Hi there, while there's always more to be said on this topic, you may be interested in this section of our FAQ, featuring posts from u/talondearg and u/jasoncaspian.

The short version is that historians generally accept the existence of a historical Jesus, but we don't get into the arguments over divinity, resurrection, etc. -- those are theological questions.

Not really. Apart from the Bible there's nothing. The biblical accounts were written thirty to fifty years after the alleged events, (Elvis died that long ago). The Bible is spruiking a religion, it's persuasion not history. The Bible is riddled with mistakes contradictions and absurdities and it's not corroborated by the many historical records from the time. It's just changing the subject to trot that tired old saw that most biblical scholars accept there was a person called Jesus. A lot of those scholars would lose their jobs if they admitted there's effectively no evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus.