It is hard to believe that someone like Jesus would have been worthy of much note in his own lifetime being executed as a not-very-dangerous rebel after a short ministry in a backwater province filled with itinerant prophets, rebels, and preachers, but it is similarly hard to believe that such a person could not have existed either.
And while there's no good reason to assume his existence also validates the claims made for him, it seems pretty clear to me that the only good reason to doubt his very existence is simply to make some sort of point, usually due to hostility or skepticism of the religion that he was the cause of. And that's just as much bias as you'd expect from the other direction as you'd get from a believer who was doing their own "history".
Even the earliest and most troublesome (for orthodox believers) manuscripts of the New Testament don't deviate in the slightest in accepting the existence of their subject, even if they have different things to say about what he did or what he *was*. And consider that in about AD 120 when the first collected books of the New Testament were almost certainly in existence, there were people around whose parents or grandparents likely were disciples of the man. You wouldn't be able to just make this guy up from whole cloth. And you wouldn't need to.
Very simply, the best evaluation of what evidence we have is that there was this guy named Joshua in first century Judea and Galilee. He preached and was likely executed as a political criminal by the Roman Imperial government. His followers believed he was the Son of God and founded a religion that became Christianity. And that is about as simple as a story as you can make it, which to me seems like the most likely history by far.