The same is true of the historicity of Jesus. Clearly.
”With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) — sources that originated in Jesus’ native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. ...the claim that Jesus was simply made up falters on every ground. ... like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.” - Bart Ehrman
Bart Ehrman is a foremost and world renowned biblical scholar with baccalaureate, masters, and PhD levels of education in biblical studies (including Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). And he’s an agnostic/atheist whose writings often attack Christianity and its historical claims. And even he asserts that the central claims about the historicity of Jesus…a Jewish rabbi who had followers, who was crucified on the orders of Pontus Pilate during Tiberius’ rein as emperor…are substantiated by source documents outside of the Gospels and other New Testament manuscripts. He is emphatic in saying the Jesus undoubtedly lived. And he provides these references in his book:
‘Did Jesus Exist…? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth’
He says that out of the thousands of scholars of early Christianity who teach at major schools/universities throughout North America and Europe, he’s not aware of any of them who has any doubts that Jesus existed.
But it’s OK with me if others choose to believe whatever they choose to believe.
Paul was not an eyewitness, he never met Jesus. The mention of eyewitnesses is not the same as having multiple eyewitness accounts telling us what they saw.
We only have the gospels, and as mentioned, the earliest written decades after. Paul did not appear to be aware of some of the things written after his time.
