Just to pile on...
1. The historical record in the Bible appears accurate. Archaeological evidence supports the stories,
You have unfortunately been misled. There is no archaeological evidence for the stories in the bible. How could there be? You thought we might have excavated some pillars of salt, or a preserved human corpse inside of a fossilized whale?
We do have evidence that some of the people mentioned in the bible were real, like Ramses II. There is no evidence that Jesus was a real person, outside of the bible. Sorry. He is not mentioned in any other contemporary text. There are no inscriptions or records or tombs or oblique mentions of him. He only exists in this one work of historical fiction.
Yet, discoveries thousands of years later have supported the stories many times over.
Which stories do you think have been supported by modern discoveries? If anything, some of them (like Noah's global flood) have been disproven by modern discoveries. It never happened. Floods leave geological evidence, even if you could somehow get past the problem of there not being enough water on planet earth to submerge all of the land.
2. Many people claimed to witness the miracles performed by Jesus and wrote about it. On the converse, what other kind of other historical record could we have? Having a written record at that time was itself an achievement, as there was no YouTube or iPhones.
We could have other written records of Jesus or his deeds. But we don't. There are thousands of other historical documents from the time period, none of which mention Jesus. Even the Romans who kept such diligent records of Crucifixions never recorded him. Like I said, there is absolutely no corroborating evidence for Jesus' life, outside of the single work of historical fiction about his life. It's entirely possible that the entire character of Jesus is allegorical, like all of the rest of the bible, a useful literary tool for telling a meaningful story. What does it matter whether or not he was an actual person?
And if he was an actual person, what evidence would you have for his supposed divine origin? In today's world, when a wife gets pregnant without sleeping with her husband, we all naturally assume she slept with somebody else. We don't blame God, even if that child grows up to lead a social movement.
Jesus allowed himself to be crucified rather than renounce his claim to being the Son of God
I think you're taking this story too literally. You're claiming to know the inner though processes of a character in a book, and using those inner thought processes as evidence that the character is the son of God? See how circular that reasoning is? Wouldn't be just as logically consistent to say the character is well-written, but still entirely fictional? His story arc isn't really evidence that the story is true.
There's no real dispute over whether Jesus lived and was crucified, it's been accepted as historically accurate.
There is much dispute, as I think I've demonstrated. The fact that you've never been exposed to it is pretty common, though, as the Church needs people to accept as blind faith things that the rest of the world questions.
Jesus' teachings were monumentally influential
Home Simpson was also monumentally influential. Fictional characters can be even more influential than real ones, especially if a whole multigenerational organization built on cultivating stories about the character can amass centuries of political power.
His moral code lives on thousands of years later.
HIS moral code? What part of the bible do you think is original to Jesus? All of these ideas had been around before, and were merely combined and condensed in the bible.
So, we can't easily dismiss his claims about who he was by chalking him up as just another cult figure with an agenda.
I don't dismiss Jesus at all. He's one of the most important ideas in history. But at that time, he was just another heretic, one of thousands roaming the landscape. Read up on the prophets of the era, or maybe just go watch Monty Python's Life of Brian.
Internal inconsistencies in the Bible are not hidden or glossed over
I think it's awesome that you can take a problem like logical inconsistency and turn it into support for the bible. That's some hardcore faith. Absolute adherence to doctrine despite any and all evidence.