Besides a few extreme not credible nutcases like Richard Carrier no biblical scholar agrees he never existed.
See the problem?
Now, I certainly cannot speak to all biblical scholars, but I did know one in college. That he could say with a straight face what he sought within that book was The Truth was one of the more perplexing mysteries of my life. The cognitive dissonance was strong with that one.
I've researched the presented evidence for the historicity of Jesus pretty deeply. It's all propped up on some really bad logic.
There is no hard evidence, and that's *weird*, because he was supposedly a major world player at the time. Why is it we don't hear about him until hundreds of years later?
I think it would be a cool story if he was just some cult leader who got raised to messianic status post-mortem, but there just isn't anything credible I've seen to suggest that.
Also Paul heard of Jesus far away near The Turkey which means Jews passed on Jesus to his synagogue.
This is what I'm talking about- that is *not* a fact.
The fact the early Christians did not consider Jesus God as evident in the book of Mark disproves Richard Carrier theory of how he got invented.
Nor is that.
How is it fair to ignore all of the inconsistencies of the stories in favor of the few consistencies? The time between confirmed writings and his supposed existence is more than long enough for a myth to start.
Overall, I see a lot more to support him not having existed than supporting that he did exist. But I fully concede either is possible, with an open mind.