Yes, this is by far the prevailing consensus among historical-critical scholars who use textual analysis to try to decipher the historical Jesus.

Something they point to as support is that the earliest Christian writing, as you mention, don't contain claims of divinity. Then as time progresses, we see those claims start to mount ... until in the last writings of the New Testament, they become set in stone.

This is something that many Christian ministers are sort of aware of, at least. What they learn in seminary about the subject is often not something they're comfortable preaching about in their churches.

And then there's a general lack of historical education among everyday Christians, which can make communication very difficult.

Very few ordinary Christians are aware that Paul's writings are the earliest extent writings in Christianity, much earlier than the gospels. Nor are they aware that scholars are largely in consensus that several of Paul's letters in the New Testament weren't actually written by Paul. In some cases, it's just obvious because of stark theological differences. It's clear that some pseudepigraphic "Paul's" wrote letters under Paul's name because they disagreed with Paul's theology in one or more of his uncontested works. Which is why if you accept all his traditional letters as authentic, he seems of two mutually contradictory minds on how faith and grace function for salvation.

But no need to get into the weeds on that.

What I take away from your article is that scholars have a lot to tell us about the historical Jesus, and some of that contradicts contemporary Christian theology — and even theology from the 4th and 5th centuries.

For people who are truly curious, there's a wealth of fascinating scholarship out there!