Trying to refrain from replying until I have time, but thank you cman for posting that wikipedia link, which neatly sums up most of the "evidence" mythicists need to overcome to be taken seriously.
Some of that is easy. Some of it, not so much.
The expert consensus is the easiest argument to overcome because in this field, the expert consensus is ludicrously biased in favor of tradition. When I hear about the consensus of experts, I tend to expect overwhelming evidence in favor of that consensus, not overwhelming excuses about why we shouldn't expect to find evidence even though, no, seriously, we should.
The notion that we would have to reject other historical figures if we held Jesus to a more rigorous standard is also incorrect. I would submit that such claims would be refuted by asking for an example, one example, of a historical figure whose existence is taken for granted but for whom LESS evidence exists than for Jesus.
You won't find one.
What you'll find instead is a Jesus that has more in common with Robin Hood and King Arthur than with Nathan Hale and Alexander Hamilton.
Amyway more later