I think you may be misinterpreting me somewhat here. I didn't go into very much detail in my opening post, and re-reading it I can see that there was a lack of clarity on my part in what I was saying. So I will add some just so we understand each other. I am not saying that Jesus wasn't in any way based on anyone, simply that whoever he was based on (if he was), that person remains unidentified and so there's no reason to assume that anything in that person's life resembled the life of Jesus beyond perhaps him being a Jew with a following, of which there were many at the time, rendering it a rather unremarkable thing. To that extent, can we really say he was 'Jesus'? We don't even know his name, if there even was a person.
The dispute over the existence of Nazareth adds further doubt to the veracity of the 'earthly' details within the story of Jesus. And it is heavily disputed, with many of the claims that it must have existed at the time resting on the Bethlehem birth issue.