Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason:
"Being is obviously not a real predicate, i.e., a concept of something that could add to the concept of a thing."
If I say that "The ball is red", I have added to the concept of "(This) Ball". Same as if I say, "Unicorns are Blue"
If I say, "Unicorns exist", however, I haven't "added" anything since by the utterance "Unicorns" I have implied a Type of existence. This leads to an odd statement if I utter "Unicorns don't exist", since someone might say, "What about on the planet Remtorr? Do you KNOW that Unicorns don't exist there?" Ugh! "Please leave me alone now...It's time for my nap."
So we come to "Jesus", who must certainly exist and must have existed for all Eternity:
John 1: 2 - 3 (RSV):
 He was in the beginning with God;
 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.
"Who could argue with that?"
Existence is not a Predicate. Early in Bertrand Russell's career, he looked to the skies and shouted, "My God in Boots, the Ontological Argument is sound!" Later, he recanted.
Or, as Johnson kicks the stone, "Thus I refute Berkeley!"
Take your pick.
If, in this Argument, the Historicist is one who believes that there was a Jesus and his History is to be found in the Wreckage of some Set of Historical Documents, then I am not Historicist. I believe that the "Jesus" Character was created. Some of you are probably sick to death of hearing of the "Mishmarot Priesthood" but it is here, I believe, that the Story was originally cast. The Story was about a Priest and the Story was rewritten into the story of a savior/god by the Romans, for their sensibilities. See: Joe Atwill, Caesar's Messiah. See: Jay Raskin, Christs and Christianities. You don't have to agree with of anything they say but they might get you pointed in the direction I see as very fruitful.
If you see this Roman Thesis as even somewhat plausible, then perhaps you could ask yourself, "Did the Romans create this out of Whole Cloth, as one might say, or perhaps they used "...the advantage of theft over honest toil?" I believe it's the latter and that brings the question, "What Story did they steal?"
From the Fact that the "Jesus Stories" are written from "Source Stories", it does not follow that the "Source Stories were about "Jesus".
We are told that there was a Founder of Christianity, a person who had a Vision on the Road to Damascus. We know what Hume stated about "Visions" but what about this one? It is important if "Jesus" is portrayed Ontologically Accurate as given above. If, however, Documents should be examined for possible Historical Counterparts, what could this "Paul" guy reflect? Perhaps it's not a Vision at all but a Subtle Symbolic retelling of something that occurred in History - Roman History. I believe that to be the case. I'll start here but I might take a break and continue tomorrow.
As I always say, however, Symbolism is an acquired taste:
Mel Brooks, "The Critic":
"It must be symbolic. I t'ink it's symbolic of Junk..."
Acts 9: 1 - 5 (RSV):
 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest
 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
 Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him.
 And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
 And he said, "Who are you, Lord?" And he said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting..."
Verses 1 - 2 have been examined over and over and found wanting. OK. They may read just fine to you. Verses 3 - 5 are the important ones. They tell of "Saul" persecuting this "Jesus" character, a person "Saul" never even met.
Quick side-trip in a very compressed explanation:
1 Corinthians 1: 14 - 17 (RSV):
 I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga'ius;
 lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
 (I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)
 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
I want to introduce this for effect - It should come later in the Analysis but it illustrates a person very important to NT Studies: I ask that you take the time to read this section. It is that important to the consideration of the Thesis:
Tacitus, Histories, Book 4:
"While things were in this state, while there was division in the Senate, resentment among the conquered, no real authority in the conquerors, and in the country at large no laws and no Emperor, Mucianus entered the capital, and at once drew all power into his own hands. The influence of Primus Antonius and Varus Arrius was destroyed; for the irritation of Mucianus against them, though not revealed in his looks, was but ill-concealed, and the country, keen to discover such dislikes, had changed its tone and transferred its homage. He alone was canvassed and courted, and he, surrounding himself with armed men, and bargaining for palaces and gardens, ceased not, what with his magnificence, his proud bearing, and his guards, to grasp at the power, while he waived the titles of Empire. The murder of Calpurnius Galerianus caused the utmost consternation. He was a son of Caius Piso, and had done nothing, but a noble name and his own youthful beauty made him the theme of common talk; and while the country was still unquiet and delighted in novel topics, there were persons who associated him with idle rumours of Imperial honours. By order of Mucianus he was surrounded with a guard of soldiers. Lest his execution in the capital should excite too much notice, they conducted him to the fortieth milestone from Rome on the Appian Road, and there put him to death by opening his veins. Julius Priscus, who had been prefect of the Praetorian Guard under Vitellius, killed himself rather out of shame than by compulsion..."
What a Coincidence! Two names so similar: "Caius" => "Gaius" and "Priscus" => "Crispus". If only there were hints that these 2 Passages were related (Hint: They are so related, BIG TIME!). BTW, note that verse 17 above is what I call "Radioactive". It is devoid of real content but SOUNDS very important. So, returning to the Vision on the Road to Damascus, do we find anything in the Historical Records that may plausibly be referenced? We have brought up Tacitus and a Character "Mucianus". Do they figure into this walk down the Garden Path that I'm taking you?
Tacitus, Histories, Book 2:
"Vespasian was an energetic soldier; he could march at the head of his army, choose the place for his camp, and bring by night and day his skill, or, if the occasion required, his personal courage to oppose the foe. His food was such as chance offered; his dress and appearance hardly distinguished him from the common soldier; in short, but for his avarice, he was equal to the generals of old. Mucianus, on the contrary, was eminent for his magnificence, for his wealth, and for a greatness that transcended in all respects the condition of a subject; readier of speech than the other, he thoroughly understood the arrangement and direction of civil business. It would have been a rare combination of princely qualities, if, with their respective faults removed, their virtues only could have been united in one man. Mucianus was governor of Syria, Vespasian of Judaea. In the administration of these neighbouring provinces jealousy had produced discord between them, but on Nero's fall they had dropped their animosities and associated their counsels. At first they communicated through friends, till Titus, who was the great bond of union between them, by representing their common interests had terminated their mischievous feud. He was indeed a man formed both by nature and by education to attract even such a character as that of Mucianus..."
Here is the "Bare Bones" outline. It is Titus who is deified as the "Jesus" character, the one who brings Vespasian and Mucianus together. This is the "Vision on the Road to Damascus." We have much other History to consider, not the least of which are the Listing of the Emperors, up to and including Frugi Piso, the four day Emperor.
That's for another day, however. It's been a Super-Long Day for me today and I'm tired.
Tomorrow, then. Thanks for the suggestion, lsayre!