I don't have a lot to add to my already linked answers in the faq, but the two key questions here are:
What counts as "hard evidence"? Is hard evidence better than other kinds of evidence? Should we only formulate beliefs based on hard evidence? This is a set of epistemological and methodological questions not just for the historical Jesus, but all history (and philosophy).
What relevant parallels do we have of a messianic cult manufacturing a historically-situated messiah figure? Are those parallels both relevant and convincing? Do they provide the explanatory power needed to best account for the appearance of the Jesus movement and its associated literature?
I realise you've posted here for answers, to which in my case I would again simply direct you to those faq posts. However, it's worth highlighting that the formulation of questions about the historical Jesus are never quite so straightforward, they involve a range of broader historiographical issues which are not always apparent.
Hi there!
Not to stifle any further discussion but answers to similar questions from our FAQ section on this include:
Is Tacitus the main reason historians accept Jesus's historicity? by /u/jasoncaspian
How much evidence is there for a historical jesus christ besides the bible? by /u/talondearg
What's the best evidence that Jesus did or did not historically exist? by /u/talondearg