Stuff written that much after the fact is just a sign of Christianity's spread and people writing down Christian beliefs, not of a historical Jesus.
And your evidence for such a statement? None. You are surmising.
Such sources are sometimes the only way historians have of getting any sense of anything as specific as the existence of a person from that long ago. Sure, it's possible that Jesus might've shown up in documents contemporary to his time, but the fires of AD 64 (helpfully referenced by the voice of lews therin) make finding detailed info on almost anyone from that period in Palastine difficult. Your comments are an endictment of historical practice, and I'll be direct--historians know a hell of a lot more about what they're doing than you do.
To be brief: Historians have decided that there is a historical Jesus. Historian's views, practices, and research projects are the measuring rod for such an assertion.
Why don't you go study up on the issues of constructing historical narratives? It's well documented. I could even get you started.
BTW: There's no Christian conspiracy going on on my part. Why don't you get all revved up about the historical King Arthur or the historical Socrates? You are the one who's looking narrow minded, ignorant, and frankly, not logical.
Heterodox but Orthoprax
As fast on the draw...
...as he is in the drawing room!