Faked resurrection?! Now I've heard everything!

It seems likely that he was an actual person. It is not verified, nor is it verifiable. This is the kind of shit Bible apologists like to whip out as if it confirms their beliefs. Almost to a person, people who refer to the Historicity of Jesus Wikipedia page use terms like "verified fact" in the same breath. If you're not intending to be a Bible apologist, you should probably take a different tack.

Nobody (especially the apologist) gives a shit whether some rando Nazarine created a religious movement. They were a dime a dozen. What the people who bring this up actually care about is that said Nazarine is the Son of God and the Christian Messiah. Just because he existed, doesn't mean he is anything of the sort, or that God even exists. There is literally no other useful knowledge to be had in pointing out that Jesus was probably a real person, so if you're hell bent on making sure everybody knows he was so totally super-duper real guys, then everybody figures you must have an agenda.

Jesus is a verified factual historical figure

[Citation needed]

Much of the 'historical Jesus' movements especially since the 1970's or so, and especially in the USA, often a little strange ime, no one knows and it's fine.

FC Baur > Ernest Renan > Joseph Smith > Bart Ehrman kinda line...evangelical adult Jesus nerds hoping something in the 27 book NT can be clung to but struggling with magical women from Eve to Mary being core. It's been big business in the US over the past 50yrs or so with the SBL evangelizing Markan Priority and seven letters of St Saul and all those bible schools trying really hard to ignore anything not in the little 66 book KJV's for lolz.

Jesus of Nazareth is far from verified afaiu.

He pops up in Marcion's New Testament ~140CE and peeps not sure if the christos is flesh or not there and the discussion around this issue hasn't really gone away despite burning rather a lot of people and books mentioning it since..the wiki article you cite suggests dismissing them as 'fringe' or 'radical' instead of burning or screaming heretic. Prior to ~140CE is anyone's guess and why those defending their Chistology be it Islam, Tewahedo or SBL say "Most of our scholars agree xyz" instead of providing any evidence.

This seems like St Paul: why?

Why would the noble St Mark do what we accuse St Marcion of? We can trust St Mark as he's the bro-science Jesus evangelist

Good scholars often don't comment upon this stuff as there is little worth saying but Michael Penn gives a little insight into the weird world of 'the historical Jesus' in NT scholarship here.

I've never thought about it until now, but there are definitely different definitions (or at least uses of the word) for celebrate. You might celebrate your wedding, but you certainly don't have the same type of event for your anniversary. Same for your favorite sports team winning the championship, vs any observance of previous victories.

Yeah I went to school with a few of them.

One reason I don't believe internet atheist types are smarter than religious people is because the way a lot of them get when you mention that Jesus being a real person is historian consensus is eerily similar to how Evangelicals get about evolution.