Exactly my point, nothing in Christianity is original, the whole christ story is a myth copied from earlier religions and brought up to date by including contemporary characters from about 50 years before the publication date.
It's like me writing the story of a messiah who came in the 1970s and including the name of the then pope, the president of America and the Olympic massacre as contemporary events to give the story creedence.

There is an entire history of the Herodian dynasty in the works of Josephus Flavius, as is an account of the teachings of the proclaimed Messiah John the Baptist, the rise of his cult and his death by execution for insurgency. Jesus Barabbas is recorded in the Roman chronicles of Judea for his attack on Fort Antonia, The Tin mining operations of the Romans in what is now known as Cornwall include the trade and Haulage agreements with Joseph of Arimathea, a ship owner and trader from Jerusalem.

There are historically nine Jesus' in and around the time of the supposed Biblical Jesus, and since Jesus is a Latinised version of Joshua, traditionally used by claimant to the messiahship, this is hardly surprising since Israel was at the time under Gentile occupation.

@LenHazell53 Sure, sounds legit... Lots of dudes names Jesus alive now, why not then... Like I said, dude may have exictded, just not believing the claim of who is father is said to be.

Oh...Ricky Gervais said it best.

“… Science is constantly proved all the time. You see if we take something like any fiction, any holy book… and destroyed it, in a thousand years’ time, that wouldn’t come back just as it was. Whereas if we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they’d all be back because all the same tests would [produce] the same result.”
― Ricky Gervais

Well thought out, just give it more time, and their having been 9 not one Jesus (which there were) and you have an action packed life of someone who never actually existed (the same thing happened with Robin Hood, there were six of them over a two hundred year period, Robert Fitzooth, Robert of Loxley, Robyn the Yeoman, Alan a dale known as Robin itherhood, Robin Lincoln-Grain (who was a fiction invented to sell Red Cloth Grain is not green, it is red) Will Scarlet the companion of Lincoln Grain) but only one legend of one man who never existed.

Have you read Dennis Potter's "Son of man" that takes exactly this idea as its main premise?

@LenHazell53 no I haven't. I get a lot of flack for my pov. Had this pov for like 30 yrs sense I left seminary. Glad I'm not the only one who thinks this lol

Scientology too

He didn't, he is a composite propaganda character, meant to serve as a titular founder of the anti-Johanism cult.

That looks like a reference to Josephus' account of the death of John the Baptist.

The writings of Josephus Flavius, Hillel the elder, and the Mandean scriptures including the Ginza Rba

@LenHazell53 Josephus also refers to Jesus. It is when he refers to James, the "brother of Jesus, the so called Christ." It is not much, but it is there. There is another reference which extols the virtues of Jesus, but secular scholars show that, linguistically speaking, it was an addition by a later editor, not written by Josephus. If the account of John is accepted as proof of his existence, then the the existence of Jesus should be, too.

@Gwendolyn2018 It is also a proven fake, no serious historian is of any doubt that the passage, what there is of it, about 4 lines, was edited in around the 6th century.
Even if it is real, why give four lines to Jesus and almost an entire chapter to John the Baptist?
Assuming he ever existed at all Was Jesus that unimportant?

Since I have said there were many Jesus about at the time, and the the word Christ simply meant anointed one, and did not carry the connotations we give it today, the James passage could refer to anyone (if you use the douay Rheims version of the Bible, there are two other Jesus' mentioned in the Bible, barabbas and Jesus the wise).

@LenHazell53 I know this is Wikidpedia, but it backs what I have read about the James passage in more scholarly works. On the passage about James: "Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"[12] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity."

And, "Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"[12] (τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ) and has rejected its being the result of later Christian interpolation."

The entry goes on to say that some scholars doubt the authenticity, but they are few. So, no, the passage has not been proven a fake.
[en.wikipedia.org]

As I said, the other passage about Jesus is an addition by an editor.

"Jesus" (a Greek translation) means "Joshua," which would have been a common name, but it was not synonymous with "Christ." "Christ" means "the anointed one": "Joshua" means "Jehovah is generous/Jehovah saves." So while there were other "Christs," it does not mean that they were named "Jesus." For example, the OP mentions Simon Magus (Simon the Magician); he might have claimed to be a Christ, but he was not a "Jesus."

As to why Josephus would give a couple of lines about "the so called Christ," it is because he did not believe Jesus was the Christ. Apparently, he thought John the Baptist was a more important figure.

That my friend is not the only thing there is no trace off.