Except since it’s a RELIGIOUS claim, it’s not something historians would examine (except in terms of coming to a better understanding of the religion itself and how it shaped the flow of historical events).
Here is a book of history about Jesus of Nazareth (the historical person), but not Jesus Christ (the religious figure):
It puts the historical figure of Jesus into the larger context of the conflict between the Jewish community in Palestine and the Roman authorities. He lays aside the religious views of Jesus in all the places he shows up, like the Christian bible or the Q’uran, and focuses on what historical evidence we have about him. He knows that “he rose from the grave” or the he performed miracles is not a claim that can be substantiated via historical scholarship, so he does not engage with that, except to examine why people might have believed such claims at the time.
So, the core of the narrative of Jesus, that he was the son of god, and rose from the dead, etc, are not part of the historical examination, because there is no way to prove that claim with the kind of evidence that we might have. You’re confusing YOUR belief in YOUR faith with history. They are not one and the same.
