I'd argue with you more, but I don't understand exactly what you're saying.

Here's what I'm saying, in a nutshell:
The Gospels are not, and never were, meant to be taken literally. Moreover, the concepts of Chrisitanity are much older than 2,000 years, and have existed for maybe up to 3,000 years before Jesus actually, supposedly, lived. I'm not bashing in any way the religion, and in my opinion makes it that much more worthwhile. In fact, whether or not Jesus was truly historical doesn't even matter ultimately, because his story represents humanity in a much deeper way than the Church has been telling us for the past 2 millenia.

However, as almost all scholars point out, the period of Augustus' and Tiberius' reigns, the two emperors who were active during Jesus' life, are relatively well documented, and there's absolutely no proof that Jesus did exist. Even the most prominent Christians of the time say that Jesus was not an actual man. It's only 200-300 years later that the Church claimed that Jesus was in fact real and that the Gospels were to be taken as completely factual. This, in essence, was to discredit other religions.

What's wrong with what I'm saying? If you need more details, tell me, and I'll look for it.