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.
Nothing you’ve said negates anything I’ve said regarding the historicity of Jesus. And nothing you’ve said negates anything Bart Ehrman’s said regarding the historicity of Jesus either.
There are very good reasons why scholars and historians are determinately unanimous in accepting that Jesus lived and was crucified by the Romans. Ehrman details these in his book.
But it’s OK with me that you choose to believe whatever you choose to believe.
It's not what I say, or what I ''choose to believe,'' but what the historical records support. There may have been a historical figure, a Yeshua, upon which the legend was constructed, first through oral transmission, then written about decades later. I'm inclined to think that there was a charismatic preacher as the foundation of Christianity, just not like what the gospels describe.
For instance, some scholars see similarities between Paul’s epistles and material in Mark and Luke, which suggests that those authors had access to Paul’s epistles.
