This is a very common question, one that has the religious coming down solidly on one side and the non-religious somewhat split on the other. It seems to be something that you’ll never get everyone to agree on, mostly because the religious have a vested interest in believing that Jesus was real, even if there is no objective evidence whatsoever to support it. You even have atheist writers like Richard Carrier and Bart Ehrman writing controversial books on whether or not Jesus was real, but at the end of the day, all the belief in the world doesn’t matter, it depends on what you mean by Jesus.
There are a couple of options and this really makes a big difference. First, the Jesus, as described in the Bible, could have been a real person. This is really what Christians mean when they talk about Jesus, even though they are often blatantly, although probably ignorantly, trying to claim that whatever real person that Jesus might have been based on, was real. This brings us to our second and perhaps most likely possibility, that the Biblical character of Jesus could have been based on a real, or a group of real individuals which were “spiced up” in the Biblical narrative as the son of God. Most people don’t know that Severus Snape from the Harry Potter books was based on a real person, a teacher that J.K. Rowling had named John Nettleship. Certainly, there’s a lot that changed between Nettleship and Snape, I’m sure Nettleship isn’t a master of the dark arts, doesn’t own a wand and cannot fly on a broom. It is therefore absurd to claim that because you have evidence that John Nettleship was real (he died in 2011), therefore, Severus Snape was real. The same is true of Jesus. Even if it could be shown that some precursor to the Jesus myth was real, that doesn’t mean that Jesus, the born-of-a-virgin, miracle-performing, rising-from-the-dead Messiah was real, yet this is exactly what most Christian apologists want to believe.
But desire for something to be true doesn’t make it true and it requires more evidence to prove that a specific individual existed than it does to find a moderately close analogue and demand that it’s the same thing. There are a handful of historical sources they trot out, none of them written by direct eyewitnesses, none of them describe miraculous events and some of them, like the source from Suetonius, clearly don’t describe Jesus at all because, according to the Bible, Jesus never went to Rome. That doesn’t stop anyone though, any straws at which they can grasp is a-ok with them! They don’t care if they’re not legitimate, they don’t even care if they only show a wholly human entity, it’s got to be the Biblical Jesus! That’s why, in any debate, you have to be careful to get your opponent to define what they mean by Jesus and then hold them to that definition. If you want the magical Jesus from the Bible, you need to prove actual magic. Funny how none of them can actually do that.