I was gonna say it's news to me that historians believe jesus was a real person historically. I was informed that as mike says the serious historians do not believe he was based on a real man named jesus. Historically pretty much the whole bible is a fabrication.
From the Wikipedia page
, the first line of the second paragraph reads "The vast majority of scholars who write on the subject agree that Jesus existed, although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate."
That's the information I am going by, the same information I went by when debating Randy. Big surprise, Christians are apparently all too happy to accept the consensus of a majority of historians when said historians are saying what they want to hear, but not so much when the majority of historians are saying that the gospels were written between about 40 and 100 years after the death of Jesus, literally 1 to 2 1/2 lifetimes in for the time.
Regardless what I would like, the information I have says a "vast majority", including secular historians, agree that he existed, so I accept it. Unless someone has some information I do not that they would be willing to offer, I will continue to accept this as the historical consensus and, thus, the probable reality.