Evidence has been produced to validate the historicity of Jesus, but the veracity of that evidence has never been established with absolution. Much of the debate about the historical Jesus is centered on the lack of credible historical sources that reference Jesus.
Since even the Bible contains no eyewitness accounts of Jesus, scholars have to rely on accounts of his life that are several decades removed from when he supposedly lived. The primary problem with this from a scholarly point of view is that many of the accounts of his life do not agree with each other. Furthermore, some scholars find it suspect that Jesus' story very closely matches those of several Egyptian, Greek and Roman gods. Furthermore, other evidence of Jesus' existence such as the Shroud of Turin and pieces of the cross on which he was supposedly crucified have been proven to be hoaxes through radio carbon dating. There are also no known historical records of the crucifixion and only a handful of mentions of Jesus existing outside of the Bible, all of which were written hundreds of years after Jesus was said to have lived. Still, many scholars, both religious and not, do acknowledge the Bible as some credible evidence that Jesus may have existed. Some theories also suggest that Jesus may be a character created by combining the stories of several different historical figures.