This betrays that you are not familiar with the very common phenomenon of pseudepigrapha in early Christanity. All kinds if writings floated around in the early centuries of the Church alleging to have been written by this or that apostle. Scholars today recognize that many of these are not believable.
[*]That is simply incorrect, as even Wikipedia notes:
[*]First Epistle of Peter - Wikipedia
[*]Imagine making this claim about literally any non-Christian who defends their beliefs. Does it make sense?
[*]So the author of Luke claims that he constructed his version of events from
eyewitness testimony. Yet he names none of these witnesses or which of them told him which details or when. There is a reason for this - the Gospels aren't eyewitness testimonies, they are collections of early oral stories told by Christians.
[*]The Earth has been understood to be flat. Is that at all meaningful as a claim?
[*]If by modern you mean...for the last 150 years since critical Bible scholarship took off, sure. So what?
[*]Papias had no direct knowledge of that. He reported what was commonly believed by Christians around him.
[*]You have named zero eyewitnesses. You've named one person who claimed to have gathered information from eyewitnesses, but with zero details to substantiate that.
[*]As noted, that's incorrect.
[*]Perhaps it's simply of a work of "why I'll keep believing no matter how ****ty the evidence is." Or were you really interested when you asked the questions?