I don't have a lot to substantially add to the faq posts you've been linked to (i.e. including my own), but among the "always more to be said on the topic" /u/jschooltiger) let me address a few historical points in your question.

Yes, we'd all certainly like some directly contemporary texts about historical Jesus. Something written about 33 AD would be perfect. But we don't have that, so what do we do? We work from the data we have - given the documents we have, and our knowledge of the time, and whatever other historical data we have (inscriptions, archaeology, etc), what best explains the writing of the early christians and the beginnings of the Jesus movement? The "general historical consensus" is that those to questions are best answered by a real, historical Jesus figure existing. This is not to answer, or even prejudge, all the very real questions about what aspects of the Jesus portrayed in the gospels and early christian letters are authentic, or to what degree they represent true recollections of that figure - answers to which there is far less consensus.

The bible was written between 52 and 60 A.D., so that was not contemporary.

I presume you mean the New Testament, which was written between the early 50s and somewhere around the end of the 1st century (90? 100? 120? Some would push it very late, 150) depending on how late you date certain letters.

Again, it's true that these are not contemporary, but they do fit with other historical considerations. Paul's letters are the first, though they span some time. They do reflect the need to communicate with christian communities, often founded by Paul, across Asia Minor and Greece. The gospels are composed slightly later, around the time when you'd expect (a) first-hand witnesses to a historical Jesus start dying off, (b) a need for second and third generation believers to have a written, circulable "body" of material about Jesus' life, ministry, death and resurrection, (c) the numerical growth of the Jesus movement also seems to create a certain need for these texts, rather than reliance upon presumably oral retellings of early christian leaders.

Those would be some of my historiographical thoughts on the question you raise.

Hi there, while there's always more to be said on the topic, you may be interested in this section of our FAQ on the historicity of Jesus, featuring posts from u/talondearg and u/jasoncaspian. The short version of this is that the general historical consensus is that Jesus existed, but his miracles and spirituality are theological concerns, not historical.

Hey there, you should check out this section of the FAQ: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/religion#wiki_christianity

Lots and lots of previous similar questions and answers. Should at least give you a place to start reading.

Edit: Automod wants me to include usernames, which is a bit awkward considering I linked a large section of the FAQ. I'll ping /u/talondearg because they seem to have answered the most similar stuff.