Both Neil and Secret Alias pointed to a curious fact independently one from other.
http://vridar.org/2014/04/19/jesus-cruc ... jerusalem/There is nothing new about noticing that the prophecy of the “last days” that Jesus delivered to his inner disciples in Mark 13 contains allusions to events in the ensuing narrative Christ’s suffering and crucifixion.
So Secret Alias:
In Aramaic the Greek term took on an antinomian character.
To be a Marcionite is to be a lestes.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2203&start=20#p491261 Thessalonians 5:2 (Matthew 24:44)
They both corroborate each other: in particular, the fact that Jesus was crucified between two thieves (λῃσταί) during a solar eclipse fulfilled his prophecies and/or parables about the coming of the Son of man ''as a thief in the night''.
What if all the ''predictions of the end'' were not those of the Parousia that the early Christians were expecting, but the predictions of the crucifixion itself? The act itself that determines what is expected eschatologically? This negative world can still continue to survive (the important thing being that a breach had been opened finally to the unknown God by the death of Jesus on the cross) under the rule of the archons for eternity. His fate is indifferent.
Simple logical inference:
I'm curious to know how it outlines the apocalypticism in Marcion. He was not interested in the fate of this world, right? So he would be not imported about the destruction nor the redemption of this world, right? So for him the whole ''Parousia'' affair didn't matter at all, but only the crucifixion, since the rest of transcendence will happen in the totally beyond, right? Pace the Demiurge and his faithful.
For Marcion, apocalypticism all exhausted itself in the crucifixion of Jesus. Marcion didn't need at all of a Second Coming.
A contradiction arises in the narrative when the apocalyptic prophecies of Jesus can be made relative not to his death on the cross (as it was in the first gospel), but to his Second Coming.
It is a 'fact' that Jesus died on the cross (his predictions were right), at least according to the gospel.
It is a fact that the Second Coming did not arrive (the same predictions above become virtually not right if referred to Parousia).
Under the mythicist paradigm, I find it more likely that the first gospel is the one that does not allow the attribution to Jesus of mistaken prophecies.