Paul and the Gospels don’t contradict each other they simply make different infancies on different details, and some vents (like the 500 ) is in one but not the other.
I don't understand the words after "Paul and the Gospels don’t contradict each other," but I do understand those, understand them to be contradicted by evidence. Looking ahead to the next few quotes from you, I can see that that's going to be a stumbling block in this discussion, because you will never accept that you may not have independent corroborating testimonies. Paul contradicts the Gospels in places and the Gospels contradict one another in places.
I know from experience trying with other biblical apologists that I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise even with evidence, nor will any apologetics you could offer reconcile those contradictions to change my mind that they are contradictions. We have different standards for belief, and interpret the same evidence differently and come to contradictory conclusions because of it. Neither of us can impact the other, because we have different ways of deciding what it true.
Therefore we do have independent testimonies.
Even if that's the case, if they contradict one another, they don't work for you. Independent testimony is only useful to your case when it doesn't contain contradictions. When it does, it undermines the case, like two people giving the police conflicting testimony about the same event. If it had been in accord, that supports the story. If there are two stories, that accomplishes the opposite.
Sure but given that we have more than one testimony, the alternative is that by chance alone they all invented the exact same lie, which is unlikely. I am not saying that this proves that an actual miracle happened, but it certainly proves with high degree of certainty that something that was interpreted as a miracle happened
Disagree, even if we stipulate that the testimonies don't contradict one another. You know human nature better than that. You wouldn't accept your argument if somebody made it to you about matters where you don't apply faith. You wouldn't accept this argument if the claims were of spotting mermaids, even if the accounts were compatible and came from different crews and in different centuries. How about if a dozen people reported a person being abducted by an extraterrestrial? There are better explanations for why people report seeing things that never happened or that they misunderstood than that they actually witnessed one, even if multiple reports agree, and it doesn't always involve lying.
That Alexander the Great was born in Macedonia, despite the fact that all you have are words (no physical evidence) so why don’t you apply the same level of skepticism with other historical events?
I do. I evaluate that claim according to the same standards that I evaluate any claim. What is the evidence? Is it all testimony, or is there corroborating physical evidence? What's the claim? Is it ordinary or extraordinary. What are the consequences of a false belief? Does it matter whether the claim is correct or not? By these standards, Alexander is more likely to have actually existed than Jesus, but not by a lot. They are probably both historical characters with legends attached over time, but with Alexander, we have physical evidence such as coins with his image, and independent corroboration of his exploits by other peoples than the Macedonians. We don't have that for Jesus. The only non-Christians mentioning Jesus didn't see him, and could only report second- or third-hand accounts. The claims about Alexander are not extraordinary, but those about Jesus often are. We know that men have conquered their neighbors, so why not this one, but we don't know that gods visit earth or that miracles occur. And what are the consequences of mistakenly believing Alexander lived? None. Jesus? A lifetime of religion.
So, as you see, I am applying the same skeptical and empirical standards for each.