous deeds. Similar to Jesus who died and rose to heaven, Hercules died, rose to Mt. Olympus and became a god. Hercules gives example of perhaps the most popular hero in Ancient Greece and Rome. They believed that he actually lived, told stories about him, worshiped him, and dedicated temples to him.
Likewise the "evidence" of Hercules closely parallels that of Jesus. We have historical people like Hesiod and Plato who mention Hercules in their writings. Similar to the way the gospels tell a narrative story of Jesus, so do we have the epic stories of Homer who depict the life of Hercules. Aesop tells stories and quotes the words of Hercules. Just as we have a brief mention of Jesus by Joesphus in his Antiquities, Joesphus also mentions Hercules (more times than Jesus), in the very same work. Just as Tacitus mentions a Christus, so does he also mention Hercules many times in his Annals. And most importantly, just as we have no artifacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we also have nothing about Jesus. All information about Hercules and Jesus comes from stories, beliefs, and hearsay.
Should we then believe in a historical Hercules, simply because ancient historians mention him and that we have stories and beliefs about him?
Of course not, and the same must apply to Jesus if we wish to hold any consistency to historicity.
The basic problem with this analysis is that it is one sided and compilled to prove a preconception. It lines up many similarities but fail to mention any differences. So these thoughts have nothing to do with neither proper science nor History.
Consistency is an important element of the science of history but not the only one.
Let me mention only one example: Fail to mention that, the character of Jesus, pictured in the gospells paralell with non biblical sources meanwhile it is not true to the character of Hercules.
By the way majority of serious historians have no doubts today that Jesus of Nasaret was a historical person. Accepting that Jesus was the Christ, that is a different matter, and it is a subject of christian theology not history.