A whole religion started around the claim that Jesus was a Jewish man claiming to be the messiah and being crucified. There's no reason to doubt that he existed. No Jew would claim their messiah was crucified if it didn't really happen. No Jew would claim their messiah was from Nazareth instead of Bethlehem unless he really was from Nazareth. We have authentic letters from a man named Paul who was personally acquainted with Jesus' brother, James. On top of all that, there is nearly a unanimous consensus among experts on the new testament and early Christianity that Jesus existed.
Most of the support for the existence of Jesus as a historical figure is found in the Bible itself. Those books that serve as records of his life were written many years after he died. Outside of the Bible, there are only a couple of other historical resources that even mention Jesus, and those too were written after Jesus's time. Paul wrote many New Testament letters that are now part of the Bible before the gospels of Jesus's life were written, and he lived much closer to the time when Jesus was supposed to have existed, yet he does not once refer to Jesus as an actual historical figure in his writings.
No, there is not sufficient evidence for Jesus as a historical figure. Jesus of Nazareth is only mentioned in the Bible and in one other possible place, though the secondary place is iffy in and of itself. As no other historians of the day mentioned him at all, it is dubious that a historical Jesus ever lived.