That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it.
However, if you were to expand your acquaintance with theologians, you would discover that quite a few take Jesus as a fictitious figure, and not as a historical one.
http://home.inu.net/skeptic/exist.html
Was Jesus of Nazareth a real historical person? Today, we cannot give a positive yes or no answer to this question. But after studying the evidence it becomes highly plausible that, as portrayed in the New Testament gospels, Jesus of Nazareth, hereinafter referred to as Jesus, is a myth and nothing more. It is reasonable to speculate, however, that somewhere in the eastern Mediterranean region of two thousand or more years ago a talented young leader appeared preaching what was for those days a radical doctrine. Although he in no way resembled the Jesus of the New Testament, he well might have provided the inspiration for him, i.e., the kernel of truth out of which grew the myth.
First, it is inconceivable that if a historical Jesus had actually founded a world religion, Christianity, that there should be no contemporary record of his activities. Surely one of the several important Jewish historians active during that period would have at the very least mentioned him. But they remained silent about him - a silence, it should be noted, which speaks volumes. So in our search for Jesus we are restricted to the conflicting depictions of the New Testament gospel writers who are themselves under suspicion by modern Bible scholars
2. Surely if such a person as Jesus had in fact existed, the historians of his day would have recorded something of his teachings, his alleged miracles, his doctrines as well as the many other extraordinary events associated with his short life as recorded in the gospels.
---- more at the above website ----------------------------------
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
http://www.adelphiasophism.com/gog/gg20.html
The Fiction Of The gospels
The chief teachings of Jesus, even the phrases and moral sentiments to a great extent, were paralleled in the literature of the time and common to priests of Isis, Serapis, Esmun, Apollo, Mithras, Ormuzd, and Yehouah, as well as wandering Stoic apostles. Not one point in the teaching of Christ was new to the world. The chief doctrinal features of the Christ of the gospels—the birth, death, and resurrection—were familiar myths at the time, and were taken from Paganism.
Christianity perfectly illustrates ********* in religion. Central ideas pass from age to age, but here and there a refinement is made and occasionally a brekaway gives a novel synthesis of the central tenets.
The clergy pour scorn on the denial of the historicity of Jesus. Yet, "Did Jesus Ever Live?" is a serious question. People whose historical existence was as certain as the sun to whole ages—Hercules, King Arthur, Homer, William Tell—have proved to be legendary. Adam is a legend, Samson is a legend, Moses and Abraham are legends. If the historicity of Jesus is so certain, where are the indisputable witnesses to it?
Who wrote the gospels? No one knows. They do not claim to be written by any named authors. They are entitled
According to X, where X is Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. They do not claim to be "by Matthew," etc. Even if they professed to be written by definite people, it would not follow that they were. And even if Luke was written by a man called Luke he admits in Luke 1:1-3 that he is not an eyewitness but is writing, as "many" others have done before him, an account of what they have heard about Jesus.
-------more at website----------------------------------