While christians will certainly give you a list of people who mention the name of Jesus, the most damaging evidence against the existence of a historical Jesus actually comes from the bible itself. Paul is the earliest writer and claims to have met the Spirit of Jesus, but has no clue about a historical Jesus and thus does not provide any earthly details of this person. While that could be fine, the problem is that Paul claims to have walked the same territory as Jesus, attempting to create his churches, yet not one person of the many that Paul came into contact with bothers to tell him they knew of a physical Jesus. The actual details of a supposedly earthly Jesus do not come until the later writers create the stories. Mark says he is not an eyewitness to anything and that Peter had told him the tale. Luke also says he was not an eyewitness but did some research. John wrote way too late to be an eyewitness. Then there is the problem of contemporaries not saying a word about this supposedly miraculous man attracting all of this supposed attention. The list of people christians use as evidence for a historical Jesus were all born "after" the supposed death of Jesus. The only thing these people were reporting were the "tales" that they had heard. It would be like me telling you the tale of Hercules and using that as evidence for his historical existence. Also most of those historical figures who did mention Jesus, it was in regards to the problems the christian cult were causing. So while there is really nothing to inform us if an actual historical Jesus existed, it is clear that the stories are pure fabrication with many of the writers relying on the Greek translation of the Hebrew bible called the Septuagint as their source material.