I think Lemmy has a problem with history in general, since most people on here have degrees/training in STEM. I see a lot of inaccurate “pop history” shared on here, and a lack of understanding of historiography/how historians analyze primary sources.
The rejection of Jesus’s historicity seems to be accepting C S Lewis’s argument - that if he existed, he was a “lunatic, liar, or lord,” instead of realizing that there was nothing unusual about a messianic Jewish troublemaker in Judea during the early Roman Empire.
Again, the existence of a historical Jesus does not mean miracles or resurrection or God. This is childish, reactive anti-theism.
https://www.bartehrman.com/josephus/
Josephus was born shortly after a historical Jesus would have died. His mentions of Jesus in his writings was from more than sixty years later when christians were an active and growing cult in the region where he lived. I agree that Jesus was likely a historical person but Josephus is only a point of evidence for it. It’s the easiest known mention of Jesus and not too much after he would have lived but Josephus’s writings are far from proof of a historical Jesus.