That is absolutely a fair point: Jesus, as Christians believe in him, did not exist, even if there was a religious teacher named Jesus (or Yeshu, whatever) who was alive at that time.

But, there's a part B for that point, and I think it's an important one: there is no "book version" of Jesus. The Bible isn't one book, it's a collection of many separate writings, written over many years by many different people, and they didn't even agree on what they were writing about. Christians like to think of the Bible as one consistent work, and it isn't. (The scholarly term for that is "univocality" -- the Bible is not univocal.) So it's not even possible to point to a Jesus figure as described in the Bible, since there is not a singular, consistent Jesus described in the Bible.

The general consensus among historians is that there probably was a real Jesus. Not the walk-on-water Jesus, but some kind of Jewish religious leader, and he was executed. Which means that some of the books of the New Testament describe a real-ish version of him, especially the earlier books. Then, as the messiah narrative starts to take off, the later books in the New Testament get increasingly magical and describe a very unrealistic version of him.

The Wikipedia page about historically-accurate Jesus is a good starting point for info about "real Jesus." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

I also recommend looking for podcasts and YouTube videos featuring Bart Ehrman.

What I'm saying here does not at all contradict your comment, I just think it's a good idea if we atheists are always very keen on the fact that the Bible doesn't consistently describe much of anything. That does mean, though, that some parts of the Bible may describe something historically accurate, and that gives no credibility to the more magical parts of the Bible. Seems like the consensus in this thread is to throw away the whole idea of Jesus, and that doesn't match what real historians believe.