[Textcritic]

From someone who affirms the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth, please consider the following:

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

There are mentions of him in many ancient Roman accounts and letters; the writings of Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and others.

While this is true, the pagan sources are themselves problematic given how far they are removed from the time of Jesus. Pliny the Younger, Seutonius, and Tacitus all wrote in the first quarter of the second century, some eighty years after the death of Jesus.

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Jewish historians in the first century reference the existence of a man named Jesus who was put to death, and rumored to be called 'the Christ'.

Not exactly. Jesus was mentioned by no Jewish historian other than Flavius Josephus c. 90 C.E., but his account is complicated by the clear fact that it has been corrupted.

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

These sources suffer from the same issues as all ancient texts, but there's enough writing that pops up at more or less the same time that corroborates the existence of a guy named Jesus who was executed by Romans, and that the aftermath of that event caused some issues.

I can agree with this, but simultaneously, I don't think that the historical Jesus of Nazareth—to be distinguished from the legendary "Jesus Christ" who developed from this man—fits the criteria of "legitimately good" as far as this thread understands to question. I would be more inclined to consider him over-rated, in large part because there is virtually nothing of much special significance in his philosophy, his teachings, or even in the events of his martyrdom that distinguished him from his Jewish apocalyptic contemporaries. In fact, this may be considered one of the puzzling things about the myth of Jesus: that it developed so quickly around a man who was not so exceptional in what he said or did.