SeaBreeze: The problem you have is that once you accept Jesus' historical existence, as have virtuall ALL historians, then you must accept some form of evidence for that belief.
Those historians are referring to what they call historical facts. The standards of evidence are significantly eased to account for how difficult it is (in many cases, impossible) to prove that someone existed. Historians understand that if a person meets a number of specific criteria, it is reasonable to accept that they probably existed. That's it. When someone claims to prove a claim about a historical figure, or claim that such is undeniable, they're lying.
In other words, one can create a list of 'minimal facts' for any number of ancient people, then try to use those to promote an unproven assertion about them. I bet that the same historians who accept that Jesus probably existed also consider it a historical fact that Vespasian existed. How many of those historians also believe that Vespasian cured a blind man with his spittle? My guess is none of them, because they recognize the dishonest switch being attempted.
I get the impression that you think that if I accept that Jesus was a real person, I am also obligated to believe that he was resurrected from the dead. By that same reasoning, I must accept that Vespasian cured blindness and that Muhammad traveled via flying horse. Whether I accept that they did or didn't exist has nothing to do with the supernatural claims attributed to them.
You can label me or speculate about my mental state, if you wish. But it doesn't address the problems with the links you posted, or the claims you're making, or the inferences you are trying to draw from insufficient data and a lack of real facts to go along with your historical facts.