[Edit: just saw the post above after typing the post below, but it doesn't change what I wrote... and I'll let this point go after this, to let others think about it...]
-An archetype of a character does not necessarily mean that it's based on a historical person.
-Higher consciousness can be called many things, such as "Christ Consciousness", "Krishna Consciousness", or one could call it "Hermes Trismegistus Consciousness". It doesn't necessarily mean Jesus was a historical person. So in this way "Christ consciousness" is a misnomer, because it gives people who experience higher consciousness the impression that it came from a character called Jesus.
To elaborate on this:
In a Gothic cathedral or a temple or by a beautiful grove of trees, one could recite to someone unfamiliar with Sanskrit or Western literature the lines of the Bhagavad Gita, from 2.12 onwards:
That there was never a time when I or You didn't exist, and likewise there will never in the future be a time when we will cease to exist. Such is the incarnated soul in this body, wandering from youth to old age; likewise wanders the soul at death from one body to another. A special person through such a change will not become confused...
One could recite until verse 2.32. And those open to this elevated teaching would likely change to a higher state of consciousness (a very real experience). Then after the recitation one could tell the audience that these words were by an avatar called Krisha. The audience would then have a name to label their higher state of consciousness: "Krishna Consciousness".
Likewise, though, one could tell the audience that these words were by an avatar called "Aristotle", or "Gandalf", or "Tintin". The audience would then have a label for their higher state of consciousness: "Aristotle Consciousness" or "Gandalf Consciousness" or "Tintin Consciousness", respectively. That doesn't change that their experience was real, but it also doesn't necessarily mean that the characters Tintin or Gandalf or Aristotle were historical people, and if they did, maybe they didn't say the quote attributed to them.
This may seem absurd, but if we look at the Nag Hammadi library, we find the same pattern:
Found in the ancient collection were two texts: one a Christian one, "The Sophia of Jesus Christ", and a non-Christian one: "Eugnostos the Blessed". The general editor for the publication of the Nag Hammadi library, James Robinson, described it thus:
'The Nag Hammadi library even presents one instance of the Christianizing process taking place almost before one's eyes. The non-Christian philosophic treatise "Eugnostos the Blessed" is cut up somewhat arbitrarily into separate speeches, which are then put on Jesus' tongue, in answer to questions (which sometimes do not quite fit the answers) that the disciples address to him during a resurrection appearance. The result is a separate tractate entitled "The Sophia of Jesus Christ". Both forms of the text occur side by side in Codex III.'