You have presented a very plausible picture of a possible Jesus. However, couldn't all this have been a fictional story? We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that the Essenes were producing writings that might be called fictional, symbolic, theoretical or speculative. Couldn't the Jesus story have originated that way?
As I have said, my reasons for believing it is fictional are many. There is never any year mentioned for the crucifixion - they mention the month and day, but not the year. The thousands of people who meet Jesus in the Gospels are missing from the subsequent books of the NT.
There is no definite connection between any writings in the New Testament and the people who actually knew Jesus. Most scholars believe that Mark is the oldest gospel. It was not written in Judea and not written by someone who witnessed Jesus. It cannot be proven that "Matthew" was written by an apostle and, in fact, it seems to have been largely copied from Mark. "John" was probably written too late to have possibly been written by an apostle. The epistles of Peter and James do not seem to reflect any personal experience with Jesus. These were probably not even written by Peter and James.
Paul spends 15 days with Peter and learns everything there is to know about Jesus. How is that possible?
No writings by the original Jerusalem Nazarenes were preserved. No sayings of Jesus were preserved in Aramaic. Supposedly, there was once a Hebrew or Aramaic Gospel of Matthew, but this was not preserved. Paul can verify the existence of only two of the supposed twelve apostles.
There is no undisputed reference to Jesus outside the New Testament until the Second Century.
If you believe Jesus was an actual person, where is the evidence?
I agree that it is possible. I do, however, think it is more likely that there was a real (albeit obscure) person around whom the later stories cohered. I think the best objective evidence of an historical Jesus are the brief mentions of him and of his brother by Josephus (Antiquities Book 18, Ch. 3 and Book 20, Ch. 9). While these passages were certainly 'enhanced' by later interpolations, there is a scholarly consensus that there is an original core mention of them there. Josephus also elsewhere mentions a 'Saulus' who is likely the 'Paul' of the Christian scriptures. Antiquities was completed in the early 90s C.E. (On a side note, there are a number of interesting parallels between the writings of Josephus, and the work of Luke-Acts in the Christian bible).
I further agree that the writers of the Christian scriptures were relying upon second and third-hand accounts and hagiographical material rather than original, first-hand information. Additionally, the selection of these particular accounts as 'canonical' took place hundreds of years later, and the works chosen were selected out of the hundreds of possibilities because they advanced certain theological viewpoints.