The historical consensus is more "it does not make sense to assume this cult formed around literally no one as a conspiracy by a dozen people to claim that they totally knew a cool guy people liked but you wouldn't know him cause this was a few years ago and he's dead now, compared to assuming that there was a charismatic leader who amassed a large following before being executed." There just isn't a reason to think a bunch of people just spontaneously decided to invent a guy and pretend they knew him and no one questioned why they'd never heard of this notorious guy who was recently alive and local to the area.

Now Moses is the one whose existence is really disputed, because basically almost everything surrounding his story is 100% false and unsupported by archaeological evidence and the timeline. The most "maybe this was a heavily mythologized person" theory speculates that maybe there was a priest of a small henotheistic cult dedicated to the canaanite storm god somewhere in the Nile delta, who in the Egyptian fashion took a name like "Yahmoses" ("-moses/-mses" being a suffix roughly meaning "priest of" as with names like "Ramses") or whatever their name for that god was which was later shortened, and this tiny cult of at most a few hundred people traveled east by boat. The more mainstream consensus is that it's completely fake and rooted in general cultural exchange between Canaan and Egypt, with the story of this mythical origin of the storm god's cult being cooked up after that cult started attaining dominance and fighting with the cults of the other gods of the Canaanite pantheon.

Arguing Jesus didn't exist is such a reddit atheist brain rot discussion, especially on a forum where almost everyone is an atheist anyway. You're not convincing anyone of anything, you're just being cringe.