Historical blunder

there are clear historical inaccuracies in the New Testament. One such example is that of Acts 5, where Luke writes of the Pharisee Gamaliel's speech (verse 34-39).

This speech would have taken place around AD 35-40, yet it refers to Theudas' revolt of AD 46-47 as a past event. Furthermore, Gamaliel is made to say that "Judas the Galilean" raised a revolt which followed that of Theudas - but Judas' revolt was in AD 6 or 7! We know these dates from Josephus, most notably, as well as from other records.

Josephus Antiquities 20: Chapter 5

The sons of Judas the Galilean, who had led a revolt in 6 C.E. over the Roman taxation census, were crucified by the Roman procurator Tiberius Alexander (46-48 C.E.), who was the nephew of the philosopher Philo.

_____________________________________________________________________

Did the trial of Jesus take place?

The Jews said unto him: "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham'' If Jesus was then but about thirty years of age, the Jews would evidently have said : "thou art not yet forty years old," and would not have been likely to say: "thou art not yet fifty years old," ... ;' therefore, if Jesus was crucified at that time he must have been about fifty years of age; but, as we re-marked elsewhere, there exists, outside of the New Testament, no evidence whatever, in book, inscription, or monument, that Jesus of Nazareth was either scourged or crucified under Pontius Pilate. Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Philo, nor any of their contemporaries, ever refer to the fact of this crucifixion, or express any belief thereon. (T.W. Doane, Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions, p. 516)


In the nineteenth century an eminent scholar, Rabbi Wise, searched the records of Pilate’s court, still extant, for evidence of this trial. He found nothing. (Lloyd Graham, Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, p. 343)


There is no verification of a significant crucifixion in the writings of historians such as Philo, Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius, Epictectus, Cluvius Rufus, Quintus, Curtis Rufus, Josephus, nor the Roman Consul, Publius Petronius. The crucifixion also was unknown to early Christians until as late as the Second Century.



______________________________________________________________

Other Historical Errors

The three Synoptic Gospels have Jesus being arrested and condemned by the Sanhedrin on the night of the Passover. This could not be real history because the Sanhedrin, by Judaic law, were forbidden to meet over Passover. The Gospels state that the arrest and trial occurred at night, but the Sanhedrin “were forbidden to meet at night, in private houses, or anywhere outside of the precincts of the temple” (Holy Blood, Holy Grail 349).


Another historical impossibility in the crucifixion story is the removal of the body of Jesus from the cross. According to Roman law at the time, a crucified man/woman was denied burial. The person was left to the elements, birds, and animals, which completed the humiliation of this form of execution.


The punishment for robbery was not crucifixion. The New Testament accounts of the crucifixion depict two thieves being crucified along with Jesus. Crucifixion was never the penalty for robbery. On the other hand, the Romans spoke of Zealots as 'Robbers' in order to defame them. Zealots were crucified because of their crimes against the Roman empire.

____________________________________________________________________

Now why should Jesus be born in Bethlehem? Was this also to fulfill a previous prophecy, or due only to a tax decree? Neither; Jesus was born in Bethlehem for the same reason Joseph and David were born there. Bethlehem is the mystic “house of bread”, the source of planetary substance. Thus the locale is not historical but contrived. And such is the whole story. When we look at the historical, this becomes obvious. According to the account, Herod was king at the alleged time, 1 A.D., but according to present scholarship, Herod died at least four years prior to this. According to Luke, Cyrenius was then governor of Syria, but according to Syrian records, still extant, he was not. There was, however, a Quirinus, who ruled from 13-11 B.C. These beings so, either the calendar or the Gospels is wrong, some say as much as twelve years. This confusion about the date implies that uncertainty of long-subsequent authorship, which confirms our statement that the Gospels were not written until the second and third centuries. (Lloyd Graham, Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, p.
306)

Another made up story

How did Jesus escape being caught and trialled by the roman authorities, after causing mass disturbance to the temple?

According to the gospel, Jesus not only vandalised the market in the temple by overturning tables and benches. According to John, Jesus made a whip out of cord and drove out the money changers and even animals.

This would be impossible for Jesus to do without getting arrested and charged. The temple was always heavily  guarded by roman soldiers (Josephus, The Jewish War, p. 323) 

As money from the trading inside the temple was revenue to the roman authorities take as tax. Also Pontious Pilate said, he found no basis to charge Jesus? What even after he caused mayhem/disruption inside the temple in front of a crowd?

Why didn't the Roman soldiers arrest Jesus and put him on trial? After all causing disorder and vandalising property which belonged to the roman authorities, would be a capital offence, so what happened?

Are you saying, the romans and Jews forget such a big incident and didn't think it was good enough to bring it up during the trial of Sanhedrin or Pontious Pilate?