God reading comprehension is low.

Personal attacks, present your evidence

If that is your only criteria, you are going to find very few existing people.

Ok? First off I didn't say that was my only criteria secondly I am fine with a high standard of evidence. It is ok to not know something. Are there unicorns? I don't know but I highly doubt it.

The amount of sources that corroborate each other,

Proof of popularity of an idea isn't proof that the idea is true. It is proof of popularity. Every source we do have was copying from earlier sources until we get to one guy who admits he was getting his information from dreams. Really no different than any other fictional character. Batman has been going for 85 years on so many formats and they pretty much all agree with each other.

especially in the first century after his death, is more than any poor person from that time and place would ever be expected to have.

Except he wasn't a random poor person. Even a minimum historical Jesus was extraordinary and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As I pointed out to you he was a Messiah figure and we should have seen him have a dynasty. Which we don't see. We should see relics from the 1st century or at least records of relics and we don't. We should have seen a single one of his followers who saw him get a scribe and write down what they saw but we don't. Christianity should have preserved the Roman records of his trial but it didn't. There should be a tomb you can point to where he was entombed and yet none of the early writers even mention the tomb until Mark borrows it from Roman literature as useful. Basic freaken details are messed up like how Paul is referring to a group of 12 which includes Judas as active in the church.

We also can't explain how he was able to launch a movement so quickly, so powerfully with no resources or education. And how that movement gave birth to three new movements in mere months.

The only way the evidence makes sense is if James was a cult leader making up stories about a non-existent brother and over decades the stories were altered and appropriated.

The text I posted gives you examples of other figures generally taken to have existed that have no other mentions by contemporary sources.

A. If historical methodology is incorrect pointing to more incorrect conclusions doesn't make it work. If I challenged a technique used in forensic science you can't point to guilty convictions as evidence.

B. Again extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Arguing that we can't prove the existence of a Socrates doesn't matter. It is reasonable to conclude that a philosopher existed in the golden age of philosophy in the center of philosophical thought. Claiming Socrates existed is on the level of claiming that a computer programmer existed in SV California in 1999.

C. The situation is still not the same because for all the people usually cited we still find more evidence. Alexander the Great, we have a contemporary inscription mentioning the refugees he caused because of his wars. The one good book we have on him cites his sources. None of this is true of the Bible.

Paul cites dreams and explicitly says he is getting it from on high not from people. Mark cites no one. Matthew cites no one. Luke admits he is gathering various sources but doesn't name them or explain where he got them. Same for John and John admits he culled a lot of them out.

The burden of proof here lies on you

Nope. Any claim of existence of a thing requires evidence of the thing. I don't have to prove that there isn't an orbiting teapot.

compounded by the scholarly work thats been published and peer reviewed on this topic, are for some reason to not be trusted.

Argument from authority again. Make your own case.

If there is a scientific consensus on something, then tha

It is history not science and it wouldn't matter if it were science. Proof is not dependent in science on authority or majority. It is dependent on evidence.

then that is what should be taken for truth unless presented evidence to the contrary.

Repeatedly have pointed out the evidence to the contrary. Basic biographical details are in disagreement and the total lack of things that should be there but aren't.

Edit: formatting