Here we have all the evidence pointing to an early date for the writing of the gospels and you want an authenticated example of supernatural foreknowledge.
Yes. Without that, the category "real prophecy" doesn't exist ─ or more accurately, continues not to exist.
He fulfilled so many prophecies and so the story must have been made up to fit them.
Exactly so ─ and never more ludicrously than in Matthew eg
The author of Matthew requires Mary to have been a virgin because the LXX in translating Isaiah 7:14 rendered Hebrew 'almah, young woman, as parthenos, virgin;
He invents the unhistoric 'Taxation Census' story to get Jesus to be born in Bethlehem to “fulfill” Micah 5:2
He invents the unhistoric 'Massacre of the Innocents' story to get Jesus into Egypt to “fulfill” Hosea 11.1.
He absurdly sits Jesus across a foal and a donkey to ride into Jerusalem "to fulfill prophecy" (Matthew 21:2-5) in Zechariah 9.9;
I'm not familiar with the trial scene you mention.
The trial of Jesus before Pilate. >This link<
may make things clearer. (I'm not a Carrier fan, but he's summarizing work by protestant theologian Ted Weeden jr.)
So you presume that Paul should have written a lot about Jesus life if he knew and you presume that he did not care.
As I said, if it's true he spent a week or two with the leaders of the proto-Christian church in Jerusalem, including "the brother of the Lord", there's nothing in his subsequent writing to suggest he learnt any more about the earthly life of Jesus than he knew before. So either he didn't bother to enquire because he wasn't interested, or he was told but never mentioned it because he wasn't interested ─ that seems a fair hypothesis to me.
and you presume the supernatural is not real
I don't presume it, I know it from its definition. If it were real ─ found in the world external to the self ─ then it would be one of the areas of study within the physical sciences. But it isn't. All we need to alter that is a satisfactory demonstration of an authentic real supernatural event, so I invite you to do so, since I can be persuaded by satisfactory evidence. Until then, I continue to rule out magic as an element of reality.
so the gospels were written after 70AD
I don't presume that Mark was written after 70 CE, I conclude it from the evidence I mentioned.
and by people who knew nothing of Jesus.
Neither Paul, nor any of the authors of the gospels, ever claims to have met an historical Jesus; and nothing suggests any did.
This is a lot of presumptions, no evidence, just presumptions.
I've outlined the evidence. If you don't want to look at the evidence, I can't make you.
So you are referring to Paul saying that the gospel he got was by revelation from God.
That is, it was a purely internal mental event, according to Paul. It had no input from reality, the world external to the self. It was not based on facts that Paul personally observed. It was a vision, from the same mental stable as the dream and the hallucination.
Why do you say that John's God is remote from the material world and from us. John says that the Father and the Son will come and dwell with those who love Jesus and keep His commands. (John 14:23)
Good point. What remains is that you can't get to God ─ "no man has seen God" ─ without Jesus.
Why do you say that the synoptics do not say also that Jesus was sent from heaven?
Mark's Jesus is God's envoy, but he didn't pre-exist in heaven. Neither Mark 9:37 nor Mark 12:6-8 says any different.
Sent him by creating him by divine insemination.
That Luke's Jesus is 'he who is to come' doesn't suggest he has to pre-exist in heaven.
Nothing there says Jesus pre-existed in heaven.
Yes, created by divine insemination again.
As God's envoy. Nowhere is there a statement that he pre-existed.
Matthews identifying Jesus as God with us (Emmanuel) and as the Son of God also show that the synoptics along with John show Jesus to be pre existent in heaven.
But that's to do with Isaiah 7:14. It says nothing about Jesus having pre-existed in heaven,
That does not say that Jesus was not descended from the Messiah, that just is something said to bamboozle the Jewish teachers and to show that He, the Messiah is greater than David.
The Messiah (as Jesus is identified in Mark) is the son of David. If Jesus is identified as Messiah then He is identified as son of David.[/qutoe] No, the whole point of the passage is that Jesus isn't so descended. The Jesuses of Paul and John are descended from David though we're never told how. In Matthew and Luke it's claimed that Jesus is descended from David, but the claim is absurd, since the (incompatible, plainly fake) genealogies end with Joseph, who is expressly and out loud NOT Jesus' father.
And so on.