The unwritten assumption throughout all of this ranting by Aletes, BKH, etc. is that various and sundry "historical" sources such as Flavius Josephus are intrinsically more reliable than the Gospels. What reason is there for supposing this is a good assumption? I strongly suspect one could poke lots of holes in the so-called historically accurate soources. Guys like Flavius Josephus did not travel all over the ancient world in general, and the Roman Empire in particular, to do archival research and interview people (the way a modern historian would do); no, they relied upon word of mouth. But wait--isn't that basically what the compilers of the Gospels did, too?
Beyond this sort of criticism, there is a more fundamental problem with the ranting about the falsity of the Christian Gospels: whether or not Jesus actually existed and lived a life more or less as described in the Gospels, the fact is that the spiritual path he is supposed to have laid out has been highly appealing to many. You can say exactly the same thing about the Prophet Muhammad, Shakyamuni Buddha, and so on. The teachings and the paths are there for people to examine and try out for themselves, independent of any institutional religious trappings.
As for myself, I highly value the spiritual impulse that exists in so many of us, but I am at the same time very suspicious of institutional religion.