They say that if you believe in Hannibal then you have to believe in Jesus too. Jesus, the man.
"Most historians accept that he existed" is the canard.
Most historians don't study Jesus.
Historians of antiquity make assumptions because the source material is limited and flawed. They draw inferences as necessary. The presumption of the Hannibal/Caesar/et. al. argument is that we have to accept Jesus' existence if we claim historiography has any integrity.
But without the Christ, where's the man? Between the parts where he's not there and the parts we do not believe, it's not much of a story. Apart from the fictional, there's little distinct about Jesus the man. Indeed, the most conspicuous and only certain fact about him is the absence of contemporaneous record.
When the story of Jesus is disabused of the claims that are not real, there may be no story. It may be extraordinary to claim that Jesus existed.