Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians

[Cephus]

Because neither were an eyewitness  and Josephus was a forgery?

Eyewintess accounts are not needed for people in the Ancient world; there are no eye-witness accounts for Hannibal. The first mentions come 60 years after his death - what is needed is at-least a few good mentions of whether Jesus existed, as a feasible human, which is what we have.

P.S, the Josephus passage should not wholly be discarded. We can decipher what was said by Josephus and what wasn't.

It really doesn't matter to me whether Hannibal existed or not, you cannot make a case without evidence.  Likewise, it really doesn't matter if Aristotle was real or just a created character.  The case for Jesus, however, is incredibly weak.  All of the writers in the ancient world are going off hearsay, retelling stories that they heard at least second or third hand without any corroboration, late enough that a mythology had already started to spring up.  That isn't impressive at all.  As for Josephus, the passage most talk about, with Jesus being the Messiah, is a complete fabrication. Josephus never said any of it and that passage does not exist in any copies of Jewish Antiquities that were around while Josephus was alive.
Honestly why does it make a bit of difference if Jesus ever lived since the Jesus that might have lived has nothing at all to do with the Jesus described in the Bible?