Gentle reminder (not just to you but to others commenting) that christ is not a name but a title and that christ is not a good translation of messiah (which does not mean saviour).

that being said, it is quite possible he never existed. if he DID exist, he was jewish, and a common expression of his time to indicate a very pious man was "a real son of god." this was not meant to be taken literally. however, when paul visited greece for the purpose of... well, who KNOWS what his real purpose was, but recruiting, at any rate, he was visiting a country whose religion had REAL sons of god; zeus was won't to rape and impregnate human women (what a nice guy!) so if paul used this expression to describe jesus (a greek name, by the way), they surely took that literally. they also took to heart paul's very unjewish attempts to convert them to judaism. "you want us to cut the skin off of our WHAT?" and "you DO know that tourism won't be a part of the greek economy for almost two millennia and meanwhile what we do here is fish (for nonkosher shellfish) and raise pigs, right?" so paul, faced with a dilemma, decided you don't have to be jewish to enjoy a good saviour (actually you CAN'T be jewish and enjoy a good saviour, since the concept of someone else's saving you from your sins is alien to jewish beliefs). christianity is born! well, conceived, anyway. so maybe jesus (not his real name) existed and maybe he didn't, but he sure wasn't what he was later purported to be. that in itself could be why he was not written about in his lifetime; he just wasn't all that important.

g

There were many self proclaimed "messiahs" at the time. In fact the soi called "theives" in the bible who were crucified with Jesus were actually also "messiahs" , but there was a translation error, where they did tno take cultural context into account when translating. (oops).

Basically, the story of Jesus was originally, just a story about a local "messiah" and miracle worker, which were actually very common in that tiem period, who ended up beign crucified. End of story. Then they added in all kinds fo other miracles and stories from other religions of the time. It is liek when Cervantes wrote "Don Quixote", where after publication there all kinds of imitators. After the original Jesus story, the popularity spawned all kinds of imitators, and there was at least more than three dozen "gospels" most of them contradictory to each other and incorporating familiar themes from other religions and trditions of the time to varying degrees. The ori9ginal story was lost.

Tacitus (56-120 AD) wrote about him in his Annals. Here's the core of it:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa.

Flavius Josephus, the note scholar of Jewish history makes only one mention of Jesus and than has long since been debunked as a forgery. However the churches still cling to it as proof of the existence of the Nazarene.
NOW here is the odd part, Josephus devotes a whole chapter to John the Baptist as a politically influential leader of a heretical Jewish sect, a powerful speaker and a man hailed as the Messiah of the Jews.
The Churches don't mention this AT ALL.
Why not, because in reality John was not the cousin of Jesus, he was not the herald of Jesus, he was not Killed by Herod Antipas the way it is described in the bible, he was not against Herod for marrying his brothers wife (it was his step brother or half brother Philip and not the full brother Archelaus mentioned in the bible) he was against him for making military pacts with surrounding gentile kingdoms.
There was no Salome she is a biblical invention, Both brothers were childless probably as a result of massive in breeding and it goes on and on.
In short the biblical scholars are willing to site a fraudulent passage in Josephus to back up the existence of their man god, but ignore and deride as unreliable, page after page about the man god's own cousin because it disagrees with the biblical accounts and PROVES them inaccurate lies.

Bigger headlines would be the appearance of zombies in Jerusalem and no extra biblical reference to this. There were plenty of apocalyptic preachers around at the time so it wouldn't be surprising if one was named Jesus. All of the miracle claims are just superstitious nonsense and wishful thinking.

Jesus of Nazareth was invented at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. One way that we know this is that Nazareth didn't exist until the late 3rd century. He is a composite of many gods throughout history.