We have no record of anything that was written about Jesus by eyewitnesses or other contemporaries during the time he would have lived, or for decades thereafter.
This assertion is based almost entirely on one premise: that because Jesus predicted The Temple would be destroyed, any gospel that mentions that prediction must have been written after the temple had in fact been destroyed. This is not likely, as Jesus had made a number of predictions that, as of the 21st century, have not yet been completely fulfilled—at least as far as we know. Under this principle, the gospels must not have been written yet!
In fact, several of the anecdotes recorded in the gospel make note of people who met Jesus and those people's inner thoughts, which could have only been recorded two ways: either making them up out of thin air, or through personal interviews of the people who met him. Luke's accounts (both the gospel that bears his name and the Acts) have particularly strong influence from this approach. He even includes, ambiguously, an account of someone who noted Peter killed a couple over money! Luke also makes parallels to the writings of Josephus, a Jewish historian of the era.
But let's take a look:
1. Married, not single. “Married” per se, maybe, maybe not—while Jesus and Mary Magdalene indeed had a special relationship, she disappeared shortly after the resurrection. Paul doesn't mention her, or Jesus's marital status (but he notes everyone but Paul himself in the Christian church was married). But the assertion that “Jesus and his disciples would have been practicing Jews, and all great rabbis we know of were married. A rabbi being celibate would have been so unusual that some modern writers have argued Jesus must have been gay.” is not quite true. Paul, in particular (and unjustly in my opinion), spoke out strongly against marriage in 1 Corinthians. They probably did not have children, however.
2. Cropped hair, not long. We're splitting hairs on this one.
3. Hung on a pole, not necessarily a cross. OK, this one's right. I think Paul's letters mention it being a tree, but the passion narratives also note he had to carry it, so the image is not quite clear.
4. Short, not tall. I don't think anyone thinks of Jesus as being physically greater than most others of his era. (see also 2)
5. 5. Born in a house, not a stable. Born among animals. Again, splitting hairs here.
6. Named Joshua, not Jesus. This is simply an issue of language translation. In Greek, it's closer to Jesus. In Hebrew, it would be closer to Joshua. Big deal. As for the assertion that somehow this was just a bunch of guys getting together and updating the old testament stories—well, their backing (“some scholars say”) is just as speculative and ridiculous as the “ancient astronaut theorists” that you see on History Channel. They had the same name; that doesn't mean they're the same story.
7. Number of apostles (12) from astrology, not history. Pure conjecture. Some apostles (Peter, obviously) were closer to Jesus than others (who remembers Simon the Zealot?), and John is ambiguous about how many there were, but Luke's account makes it clear there were 12 core apostles, as they picked a 12th to replace Judas after his suicide.
8. Prophecies recalled, not foretold. Matthew, perhaps, used this approach, but again this is conjecture.
9. Some Jesus quotes not from Jesus; others uncertain. Oh, my goodness! Jesus quoted ideas said by other people! Next thing you know, you'll be telling me Ben Franklin didn't originate all the witticisms that are accredited to him. You're breaking my faith! (Not really.)
