Looking back in the thread, I cannot see where I made that statement. I can see where I ASKED if the Gospels claimed to record historical events. I don't see where I said they do NOT make that claim. Perhaps you can provide a quote.
OK. Luke claims to be recording historical events. However, we know Luke was not always truthful. In Acts 5, he claims that a false messiah named Theudas is mentioned at the trial of Peter and James. That is impossible. Theudas came too late to have been mentioned at that trial.
You line of reasoning all along was based on the fact that the New Testament is historical. The very fact that you would make this argument is laughable. BTW, if you actually had read the New Testament, rather than (I suspect) a couple of books about the New Testament, you would know that this is hardly the only time that they are proclaimed to be truth.
Luke claims to be recording historical events. However, we know Luke was not always truthful. In Acts 5, he claims that a false messiah named Theudas is mentioned at the trial of Peter and James. That is impossible. Theudas came too late to have been mentioned at that trial.
Josepus marks the appearance of Thaudas in 42AD. Peter was martyred in 67AD. Once again you are simply incorrect.
Look, it's been fun, but I can't keep doing this with you. The you obviously have issues, but I simply don't have the time to keep addressing your erroneous points. You are not a good debater, and you are not up to speed on Catholic scripture.