But aren't they the most documented records from that period? And did
not the earliest copies exist 130 a.d., with the originals being
written down sometime around 40-100 a.d.?

For example:

Work When Written Earliest Copies
Time Span (yrs) No. of copies

Herodotus 488-428 b.c. 900 a.d.
1,300 8
Thucydides 460-400 b.c. 900 a.d.
1,300 8
Tacitus 100 a.d. 1100 a.d.
1,000 20
Ceaser's Gallic War 58-50 b.c. 900 a.d.
950 9-10
Livy's Roman History 59 b.c.-17 a.d. 900 a.d.
900 20
New Testament 40-100 a.d. 130 a.d.
_____________________________________(full manuscripts 300
5,000+ Greek 10,000 Latin 9,300 others
_________________________________________350 a.d.)

Don't know how that layout's going to work, but you get the idea.
Within the framework of textual historical criticism, the weight is
very hefty for the new testement's reliability, at least as far as
historical documentation goes, and the time frames involved,
comparatively, to other history from around the same generate time
period. To say it has no authenticity, is to say that nothing
whatsoever can be discerned from any historical record dating back to
around that time then..

Please clarify. What causes Paul's (Saul's) letters to be non-authentic?

That the "originals" are non-existent.
And the proof that there were any originals in existence at any point
in time, is non-existent.
All we have, is forgeries, written hundreds of years after.

I suppose the point that I was leading up to regarding Paul's (Saul's)
letters, in terms of their historical authenticity, as the preserved
writings of Paul himself, is that Paul makes reference in them, to
Peter, as a living contemporary of his, and he even dared to rebuke
Peter for buying into certain Jewish practices, like circumcision, and
the gospels themselves also appear to have Paul's mark on them, in
terms of certain insights about the Senhedrin and the inner circle
operations of the Pharisees.

So, if Paul's letters (and they may warrent another reading) accurately
reflect the original writings by him, and all indication is that they
do, then this means that his own tesimony and that of Peters regarding
the living Jesus, both pre and post resurrection intersect with Paul.

Now Paul as Saul obviously had a very profound spiritual experience
while on the way to doing his work persecuting the earliest Christians,
and would not seem to be the type to report such a thing, over and
again in his letters, given his station as a Jewish authority, even one
who presided over the stoning of Stephen (whom as I understand it was
actually a brother of Jesus), and neither does Paul appear to be the
insane delusional type, as a voracious student of the Law and it's
obligations, so that too shouts a certain authenticity.

They don't exist.
That's what makes them non-authentic.

But that's not true, they do. They are documents, copiously copied
historical documents which can be found in your Bible, presuming you do
HAVE one..

The words of Jesus, even if you only take a certain percentage of them
as having a high degree of authenticity, they too must be measured
relative to the whole package, in terms of a discernment of the
character speaking them, since given what he said and claimed about his
core being and true nature, as a sent person from God (calling), one
can only conclude one of three possibilities about him - either that he
was insane and a madman, or a liar and a bad man, OR, an honest man,
and a humble servant of the will of God as he understood God to be,
which was of spirit, and a will or an intent with consciousness, in
fact a being of perfect objective conscious awareness.

I don't think it can be written off so easily, upon closer and careful
inspection. There is definitely something to it, historically speaking.

And I don't think historians object any longer to the notion that Jesus
was a living historical character, with many things attributed to him,
including his own words, which describe a certain character, and state
of mind.

Either way, it, the whole story, is either infinately important, or of
no importance at all. It is either very meaningful and significant,
particularly when framed relative to the history from which the
narrative arose, or it has no meaning whatsoever.

IMO, framed historically, relative to the rest of the Biblical
narrative and history, it simply can't NOT have any meaning and
significance, and if it means anything at all, then by God it means
everything, and is of the utmost importance and significance.

Bottom line I think the athiest view on it, is very weak in many ways,
simply writing it all off as made up and of no historical meaning or
value whatsoever. That's a false view, and a denial it would seem..