The consensus view of NT historians on Jesus's historicity isn't as impressive as other appeals to authority because most of those scholars are Christians with conflicts of interest, history isn't a science, and the relevant evidence is scarce and ambiguous at best.

Even if you think that that evidence points to the historicity of some figure at the root of Christianity, there's no good reason to think that that figure resembles the one portrayed in the NT in any substantive sense since the details of that portrayal are mostly propagandistic and borrowed from the OT and from pagan sources.

Obviously, if God exists he could appear as a human in history. But Christians don't make that argument in good faith because the same reasoning could entail that God showed up as Osiris, Hercules, Adonis, Baal, and so on.

The pagans didn't insist on a literalistic reading of their myths because they understood that such a reading would only trivialize their religion, the way it trivializes Christianity by politicizing it. Christians literalized their myths to support the authority of the Catholic Church in its battle against the more spiritually mature Gnostics.