Not only "now", but for a long time.You have contradicted yourself. You argue that the Jesus called Christ in Antiquities of the Jews 20 is the same Jesus in the NT but now you argue he was not important in his lifetime.
In Ant. 20.20 (written around 90 CE), Jesus called Christ was known then, not because he was important in his lifetime, but because he was credited to have started a new religion which was then prospering.
I know the usual thinking: since Christianity became important, so his (alleged) founder had to be important. And then, since that Jesus has little external evidence, an important Jesus did not exist, so he had to be invented.Jesus if he did exist and was called Christ must mean he was an important Jew in the 1st century.
But actually, some not important persons started (or rather triggered the start) of important things, not by what they were, but what they did or happened to them (and by only one event).
I already cited Rosa Parks and Gavrilo Princip. I can also mention the arrest of a street vendor in Tunisia stating the Arab spring (with good and bad consequences), or (fatal) incidents involving a black man and the police (or vigilante), and starting long lasting riots in the US.
Actually, Jesus was considered as the king-to-be (when the Kingdom comes) by some Jews, at least for a few days before his crucifixion: http://historical-jesus.info/29.html and http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html, but not because he looked and acted "royal", but through fluky circumstances.Jesus was not a high Priest, a King nor Jewish Messiah so would not be called Christ.
I don't think the proto-Christians would consider Jesus as a criminal, more so because he was crucified charged to be (as they believed earlier) king. Other Jews and Gentiles, yes. Later that "shameful" crucifixion became a glorious ultimate sacrifice.The Jews could not have called a crucified criminal the Christ.
Cordially, Bernard