The Jesus myth is essentially rehashed from earlier myths from other earlier cultures.

Yeah the "deep state" conspiracy theories about the origin of the Jesus mythos are not credible.

It is my view that the flesh-and-blood, miracle-working god-man we are familiar with today evolved over the first century of Christianity's existence, and was not fully codified as orthodoxy until roughly the time of the Council of Nicea, hundreds of years into the Common Era.

It is further my view that there were two primary competing orthodoxies during this period, struggling for dominance. (1) Something like the orthodoxy we are familiar with today and (2) a more mystical, spiritualized version known today (given that the victors got to write history) as the "gnostic heresy". I suspect the origin of this "heresy" was none other than Paul himself.

It is clear even from the internal evidence of the NT that Paul's teaching was in conflict with that of the Jerusalem Council, and it is significant in multiple ways that Paul did not choose to appeal to the then-living apostles to validate his teachings of Jesus, but to a personal subjective experience of a "heavenly vision". Paul's Jesus was largely portrayed as an apparition, "seated in the heavenlies", and his weak appeal to authority for his teaching was that "god revealed it to me". Yeah, right.

Whether by accident or brilliant design, the Council eventually subsumed Paul's teaching by the simple device of incorporating it into the NT canon AFTER the gospels, which allowed his rantings about the celestial Jesus to be mis / re-interpreted as a depiction of a post-resurrection Jesus after his Ascension. The much-later gospels presented Jesus as a flesh and blood human, and Paul's mysticism sprinkled in just enough magic fairy dust to make him paradoxically still divine.

Understood in this way, it's easy to see that Jesus could very well have been invented out of whole cloth, or embellished from one or more real persons.

But even if there was a single Jesus of Nazareth who actually founded the movement, that's not a problem for me, because you still have to explain the NT Jesus and his miracles and claims to divinity while the public record remains studiously not only oblivious to him, but absolutely unsupportive of the fantastical claims concerning him and by him.

Probably the strongest secular based evidence that a man named Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago exist in the writings of Roman historians Pliny and Tacitus. Most other secular historical writings perported to have existed regarding the life of Jesus were alleged to have been lost in the fire which destroyed Rome in 64 AD.

Well theres no real evidence he existed, .non of the scribes of that time mentioned him.