Why do you continually insist that a particular random street preacher didn't exist when you have no interest in archeology or knowledge of how historical documentation works before the age of the printing press?
Two reasons:
Firstly, you can't tell me anything about him that isn't in the bible, a book with a man made from dirt, a woman made from a rib, a magical fruit, a talking donkey, a talking snake, a magical zoo boat, demons, witches and other literal magic, and justifies them with absolutely nothing. Jesus is said to have been seen by over 500 people after his death... but can't name them, say what they saw, how they knew what it was, and all of them were believers anyway.
This is literally the entirety of what it says:
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
This is not how history works.
The bible is not a historical document, which is even stated so at times by the authors. Paul, for example, openly states that he lies - he becomes like one of whomever he wants to convince. The author of John, in a section literally called “The Purpose of John’s Gospel,” claims to have written it so "that you may believe," not to state reliably what happened.
But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.
Secondly, I can concede some Jewish preacher roaming about the region roaming about the land preaching about one thing or another without any discomfort. Hell, spend the day walking around the streets of any decently sized city and you'll find dozens of street preachers doing exactly that. Exactly the same thing.
But that's not what you're supposed to be doing, is it? The bible is specific about what it says happens. What you're doing is intellectually dishonest. It's called "playing tennis without a net."
This one relates to the existence of a god, but it's the same principle. You're aiming to get the ball over a net on the far left. Instead of "Timeless first mover" it's labelled "particular random street preacher." You're welcome to get your ball over that net, but you're supposed to be getting it over the one at the far right end.
You need to show that your Jesus/Yeshua existed as described in the bible, in the real world. That he defied physics, history, medicine and death, as described in the bible.
Neil Patrick Harris appears in "Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle," drugged out of his brain and looking for "poontang" (his word). H&K Neil Patrick Harris is a fictional version of the real Neil Patrick Harris. H&K NPH doesn't exist, and never did those things. Pointing to a real world Yeshua-equivalent - and none of you can actually find him, let's be clear about that - does nothing, literally nothing, to substantiate the specific claims in the bible. We know NPH exists, so the logic you're using actually means that H&K is more historical than the bible.
It's up to you to prove your thing. The whole thing, as described. And I know you can't. Because it's full of holes, contradictory and claims things that never happened. The crucifixion, for example, is historically inaccurate, and the crucified were left up to rot as a warning.
“When we crucify criminals the most frequented roads are chosen, where the greatest number of people can look and be seized by this fear. For every punishment has less to do with the offence than with the example.”
– Quintilian, Declamations, 274.13, English translation in Quintilian: The Lesser Declamations, 2 vols; ed. and trans. D. R. Shackleton Bailey; Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006), 1:259.
The Romans would never have been concerned with Jewish sensibilities, and Jesus’ carcass would have rotted on the crucifix just like those of everyone who was ever crucified. The entire entombment is ahistorical.
The Cleansing of the Temple violated an important rite of Jewish worship - it allowed pilgrims traveling from afar to buy an animal locally for sacrifice from their own currency, rather than having to drag one all the way from where they came - and was profoundly antisemitic, and would have been as scandalous among the Jews of the time as Harvey Weinstein or Jan 6. And yet it's written nowhere else. No one else noticed this gross, public - and let’s not forget, theatrical - violation of Jewish practices; essentially a hate crime.
Nobody ever heard of or wrote about the bible character while he was alive. And that's the problem you have to solve, not "particular random street preacher."
It's funny how much we do know about everything else prior to the printing press, though, as well as how we came to know it and what evidence we have for it.