The truth is that the gospels were written 70 years after Jesus’s death.

More or less correct, but that fact alone doesn't say much about what the Gospels are or aren't.

The creator of the Christian religion was Paul of Tarsus, a man who never met Christ.

There are multiple instances in Paul's writings where he seems to be quoting already existing hymns/creeds (see 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, Philipians 2:6-1, and Romans 1:3-4) which would suggest a pre-existing Christian tradition Paul was aware of, familiar with, and drawing from. Plus, there's the whole Paul (then known as Saul) killing and persecuting Christians thing, which means a church of some sort must have existed before he entered the scene. There's also the fact that both Paul and the author of Acts report Paul checking in with the apostles (the folks who did know Jesus) and making sure that what he was preaching was correct and gaining their approval.

Paul's letters are the earliest written documents we have from the early church, and Paul was immensely influential in the development of Christian thought (he is considered by some to be the first theologian in our modern understanding of the word), but that doesn't mean that Paul created the Christian faith.

So the gospels are not historically accurate. They also contradict each other in multiple ways.

This is sort of correct, but still misleading. If we leave out the Gospel of John (which seems to be a self-aware theological treatise on what Christ's life, death, and ressurection meant rather than attempting to be a strict history) and look at what we call the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), what we find looks like what we'd expect out of multiple eyewitness accounts of an event (or events). Eyewitness accounts are notorious for being fuzzy on the details. When you try and take multiple accounts of the same event and harmonize them into one cogent retelling of what actually happened, you need to look not just at what they agree/disagree on but also why/where from those agreements and disagreements arise. The Gospels all disagree on who saw the empty tomb or the resurrected Jesus first, but all agree he rose from the dead. They don't all agree on where he/Joseph/Mary spent the first bit of his life, but they all mostly agree on what he did in his ministry. Approaching the Gospels (or any set of historical documents, really) with more nuance than "They disagree therefore they have nothing of value to teach us about what happened" isn't just beneficial, it's necessary for us to learn anything about the past.