At What Point?

[Kafka]

LIF. Grow up.

That hilariously rich coming from YOU.

 

[Into the Night]

LIF. Grow up.

 

[Cypress]

Too much evidence of existence. I like the ripples-in-a-pond analogy, but Judge Merchan's Rain metaphor seems to be more popular.

I am unfamiliar with any actual "evidence" of the Resurrection outside of the Gospels.

The Gospels aren't the only sources. The Pauline epistles are "outside the Gospels", and attest to what Paul himself heard from the eyewitnesses: Peter, James, and John.

And since the Gospels were all written decades after the fact

"Decades" is a strange standard to hold out as the test for the reliability of ancient texts. By the standards of ancient literature, anything written within a few decades is remarkably close in time to the original events. Our first surviving source describing the life and deeds of Alexander the Great was written 300 years after Alexander's death. A source written a few "decades" after the fact would be remarkable for surviving ancient literature. Some of the pre-Pauline creeds and hymns recorded in the epistles likely go back to the 30s, possibly just months or a few years after Jesus was crucified.

Book	Written How Many Years After Events Described in the Book?​
Analects of Confucious	200 years​
Anabasis of Alexander (Life and Campaigns of Alexander the Great)	400 years​
Gospel of Mark	35 years​
1 Corinthians	Less than 20 years​
Pre-Pauline Creed in 1 Corinthians 2:15	Less than 10 years​
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Edward Gibbons)	1,300 years​
Gospel of John	60 years​
Histories (by Herodotus)	50-60 years​
Greek and Roman written accounts of Chandragupta Maurya, founder of the Mauryan Empire	300 years​
Guns of August (History of WW1 by Barbara Tuchman)	48 years​
History of the Peloponnesian War (Thucydides)	Almost contemporaneous, written during the Peloponnesian War​

by unknown authors I don't necessarily give too much credence.
But I'm open to considering the "evidence" you have. Thanks!

It is very certain who two of the authors are, and there is decent circumstantial evidence of who the third author is.

Mark and Luke were obscure, low-ranking Christians and there would be no propaganda value in early Church leaders inventing them as authors of two of the Gospels. There is no serious reason to doubt they are Gospel authors. Mark was a companion of Peter and Luke was a companion of Paul, and we would have never heard of these two obscure men except for their authorship of two gospels.

There is rudimentary circumstantial evidence that Gospel of Matthew is a Greek translation loosely based on an earlier Aramaic text written by the apostle Matthew.

John is a mystery to me, and I can't think of any direct evidence supporting authorship by the disciple John.