Did Jesus actually live?

[catalyst]

I have noticed in many and varied threads I have participated in, that several atheists or agnostics, claim that bible jesus, DID, as far as they are concerned, actually live as a walking talking human being.

Question: Could you please clarify just how you have come to that conclusion and please provide evidence to support?

[Cathar1950]

And of course Robin Hood may have lived too.

I see the Jesus myth as a tall tale really. I don't think it unreasonable to believe there was this preacher feller going about carrying on. I just think the stories have been blown way the heck outta proportion.

Also King Aurthur and Merlin might have been loosely based on real figures.
There might have been many named Jesus as Mac Points out and a number of them may have had followers that developed communities of assemblies.
Even by Paul's time there seems to have been many diverse communities developed by leaders where letters from James were needed.
Of course "Savior" which kind of means Jesus could very well have been a title before the gospel fictions. Augustus was the savior of the world too. They could be reworked stories of Osirus or a number of other stories from the mystery cults. But they didn't need to. We can only wonder why some many similar cults, schools and mysteries were developing all over the place through the first centuries of the common era many of which had started hundreds if not thousands of years earlier. It is an interesting historical phenomena.
My bias is that there was someone but we know little to nothing about him as the unknown author of Mark used the Hebrew writings , and possibly Homer, for his material. It seems they looked to the Hebrew writings as oracles and information(Much like our modern apologist and Bible-Believers) .
The unknown authors of the other Gospels Matthew and Luke, and even John, seem to understand the sources where it isn't clear Mark does. The embellishments along with the sources and even changes in the details to fit their theology when it differed from Mark's show that they are not even complementary as some claim.
Even the Passion is taken from the LXX and most likely because it had to be so because the Hebrew writing said so.
After reading for years the best scholarship of our times it seems he may not have existed and his story is largely built on assumptions after assumptions. I just don't think we can know.

[msmcneal]

I see no reason to doubt the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth. I don't believe anything in the bible is correct about him, however. He was probably a minor sage or something to that effect. The cause of Christianity was all the myths and legends being applied to him. He was given attributes of other messiahs, and Pagan gods. In other words, there probably was a person that the myths and legends were supposed to be based on. If you were to take Apollonius of Tyana and give him the godly attributes associated with Mithras, you pretty much have the biblical account of Jesus of Nazareth. So, did he exist? Maybe, there's absolutely no proof to show that he did, or didn't. Are the biblical accounts about him true? That's highly doubtful.