Here is one article that puts the date of John into the second century:
"The first edition of the Gospel of John was composed, very early in the second century C.E. and under the pressure of Synoptic ascendance, as a combination of the Johannine Signs Gospel and the Synoptic traditions about the passion and resurrection. It is dependent, but very creatively so, on the Cross Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels for its passion and resurrection account. The earliest extant fragment of John is dated to about 125 C.E. [the Rylands fragment - John 18:31-4 - found in Egypt]."
- John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus, The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant (1991)
another Quote:
"John was written for the Greek Christians of the beginning of the second century. These recent converts were more educated, wealthy, and despised the Diaspora Jews who resided in their cities and who enjoyed the respect of Rome. John removes the offensive references to Jesus as a Jewish Messiah that are particular to the earlier gospels, in order to present the Logos in more palatable form. In so doing, John creates a simulacrum that is barely human. The earlier Synoptic traditions are emphatic in presenting Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, descendent of David, and eschatological messenger of the end of the world where God collects his Chosen People. John removes the unpleasantness of Jewish geneaology as well as all references to Palestinian and Davidic descent.
"Jesus is distanced from the Jews who are the children of darkness:"
- James Still, "The Gospel of John and the Hellenization of Jesus"
The Gospel of John, incorporating the hypothetical Signs Gospel, probably appeared about 90 C.E. and the third edition (insertions and additions) 100-150 C.E.. - The Compete Gospels, Robert J. Miller, Editor (1994), pp. 175, 176
Now as far as Questioning his existance;
Philo of Alexandria
"Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place--when Christ himself rose from the dead, and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not."
- John E. Remsburg, The Christ : A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence
Justus of Tiberius"Other than Philo, the historian Justus of Tiberius (c 80 CE) should have made some mention of Jesus. Justus was a native of Galilee (where Jesus was born and lived) and wrote extensively on the history of the region."
- James Still, "Biblical and Extrabiblical Sources for Jesus""...although his [Justus'] writings have been lost, Photius [Christian patriarch in Constantinople] had read them in the ninth century and remarks with surprise: 'This Jewish historian does not make the smallest mention of the appearance of Christ, and says nothing whatever of his deeds and miracles'."
- George Albert Wells, The Jesus of the Early Christians: a Study in Christian Origins
The Jews rendition of the Jesus story
According to Morris Goldstein, Jesus in the JewishTradition "the Toldot Yeshu or Genealogy of Jesus is a medieval Jewish production for the frequent disputations with Christians that the Jews were forced to have in those times."
- Dennis Stallings (private communication) "One distinguished rabbi, Eliezer, of the generation that flourished from about A.D. 70-100, is said to have been arrested as an old man on the charge of being a Christian. Reportedly, he submitted his cause to the Roman governor's discretion, was therefore pardoned, and later explained his arrest by the admission that once in Sepphoris, a city of Galilee, a Galilean had told him some heretical teaching 'in the name of Jesus the son of Panteri' to which he had assented. The story goes on to make him confess his quilt in transgressing the rabbinic ordinance prohibiting intercourse with heretics. This is suspicious; the ordinance may be later than the confession. Subsequent versions of the story cite that saying attributed to Jesus: 'From filth they came and to filth they shall return,' and a legal conclusion is drawn from it: the wages of a prostitute, if given to the Temple, may be used for building privies. The saying may be early - it resembles many of the Q sayings in being antithetical, vague, and pompous - the legal conclusion was probably drawn by some second-century rabbi."
- Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God? (1978) pp. 60-61 "There can be no doubt that the words, 'one of the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth,' and 'thus Jesus of Nazareth taught me,' are, in the present passage both early in date and fundamental in their bearing on the story; and their primitive character cannot be disputed on the grounds of the slight variations in the parallel passages; their variants ('Yeshu ben Pantere' or 'Yeshu ben Pandera,' instead of 'Yeshu of Nazareth') are merely due to the fact that, from an early date, the name 'Pantere,' or 'Pandera,' become widely current among the Jews as the name of the reputed father of Jesus."
- Joseph Klausner, "Jesus of Nazareth" "...The great Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner who wrote earlier in this century [said that] the very few references to Jesus in the Talmudare of little historical worth 'since they partake rather of the nature of vituperation and polemic against the founder of a hated party, than of objective accounts of historical value."
- John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew - Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 1. "... In the earliest rabbinic sources, there is no clear or even probable reference to Jesus of Nazareth. Furthermore...when we do finally find such references in later rabbinic literature, they are most probably reactions to Christian claims, oral or written."
- John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew - Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 1.
As I said there is no credable evidence that Jesus even existed, much less that he may have been a God-man or even the miracle worker son of God. I have much more but I think you get the idea.
Seedy