Given the choice between the views of a consensus of scholars qualified in the study of classical antiquity and biblical studies, who have gone through years of specialised training, including in ancient Greek, Latin and Hebrew, and an anonymous poster on the internet, I tend to opt for the former over the latter
For what its worth, I'm not sure that Krishna should be in your OP list of mythical deities either.
The cult of Krishna Vasudeva originated between 4th century BC and the 2nd century BC, when scholars generally believe that a historical figure (a son of the Satvata tribe) was deified as the incarnate supreme deity in a monotheistic fashion. This Krishna was then amalgamated with other traditions to result in the figure we know today.
What we have here is not a mythical character being historicized but a historical person subsequently being deified, which also occurred in the case of Gautama Buddha and other personalities from history, including the Roman Emperor Augustus.
The consensus opinion among scholars now - called "
the emerging consensus" around an "
early high christology" - is that soon after his death, probably in the first few months or years (and certainly well in advance of the composition of the Pauline epistles some 20 years later), Jesus quickly became regarded in early Jewish Christian circles as the personally pre-existent divine agent of creation
and the exalted Son of God who had been subsumed within the cultic worship owed to God the Father.
For Buddhism, we have evidence that the early
Mahāsāṃghika school (which split from the
Sthaviras - from whom the Therevadins trace their lineage - at the Second Buddhost Council) believed the historical Buddha possessed a transcendental, supramundane nature, although even the Sthavira vinaya attributed miracles to him.