You "suspect" 'Jesus' existed? On what grounds?
When I hear the term "historical figure" I think of the waterwalker, not some hapless preacher. They were a dime a dozen. THAT Jesus, to me, doesn't count. Besides, Jesus Christ is NOT a real name. It's an amalgamation of two words both meaning "saviour" or "Messiah." What was his real name? I forget. Doesn't matter.
My point is, Jesus the "historical figure" did not exist, as HAS been circumstantially proven to at least MY satisfaction: zero historical record, countless factual errors in the "gospels" which clearly point to them being fictitious forgeries, the empirical evidence "miracles" are impossible and if--by some fantastical stretch of the imagination--they DID occur, surely would have been recorded "historically" by many and myriad historians of the time there on the ground, busy chronicalling the events in that very region in meticulous detail. On and on.
There seems to me NO QUESTION the Adventures of Jesus was a hoax which, once it gained traction, was seized upon by the Flavian dynasty of Roman emperors to distance themselves from the previous, disgraced dynasty of Caligula, Tiberius, et. al., and the mythological "gods" with whom they were so closely identified.
It's all there in the "historical" record for anyone to see.
It's not that there is no "proof," it's that no proof will ever be convincing enough for those who refuse to accept it.
(THOSE people are still looking for Noah's Ark.)

For starters, Nazareth was NOT a place until 30 years AFTER the supposed guy from there died. You could go with Just that, IMO...but this has been known for a really long time & clearly has made no difference

I don't believe Jesus Christ, as he is spoken of and written about, has ever existed in reality EVER.
Bunch of Bronze Age guys with too much time on their hands made ALL that shit up.
They also plagiarized and cannibalized every ancient text they had access to.
Paul was a charlatan. He was the L. Ron Hubbard of his day.
Lastly, and most importantly, there were, as usual, too many people willing to believe that bullshit.

"Paul (who I see as the real founder of Christianity) never met the human Jesus and didn't have much need of him."

You are absolutely correct. The "Christian" church is founded upon PAUL'S teachings, who "didn't have much need of" Jesus...if Jesus existed at all. Proving that he did not exist wouldn't change a thing for True-Believers, as they would simply scream "FAKE NEWS!" And continue on, anyway, with their Paulist religion.

I think you underestimate the ability if people to willfully close their minds to the truth.

Two points;
1 there were several “Jesus” mentioned in writings. None worked miracles, of course.
2: no Christian will ever accept any evidence other than what his controller supplies. Until he is deprogrammed or grows up.

There will never be a need to write “Christianity for dummies”. We already have the Bible.

Impossible to prove either way. What is true is that some would claim to be god or something similar by performing magic acts. This was actually quite common thousands of years ago.

The crucifixion was a HUMAN sacrifice meant to atone for Original Sin which could not be expunged by animal sacrifices.

The notion that atonement for sins could be addressed by ritual sacrifice, human or animal, is such a throwback to primitive superstition, no one has the guts to even mention it any more.

Add in the absurdity of God incarnate being sacrificed to himself..., hell, temporal paradoxes make more sense.

You will never convince a true believer, as facts, if you were to uncover any, don't register as real knowledge.

Faith = Belief
Facts = Knowledge

Of Nazareth is very problematic as it did not exist until the late first early second century AD (after death) CE

[jesusneverexisted.com]

Jesus was a historical figure only in the bible. Outside of those writings there is no evidence of a real Jesus at all. Some say early church fathers prove Jesus as real but where did they get their information? If it was the bible we are back where we started. Pilot and the Romans of that time say nothing at all about a man named Jesus.

"I suspect Jesus the man did exist."

Why, though? You really only have their word on it. The prophet messiah figure shows up in many cultures, pre- and post-Christianity.

Doesn't matter...self-delusion and wishful ''thinking'' would keep the man divine.

A good story gets better with every retelling. Much better. And the Bible is no exception.
At Acts chapter 9, the Apostle Paul tells the story of his Damascus road experience. We all know the story so I will just copy the words of Jesus as they are written in my NASB. It might help if you follow along in you red letter edition.
Acts 9:4 , "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?"
Acts 9:5-6 , "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting,
but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do."
At Acts 9, Paul tells a simple story and Jesus has very little to say.
A few years later, Paul retells the story of his Damascus road experience, at Acts 22. Notice how the story gets better and Jesus gets more talkative.
Acts 22:7 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?'
Acts 22:8 'I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting.'
Acts 22:10 'Get up and go on into Damascus, and there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do.'
Notice how the story has been told better.
At Acts 9 it was just plain “Jesus’ , now at Acts 22, it is”Jesus the Nazarene”
At Acts 9 it was “enter the city”, now at Acts 22, it is “go on into Damascus”
At Acts 9 it was “it will be told you what you must do." , but at Acts 22 it is “there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do.' “
By just examining the words of Jesus you can see how Paul has made the telling of this story better.
Now towards the end of his ministry, Paul tells the story a third time. Follow along Jesus’ words and see how Paul has made this story much better.
Acts 26:14 , 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'
Acts 26:15 , 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.
Acts 26:16-18 'But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you;
rescuing you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you,
to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.'
Wow…Paul has really improved this story. In the early editions of this story Paul only heard a voice. Now Jesus has appeared to him and has a lot more information for Paul. Now Paul has been appointed a minister and a witness.
It becomes apparent that the incident is fiction because Paul continually improves the story he is telling.

Someone once said: "All you need to start a religion is a name".

Evidence doesn't matter to the evangelicals. A huge percent of them don't believe in evolution despite all the evidence for it.

Figment of an overactive imagination, snap out of it!

They don't care.

There are christians now who don’t actually believe a literal jesus existed. and even for the ones who do, evidence doesn’t actually sway them. Aron Ra has a thing about that. he asked a christian woman what she would think if he could take her in a time machine back to the time of the beginning of the world and show her it wasn’t god, and she said she hoped she would have faith enough to continue believing.

Yes, their reaction would be the same as that to the news of life on Mars!

Watch all the Richard Carrier vids: Jesus is a myth::::

Well, for one thing, I can’t imagine anything that would be considered irrefutable proof that a guy 2000 years ago did not exist.

IMO the character of Jesus was based on the proverbial cool kid on the block. As the years went on the kept adding more shit to the story and eventually made him into God.

I don't are any evidence he was real.