Its now been an undisputed fact that Josephus phucked up a lot of his writing. Like he NEVER was at Masada. He wrote about it second handedly. SO why are his musings on a Christ any more credible.
That is a baseless rejection of the entire of a respected scholar and PROTAGONIST of the 1st Jewish war, and based on what? A few WEBSITES ? You must be joking.
One can find faults in Josephus of course. His numbers are always inflated (length of the fortifications in Jerusalem, numbers of combatants...) and he is opinionated, biased against the zealots with a passion, etc. He has been vilified because of that, presented as a turncoat, but anyone who reads the Jewish War can understand why. The zealots were madmen. Josephus totally exonerate Titus from any guilt in the temple fire, which he says the defending zealots started. That is perhaps where the most significant doubt about the veracity of his account remains.
But he has also a lot of qualities. Beyond the rich and generally accurate info he provides us with, he fills a cultural gap between two worlds. He wrote in Greek and for a pagan audience about a topic the Greeks and Romans didn't know much about: the Jews, from a Jewish perspective. He is very didactic, very clear in his exposition. He is a brilliant writer and a gifted political analyst.
A great historian, who committed the crime of understanding before the zealots that Rome was a power to reckon with, to live with, not a power you want to fight till the last man. He describes the nationalist and mystical folly of his own nation, marching towards its end... He has a pro-Roman view, without a doubt. He writes in Rome for Roman readers, including his master Titus... That's why he came to be hated in some circles. The very same people who nowadays visit Masada in a state of zionist fever.