You have misused the term "primary source".
Luke stated he was not a primary source but secondary. The only identification of Mark is from a man named Papias who was thought by other Christian writers to be possibly crazy. He identifies Mark as John Mark, an assistant of Peter in Rome. There is no identification for Matthew. The Book of John alleges to be a primary source and was written by John dictating to his secretary Cerinthus.
Paul never met Jesus except by channeling so he is a primary source only on the things he says he did.
None of that is particularly a problem. We do not much care who the actual authors were. Those Gospels were written in the Apostles' communities and were accepted into the Bible because they met all the criteria for inclusion (had been read in the congregations, were known to be associated with an apostle, taught true doctrine, were popular and there may be one more that I am forgetting). Acceptance into the canon depended on meeting all the criteria. Thus the Didache
, which was wildly popular and taught true doctrine was rejected for inclusion because it was not associated with an apostle. Luke is a bit of a mixed bag and he is a primary source for the birth of the Church since he is the author of Acts
All in all, upon closer inspection there is not much left that would lend credibility to the gospels or any other book of the NT as evidence for a historical divine Jesus as described in the bible.
This is simply untrue. Again, the historicity of the man Jesus is not in doubt. Whether or not you believe that he is God depends either on faith, or, on weighing the historical claims and deciding whether or not they are strong enough to support belief. Most likely, some mixture of both.
Why doesn't Paul ( the assumed earliest christian writer ) know the details claimed in the gospels of the passion narrative?
What makes you think that he doesn't? He was a contemporary of Jesus, the first converts were Jews who would have been intimately familiar with the details--why would Paul, who is writing pastoral letters of admonition, encouragement, and settling doctrinal questions that are arising, etc., go into such matters? In fact, it looks very much like the Gospels were written, as the first generation was dying off, in part to preserve such knowledge of the human life of Christ.
What is the use of talking of Jesus being historical if the theologically necessary events in the old testament are all mythology?
Who said that the "theologically necessary events in the OT are all mythology? I certainly didn't.
Jane, that is a condescending, trolling non-answer, and you know it.
... all theists have a vague notion of what their god is like, but no two agree. Is that so? What don't they agree on?
I know no such thing. You have made a vague claim and failed to substantiate it.
I assume that you are vaguely aware of an overarching philosophy called “Christianity.”? Yes?
No. I know of a religion called Christianity. It is not a philosophy, per se, but is a set of beliefs to which one assents or not. These beliefs are codified in the Nicene Creed and in the slightly older Apostles' creed.
Here are a list of people who have a vague notion of what their god is like, but fail to agree: (I keep the list handy for people who ask silly questions)
What do you keep for people who find you slightly comical? Do you suppose I did not know what you were getting at? I gave you a chance to rethink it but, alas, to no avail.
These denominations do not have vague and differing notions of what God is like. They have differing doctrinal perspectives on matters such as infant vs believer's baptism, the Eucharist, once saved always saved? etc. But none of us have vague and differing notions of what God is like. Nothing is better attested in the New Testament than that.
By the way, not all the groups in your list are Christians. Those that are not tend to have very different ideas, obviously. The Mormons, for example, believe in a material god who has a wife, they do not believe that Jesus is God, etc.
Now certainly individuals everywhere may be misinformed or badly informed. One sees that on all atheist sites when atheists who clearly don't have a clue come up with the wildest nonsense that they earnestly believe is What. Christianity. Teaches. There is nothing one can do about that except hope that the light of natural reason will someday shine on them.
you have no real knowledge of anything biblical, do you? You have simply swallowed a party line – “Don’t question God.”
ROTFL! The wildness of your claims has me in stitches. It is totally unrelated to anything I have written. Perhaps I best clue you in-- I was raised in an agnostic home. I never stepped foot in a church until I was 21 and a tourist in Rome. I converted in graduate school where I majored in German medieval and neo-Latin literature. I have been studying the Bible, Old and New Testament history and related matters formally and on my own for 20+ years. Now this doesn't make me an expert but I feel perfectly competent to claim that I have *some* real knowledge of *some* biblical matters. What do you bring to the table?