Actually, your article concludes that, "Considering all of the above it is simply much easier to assume that Jesus from Nazareth actually lived and died than that he was a myth and post-construction by the early Christian movement."

You say, for example, "Going back to the earliest records where Jesus is mentioned they all appeared within the lifetimes of many eyewitnesses, and provide descriptions that harmonize with the culture and geography of first-century Palestine."

But Paul's letters avoid talking about a historical Jesus. Paul's interested only in the resurrected, divine being.

And since when is a salesman deterred from lying for fear of being contradicted by someone who knows better? Wouldn't a zealous salesman just power through, confident in his capacity for bullshitting? Paul was talking about theological promises, not a historical event.

The gospels are all at least a generation removed from the events in question.