One question for Christians

[Bad Writer]

Actual proceedings of a person written in the framework of their actual existence would be considered contemporary, historical articles. This Jesus fellow has none of that, as anything written about him was done so decades after the fact.

This is simply an astute observation. However, if we are going to say that Jesus lived and accomplished all the wonders contained within the gospels, then it would follow that there would be well documented works by the many scribes and authorities of the time that could lend further corroborating evidence. As this is completely lacking, we then can surmise that if even if someone by this name existed, his actions were probably so minor that only a handful of people only ever knew of them (which then contradicts the scope of his works described in the NT).

So either he was great and didn't get the recognition he should have had at the time, or he was minor, and therefore the gospel writers were greatly exaggerating his influence in order to spread his influence postmortem. Please explain this paradox by showing how the gospel writers had no need for embellishment.