So, now being in a position to trust the bible I can trust the witnesses to Jesus and things He has claimed. The eyewitnesses of his life and ministry, death and resurrection gave accounts of events of all this.
Who are these witnesses we're speaking of? Surely we're not referencing the Gospels as first-hand accounts....
If you read my post thoroughly, I set up the historical credibility of the bible and enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the bible can be legitimately believed. Based on evidence of Creation and credibility of the bible, I find it reasonable to trust the writers of the Gospels in their accounts of Jesus' life. So yes that is I am talking about.
Well since you've taken in all the information to come to your "rational and logical conclusions," you should probably know there's plenty of reason in not believing the Gospels were first hand accounts. Paul's writings were written down before the Gospels and those sure as hell weren't first hand. The only Gospel that has a shot at being a primary source is that of Mark, and even that is questionable given the debate still surrounding "Q," as well as simply looking at the dates for Mark (roughly 60-70AD). There's really not a single iota of evidence that the other three Gospels are primary sources. You don't find it the least bit odd the Gospels do not reference each other, even when they contradict one another? You don't find it the least bit odd that much of Luke's writing is heavily based on what is written in Mark? You don't find it the least bit odd that Paul never once quotes Jesus...hell, he never even makes it obvious that he met him -- the only times he mentions seeing him is "in visions." Paul's letters say Jesus was crucified, but he never makes a hint at when or where -- in fact, he goes out of his way to say he got the information through divine revelation, not by seeing it himself. This list goes on and on. There are numerous reasons to have doubt towards the accuracy/validity of the Gospels and Paul's writings, which are basically everything that Christianity is based upon.
Outside of the Bible -- which, let's be honest, is a poor source..it's like saying Masters of the Universe is evidence of the existence of He-Man -- there is extremely little historical evidence Jesus existed, especially how he is portrayed in the Gospels. There is a questionable mention in Josephus, which is largely seen as fake/altered by scholars -- this was written around 60 years after the assumed death of Jesus. There is a brief mention in Tacitus, a source that is already known to have factual errors in other details -- around 100 years after the assumed death. One of the Plinys wrote around this time as well. Then there is smattering of other fourth-and-fifth-hand sources like Suetonius and Celsus. No, there is basically zero first-hand extant evidence.
I've always found it odd that this is the case, when you have armies of scribes manipulating historical documents to provide evidence for Jesus, and still the best they can do is two short books and a handful of letters. Then you turn around and look at the overwhelming amount of historical and textual evidence supporting the existence of someone like Socrates -- a man whose entire identity and catalogue was victim to widespread, organized attempted destruction by early Christian Roman leaders looking to destroy the old, "heretical" beliefs of people like Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, etc. On one hand, you have an individual who had a cult of fanatics (and eventually a gigantic worldwide organization) who did everything they could to preserve anything even remotely related to him, and on the other hand you have a man whose entire existence and everything he wrote was purposely destroyed (had it not been for Muslims of the time). And here we are, with a ridiculous amount of evidence supporting one individual, and quite a small amount of evidence, relatively speaking, supporting the other individual. But I digress.
Was there a real Jesus? Perhaps. Was there a real King Arthur? Perhaps. The probability of both is about the same, I'd say. And the explanations for both run down the same path: maybe there was a person the stories are based upon. Maybe the stories are compiled from fragments and pieces of several people. Maybe they're completely fictional. You can pick a position for now, they're all about the same probability. But if there was a real person who inspired the Jesus of the Gospels, his life was probably nothing like the character in the Gospels.