Undecided.
I've read David Fitzgerald's Nailed and Richard Carrier's Proving History where he talks about some of the methods historians use to determine historicity in preparation for his book on Jesus, and I'm in the middle of the chapter on the historicity of Jesus in Bart Ehrman's Jesus, Interrupted and frankly am finding the case Ehrman presents to be complete nonsense. It sounds an awful lot like he's assuming his conclusion and not taking into account other possible explanations of the texts he using to base his arguments on.
I am leaning toward Jesus not being real very strongly, but seeing as how the only book I've read on the mythicist viewpoint (Nailed; Proving History is about the historical method more than Jesus historicity) dwelt heavily on the miracle claims in the bible and what a load they are, I'm not sure whether the case as been 100% made for me to say that there was no regular guy who became a popular cult leader who went on to become legendary with magical stories made up about him. To be honest, I don't know if that's something that we even could know unless some amazing new archeological evidence is found.
I'm still in learning mode on this one.
Teenaged X-Files obsession + Bermuda Triangle episode + Self-led school research project = Atheist.
