Even though there’s no conclusive evidence that Jesus existed
beyond the various writings about his life and words, scholars
widely accept that there was a historical figure named Jesus.
Unfortunately, there’s no empirical evidence that he lived or
was resurrected and was the son of an omnipotent God. (To be
fair, one wouldn’t expect to find archaeological evidence because
there’s no archaeological record of 99.9% of people who lived
in those times.) At the risk of being cynical again, it’s hard to
understand why God wouldn’t want to leave some proof of His
existence!
According to history.com, which references the work of Bart
D. Ehrman (author of Did Jesus Exist?):
Documentary evidence [of Jesus being a real person] outside
of the New Testament is limited. The most detailed record
of the life and death of Jesus comes from the four Gospels and
other New Testament writings. These are all Christian and are
obviously and understandably biased in what they report and
have to be evaluated critically to establish any historically reliable
information, states Ehrman.
But their central claims about Jesus as a historical figure—a
Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of
Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of Emperor Tiberius—are
borne out by later sources with a completely different set of biases.
Several Jewish and Roman Historians mentioned Jesus. He
is also mentioned in the Quran many times. Unfortunately, just
because there was a person called Jesus doesn’t mean he was the
son of God or that God exists.
(Extract from 'Dance with Angels' by Warwick Dunnett)