There is more evidence of the earthly temple in Paul than of a historical Jesus

[Giuseppe]

1 Corinthians 9:13 is surely the best evidence of the existence of a temple in Jerusalem and only there:

Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar?

But is there something of similar, as evidence, for a historical Jesus in Paul?

Note that Paul ignored a lot of times the existence of a temple in Jerusalem. Even so, he mentioned it at least a time.

[Giuseppe]

This easy comparison reveals the great weakness of Ehrman's argument: "Paul was silent about HJ because he didn't need to mention him".

I can't believe that a historical Jesus was more unnecessary, for Paul, than a stupid Temple found in Jerusalem and only there.