More petulance. Fantastic.
I enjoin you to provide where I stated there is a scholarly consensus on the historicity of Jesus.
From the wiki on the historicity of Jesus:
Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain[4][5][6][7][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.
[nb 5][13][nb 6][15]:168–173 While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of
methodological soundness,
[nb 7] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the
Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.
Here, we have consensus, which is not a fact based exercise, and dare I say, a severe confirmation bias.
Also, on the bible:
All extant sources that mention Jesus were written after his death. The
Christian Testament represents sources that have become
canonical for Christianity, and there are many
apocryphal texts that are examples of the wide variety of writings in the first centuries AD that are related to Jesus.
[26] Many scholars have questioned the authenticity and reliability of these sources, and few events that are mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.
The historical reliability of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the
four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Little in the four
canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable.
[41][42][43][44][45]
The simple proposition, one you have refused to address: Provide a single piece of contemporary proof that attests to the history of Jesus.