dating the gospels?

[cora]

Hai davidmartin,
Thank you for you reaction. I just studied the most important persons and happenings between 0 and 200, and in doing that you get a certain timeline, in which you can connect things. What appeared was not as the catholic church presents it. Since they won they did rewrite history, as the winners always do. Therefore you and everybody else have a false picture of what exactly happened when. This false picture is supported by 97% of all biblical scholars who are Christians themselves and who are therefore not objective. You cannot combine research with your religion. I can tell you the catholic church is not an umbrella. It is more a totalitarian institution, out on power, wealth and control since they started, which was in 200 (when the gospels were ready). It is the one god (Jahweh), one true religion, one truth only party, under which many people suffered, were persecuted and killed. I am sorry but you have a very "rosy" idea about the church.
Almost at the end of my investigation I got in contact with a Canadian professor in religious studies. A very friendly man with an open mind. In the end I came with my new timeline worked out. He reacted: "a splendid historical narrative" and "impressive". Just to show that I am not out of my mind.

I want to know: why do the gospels written by Irenaeus after 170 need sources? If there had been a historical Jesus then that would be useful. But there was not. Irenaeus first did research and found out that everything was based on a written story, a fictional story. Just as I did with a lot of trouble. He simply visited this community which was still there. He probably got an original copy from them, actually I am sure of that. So you could call that his source. For the rest his hands were free. All that so-called problems for one person to write a gospel. He wrote and forged the whole NT.
The problem is that Irenaeus KNEW that there was no historical Jesus BEFORE he started writing!!!!!!! Which makes the whole NT one big deliberate LIE. And the catholic church idem dito!!!!! It is a deliberate scam. The biggest in history. That is what I found and nothing else.
Every sign of changes aso in manuscripts is from after that. It had to be copied all the time. I think there are found 1000s of manuscripts, and not one is exactly the same with an other. Not one. That happens with copying, by accident or deliberately by someone who thinks he knows better. That went on until the printing press was invented. Even then the printer could (and did) change things.

I can tell you exactly how and what but I don't want to do that in public at all. Certainly not with Bernard on my neck of whom I get really sick.
And apart from that, I have given already a lot away, and I saw nobody rejoicing because finally the answers were found and the truth had come out. I wanted rehabilitation for the people who wrote the story, and for Marcion who was honest and believing in what he did. And even for Paul who had the story but did something completely different with it, but who at least was genuinely trying to set up a gnostic religion for everybody.
So I am not happy. Because I know now, but how do I get it out into the world? Even here most people are not interested.

greetings from Cora.

[hakeem]

to hakeem,

The Gospel must first be known to those who have converted.

Check the writings of Paul. You will find the gospel (good news) is Paul's message which he claimed being from of God or Christ or himself or even the Scripture (to Abraham). Absolutely no evidence Paul knew about gospels such as gMark, gLuke, gMarcion, etc. And Paul never used the plural of gospel about what he preached.

Please, let us deal with facts.

The Pauline writers got no Gospel from God-- No such character exists. And further, the Pauline writers got no Gospel from the Lord Jesus Christ if he was already dead.

The Pauline writers lied about their sources for their Gospel.

The Pauline writers appear to have used at least gLuke or the Memoirs of the Apostles and the works of Josephus.

Look at 1 Corinthians 11 where an Epistle writer gave bogus information for his sources for the ritual of the Eucharist.

1 Cor. 11

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

Look at Justin's Dialogue with Trypho. This writer admits he used the "Memoirs of the Apostles" called Gospels.

Justin's First Apology LXVI

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone.

Look at the ritual of the Eucharist in the Gospel according to Luke.

Luke 22

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

It is virtually impossible for the Lord Jesus, if already dead, to have given the Epistle writer information about the ritual of the Eucharist that is almost word for word in the Memoirs and gLuke and with the very same phrase " in remembrance of me".

It is not only that the Pauline writer used either the Memoirs or gLuke but also that 1 Corinthians 11 is later than gMark.

It is extremely important to notice that in 1 Corinthians 11, the Memoirs and gLuke the ritual be done " " in remembrance of me"."

Look at the Gospel according to Mark.

Mark 14

22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.

24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

The Markan Jesus did not command that the Eucharist be done " in remembrance of me".

We know that 1 Corinthians is very late because gMatthew also does not contain the phrase " in remembrance of me".

Matthew 26.

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

The phrase " in remembrance of me". is a later embellishment in 1 Corinthians, the Memoirs and gLuke.

But, that is not all.

Because we know that 1 Corinthians was written after at least gMatthew this means the Pauline writers were most likely alive long after c 70 CE.

Now, look at Galatians 1.19

Galatians 1:19

But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Where did the Pauline writer find this character called ”James the Lord's brother”.?

The Pauline writer found the character in “Antiquities of the Jews” 20.9.1 written by Josephus in the 13th year of Domitian c 94 CE.

Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.....

The Pauline writers were most likely alive at least after c 94 CE and wrote Epistles after at least the composition of Antiquities of the Jews, gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, the Memoirs of the Apostles or after Justin’s First Apology...

[Bernard Muller]

to hakeem,

The Pauline writers got no Gospel from God-- No such character exists. And further, the Pauline writers got no Gospel from the Lord Jesus Christ if he was already dead.

Paul just pretended his gospel came from God and Jesus. How: by revelations from God and the resurrected Jesus in heaven.
Anyway that would tell you that Paul's gospel has nothing to do with the like of gLuke.

Look at 1 Corinthians 11

I already look at it in details: see http://historical-jesus.info/64.html near the bottom of the webpage.
My conclusions:
1)The verse with "remembrance" in gLuke is an interpolation for many reasons, as explained in the linked webpage above.
2) The interpolator got that verse from Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:24 (before Justin's times).

Now, look at Galatians 1.19

The Pauline writer found the character in “Antiquities of the Jews” 20.9.1 written by Josephus in the 13th year of Domitian c 94 CE.

Paul found James, the Lord's brother, when he was staying with Peter in Jerusalem: Galatians 1:18-19

Cordially, Bernard

[hakeem]

The Pauline writers got no Gospel from God-- No such character exists. And further, the Pauline writers got no Gospel from the Lord Jesus Christ if he was already dead.

Paul just pretended his gospel came from God and Jesus. How: by revelations from God and the resurrected Jesus in heaven.
Anyway that would tell you that Paul's gospel has nothing to do with the like of gLuke.

What the Pauline writer did was far worse than just pretend. The writer lied about his source and fabricated events.

The false claims of revelation from the resurrected Jesus by the Epistle writers mean that his Gospel was from a human source like Justin's First Apology, the Memoirs of the Apostles or gLuke.

Look at 1 Corinthians 11

I already look at it in details: see http://historical-jesus.info/64.html near the bottom of the webpage.
My conclusions:
1)The verse with "remembrance" in gLuke is an interpolation for many reasons, as explained in the linked webpage above.
2) The interpolator got that verse from Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:24 (before Justin's times).

The only writer who must have been lying his source was the author of the Epistle.

1. Justin claimed he got his information about the ritual of the Eucharist from Gospels called the Memoirs of the Apostles.
2. The author of gLuke claimed he got his Gospel which includes the ritual of the Eucharist from eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.
3. The Pauline writer claimed he got his story of the ritual of the Eucharist from the resurrected Jesus.

The Pauline writer must be lying about his source.

Now, look at Galatians 1.19
The Pauline writer found the character in “Antiquities of the Jews” 20.9.1 written by Josephus in the 13th year of Domitian c 94 CE.

Paul found James, the Lord's brother, when he was staying with Peter in Jerusalem: Galatians 1:18-19

It is documented in the Christian Canon that the Lord Jesus had no brother who was an apostle regardless of the name. See gMark, gMatthew, gLuke and Acts of the Apostles. In Christian writings the resurrected Jesus himself told James that he was not his brother --See the Apocalypse of James.

As usual, the Pauline writers are confirmed liars.

[Bernard Muller]

to hakeem,

What the Pauline writer did was far worse than just pretend. The writer lied about his source and fabricated events.
The false claims of revelation from the resurrected Jesus by the Epistle writers mean that his Gospel was from a human source like Justin's First Apology, the Memoirs of the Apostles or gLuke.

Paul pretended to have revelations from above.
What does that has to do with him knowing Justin's First Apology, the Memoirs of the Apostles or gLuke?
Absolutely nothing.

I know you are hanging to the notion Paul's epistles were written after the gospels (for you, written around 150 CE).
But what about (Marcion's version) ten Pauline epistles, written around 130 CE?
That would place them in time before when you think the gospels, such as gLuke, gMatthew and gJohn, were written.
And 1 Clement, Papias, all of them before 150, knew about Paul:
1 Clement:
47:1 Take into your hands the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul.
47:2 What did he first write unto you in the beginning of his gospel?
47:3 Of a truth, he warned you spiritually, in a letter, concerning himself, and concerning Cephas and Apollos, because even then there were factions among you; (as in 1 Co 1:11-12)
Papias:
it is said by the apostle, "For He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." (as in 1 Co 15:25-26).

Furthermore, Paul is mentioned in the following texts, written before 150:
Pseudo Pauline ('Colossians', 'Acts of Apostles', 'Ephesians', '2 Thessalonians', '1 Timothy', '2 Timothy', 'Titus'), 'Acts of Apostles', Ignatian epistle 'to the Ephesians', Polycarp's epistle and 'Epistula Apostolorum'.

Cordially, Bernard

[hakeem]

What the Pauline writer did was far worse than just pretend. The writer lied about his source and fabricated events.
The false claims of revelation from the resurrected Jesus by the Epistle writers mean that his Gospel was from a human source like Justin's First Apology, the Memoirs of the Apostles or gLuke.

Paul pretended to have revelations from above.
What does that has to do with him knowing Justin's First Apology, the Memoirs of the Apostles or gLuke?
Absolutely nothing.

You keep admitting that the Pauline writer pretended he was getting revelations from his dead and resurrected Lord Jesus. Of course, we all know he was lying about his source for stories about his Lord and Savior.

.....I know you are hanging to the notion Paul's epistles were written after the gospels (for you, written around 150 CE).
But what about (Marcion's version) ten Pauline epistles, written around 130 CE?

Based on my research, the NT Pauline Epistles were not yet written up to at least c 175 CE or not before the writing of Celsus' "True Discourse" as found in Origen's "Against Celsus"

It would be virtually impossible for Celsus to have written against Christianity and forgotten to write about Paul who supposedly founded many Churches and even in Rome.

The so-called Pauline Epistles would have been fodder for Celsus to utterly rip away at and expose the lies of the so-called Paul.

Non-apologetic writers who wrote against Christianity after Celsus [after c 175 CE] did write about the Pauline character and admitted his writings are a pack of lies.

Porphyry Against the Christians

We conclude then that he [Paul]is a liar and manifestly brought up in an atmosphere of lying.

And likewise , it would have been virtually impossible for Justin Martyr to have forgotten to write about Paul the supposed founder of Christian Churches but mention Simon Magus, Menander, Basilides, Marcus, Valentinus and Marcion.

Justin "forgot" Paul and the Epistles.

The Pauline Epistles are all at least later than c 175 CE.

And 1 Clement, Papias, all of them before 150, knew about Paul

The bishop of Rome called Clement was already dead or not a bishop of Rome at c 95 when it is claimed 1st Clement was written.

Tertullian's "Prescription Against the Heretics" exposes that the character called Clement was claimed to be bishop of Rome about c 68 CE or after the supposed death of Peter.--not at 95 CE.

Tertullian's Prescription Against the Herestics"

.... the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter ..

Since it is claimed Peter died c 68 CE under Nero then 1st Clement must be a forgery.. The Great Dissension by the Church of Corinth supposedly happened c 95 CE.

Now, in the fragments of Papias it would be noticed that he does not ask the elders about Paul and did not acknowledge the Pauline Epistles.

Look at the fragments of Papias--

If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice...

Paul and the Pauline Epistles were not yet invented when Papias writings were composed.

It would appear Papias never heard that Paul met the apostles Peter and James the Lord's brother.

Papias would have wanted to hear what the elders said about Paul but he did not.

Furthermore, Paul is mentioned in the following texts, written before 150:
Pseudo Pauline ('Colossians', 'Acts of Apostles', 'Ephesians', '2 Thessalonians', '1 Timothy', '2 Timothy', 'Titus'), 'Acts of Apostles', Ignatian epistle 'to the Ephesians', Polycarp's epistle and 'Epistula Apostolorum'.

You seem to be clutching at fake straws. The writings you mention are either fiction, forgeries, false attribution or anonymous and of unknown date of authorship.

Some of the very worse are the writings attributed to Ignatius.

It is claimed Ignatius wrote Epistles while imprisoned and wrapped in iron chains.

The Martydom of Ignatius

I thank you, O Lord, that You have vouchsafed to honour me with a perfect love towards You, and have made me to be bound with iron chains, like Your Apostle Paul. Having spoken thus, he then, with delight, [clasped the chains about him..

.

The Ignatian Epistles are all forgeries if he was in prison and bound in chains. Roman guards of prisoners do not normally provide a quill, ink, and papyrus to criminals in order to perpetuate the very same crime for which they were arrested..

The Ignatian Epistles are obvious fiction and have no historical value.

[Bernard Muller]

to hakeem,

You keep admitting that the Pauline writer pretended he was getting revelations from his dead and resurrected Lord Jesus. Of course, we all know he was lying about his source for stories about his Lord and Savior.

Correction: Not Pauline writer, instead Paul. He was lying for sure about his gospel coming from God and the resurrected Jesus.

Based on my research, the NT Pauline Epistles were not yet written up to at least c 175 CE or not before the writing of Celsus' "True Discourse" as found in Origen's "Against Celsus"
It would be virtually impossible for Celsus to have written against Christianity and forgotten to write about Paul who supposedly founded many Churches and even in Rome.
The so-called Pauline Epistles would have been fodder for Celsus to utterly rip away at and expose the lies of the so-called Paul.

Justin, a contemporary of Marcion (and the author of a work against Marcion, unfortunally lost), would have known about Paul, at least through Marcion's versions of ten Pauline epistles, but did not say anything about Paul.

Non-apologetic writers who wrote against Christianity after Celsus [after c 175 CE] did write about the Pauline character and admitted his writings are a pack of lies

But we don't know if there were anti-Christian writings before Celsus.

The bishop of Rome called Clement was already dead or not a bishop of Rome at c 95 when it is claimed 1st Clement was written.

Assuming it is true, what would "Clement" not write the epistle before 150 CE? Actually, I think he did that much earlier, because he considered the Christians of Corinth then having be contemporaries of Paul.

5:2 Let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death.
5:3 Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles [Paul & Peter]
AND
47:1 Take into your hands the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul.
47:2 What did he first write unto you in the beginning of his gospel?

There are many other pieces of internal evidence confirming a date of writing well before 150.

Now, in the fragments of Papias it would be noticed that he does not ask the elders about Paul and did not acknowledge the Pauline Epistles.
Look at the fragments of Papias--

If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice...

It would appear Papias never heard that Paul met the apostles Peter and James the Lord's brother.
Papias would have wanted to hear what the elders said about Paul but he did not.

Again, you only have arguments from silence to support your theory.
In the case of Papias, you don't want to consider the following from Papias:
it is said by the apostle, "For He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." (as in 1 Co 15:25-26).
That should make you more careful about your arguments from silence.

Bernard Muller wrote:
Furthermore, Paul is mentioned in the following texts, written before 150:
Pseudo Pauline ('Colossians', 'Acts of Apostles', 'Ephesians', '2 Thessalonians', '1 Timothy', '2 Timothy', 'Titus'), 'Acts of Apostles', Ignatian epistle 'to the Ephesians', Polycarp's epistle and 'Epistula Apostolorum'.

You seem to be clutching at fake straws. The writings you mention are either fiction, forgeries, false attribution or anonymous and of unknown date of authorship.

You are the one cluchting at your silences.
And even if fiction, forgeries, false attribution or anonymous, that can be dated. Those had to be written, for each, at a particular time.
As for the Epistola Apostolorum, which can be dated for sure before around 150 CE because in it:
Verily I say unto you, I shall come like the sun when it is risen, and my brightness will be seven times the brightness thereof! The wings of the clouds shall bear me in brightness, and the sign of the cross shall go before me, and I shall come upon earth to judge the quick and the dead.
We said unto him: Lord, after how many years shall this come to pass? He said unto us: When the hundredth part and the twentieth part is fulfilled [from when Jesus allegedly says that], between the Pentecost and the feast of unleavened bread, then shall the coming of my Father be
120 + 30 is 150. That alleged prophecy had to be written before about 150. After that would make Jesus a false prophet.
What I quoted is the Coptic version, but the Ethiopian version (obviously written later) has instead "When an hundred and fifty years are past, in the days of the feast of Passover and Pentecost"

Cordially, Bernard

[hakeem]

You keep admitting that the Pauline writer pretended he was getting revelations from his dead and resurrected Lord Jesus. Of course, we all know he was lying about his source for stories about his Lord and Savior.

Correction: Not Pauline writer, instead Paul. He was lying for sure about his gospel coming from God and the resurrected Jesus.

No, No, No, there is no correction to be made. All we know is that the Epistle writers lied about their Gospel coming from revelations of the resurrected Jesus but we have no confirmation at all from contemporary non-apologetic sources that there was an actual Christian evangelist and writer named Paul since the time of Aretas.

In the Epistles, the writer called Paul, claimed he was a persecutor of believers in Jerusalem but in Acts of the Apostles it was not Paul but Saul who was the supposed persecutor. Even the very Epistles that are claimed to have been written by Paul is not confirmed by Christian writers in the NT.

The author of Acts who supposedly traveled with Saul/Paul did not claim anywhere that he [Saul/Paul] wrote Epistles to anyone at any time.

Based on my research, the Epistles under the name of Paul are all falsely attributed to a fiction character. The Epistles were really written after Celsus' True Discourse or at least after c 175 CE.

Justin, a contemporary of Marcion (and the author of a work against Marcion, unfortunally lost), would have known about Paul, at least through Marcion's versions of ten Pauline epistles, but did not say anything about Paul.

That is always the problem. The people who should have known of Paul, the Epistles and those whom he persecuted wrote nothing of him, his letters and those he persecuted.

Philo and Josephus were contemporaries of the supposed Paul yet none them mentioned this supposed Pharisee who was telling people in Jerusalem and in the Roman Empire to worship a dead man who was raised from the dead as a God.

You must remember that the supposed Pharisee Paul should have been publicly preaching about his resurrected Jesus in Jerusalem and in the Roman Empire for decades yet is unknown by all contemporary historians.

Non-apologetic writers who wrote against Christianity after Celsus [after c 175 CE] did write about the Pauline character and admitted his writings are a pack of lies

But we don't know if there were anti-Christian writings before Celsus.

We know Christian writers before Celsus wrote nothing about Paul and his letters. If Christians writers knew nothing of Paul and his Epistles why would non-Christians write about them?

The bishop of Rome called Clement was already dead or not a bishop of Rome at c 95 when it is claimed 1st Clement was written.

Assuming it is true, what would "Clement" not write the epistle before 150 CE? Actually, I think he did that much earlier, because he considered the Christians of Corinth then having be contemporaries of Paul…….

What you say does not make sense. If the supposed Great Dissension of the Corinthian Church happened c 95 CE and Clement was already dead then he did not write 1st Clement..

Christian writers did claim Clement was bishop of Rome long before c 95 CE which means 1st Clement is a forgery or falsely attributed to Clement.

Now, in the fragments of Papias it would be noticed that he does not ask the elders about Paul and did not acknowledge the Pauline Epistles.
Look at the fragments of Papias………..

In the case of Papias, you don't want to consider the following from Papias:
it is said by the apostle, "For He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." (as in 1 Co 15:25-26).
That should make you more careful about your arguments from silence.

It is you who have introduced an argument from silence. The fragment of Papias did not name “the apostle” as Paul.

You seem to be clutching at fake straws. The writings you mention are either fiction, forgeries, false attribution or anonymous and of unknown date of authorship.

You are the one cluchting at your silences.
And even if fiction, forgeries, false attribution or anonymous, that can be dated. Those had to be written, for each, at a particular time.
As for the Epistola Apostolorum, which can be dated for sure before around 150 CE because in it:
Verily I say unto you, I shall come like the sun when it is risen, and my brightness will be seven times the brightness thereof! The wings of the clouds shall bear me in brightness, and the sign of the cross shall go before me, and I shall come upon earth to judge the quick and the dead.
We said unto him: Lord, after how many years shall this come to pass? He said unto us: When the hundredth part and the twentieth part is fulfilled [from when Jesus allegedly says that], between the Pentecost and the feast of unleavened bread, then shall the coming of my Father be
120 + 30 is 150. That alleged prophecy had to be written before about 150. After that would make Jesus a false prophet.
What I quoted is the Coptic version, but the Ethiopian version (obviously written later) has instead "When an hundred and fifty years are past, in the days of the feast of Passover and Pentecost"

Even if you assume the Epistula Apostolorum was written before c 150 CE the result would be the same. NT Jesus would be known as a false prophet, a liar and idiot since c 30 CE because he would not have been raised from the dead after being buried for three days in the time of Pilate.

[arnoldo]

Jesus would be known as a false prophet, a liar and idiot since c 30 CE because he would not have been raised from the dead after being buried for three days in the time of Pilate.

That sentiment appear to be supported by Julian the Apostate's writings.

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.. . Now I will only point out that Moses himself and the prophets who came after him and Jesus the Nazarene, yes and Paul also, who surpassed all the magicians and charlatans of every place and every time, assert that he is the God of Israel alone and of Judaea, and that the Jews are his chosen people.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julia ... 1_text.htm

[Bernard Muller]

to hakeem,

About Cerinthus:
Cerinthus was presented as a contemporary of John the presbyter (the author of Revelation according to my research) and dated 50-100 by Wikipedia:

But a certain Cerinthus, ... supposed that Jesus was not generated from a virgin, but that he was born son of Joseph and Mary, just in a manner similar with the rest of men, ...
And (Cerinthus alleges) that, after the baptism (of our Lord), Christ in form of a dove came down upon him [Hippolytus of Rome, AAH, VII, XXI]

Cerinthus knew about GLuke or gMatthew, about their version of Jesus' conception, which is not in gMarcion.

About Ebionites:
The Ebionites were members of sects which survived for a few centuries. Their origin is subject of debates: some scholars proposed the "Nazarenes" were the first Ebionites, but Eusebius placed them first in the 70-110C.E. period.
Their core beliefs can be described by this excerpt from Eusebius' 'The History of the Church', 3, 27:
"They [the Ebionites] regarded Him [Jesus] as plain and ordinary, a man esteemed as righteous through growth of character and nothing more, the child of a normal union between a man and Mary; and they held that they must observe every detail of the Law. By faith in Christ alone, and a life built upon that faith, they would never win salvation."
Earlier on, Irenaeus wrote in 'Against Heresies' Book I, ch. XXVI, 2:
"They [the Ebionites] ... repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law.

I could not find the Nassenes writings and Basilides actually named Paul, but they certainly used Paul's epistles and the gospels.

About the Naassenes:
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naassenes:

The Naassenes had one or more books out of which Hippolytus of Rome largely quotes in the Philosophumena

The Naassenes claimed to have been taught their doctrines by Mariamne, a disciple of James the Just. The retention of the Hebrew form shows that their beliefs may represent the earliest stages of Gnosticism. Hippolytus regards them as among the first to be called simply "Gnostics", alleging that they alone have sounded the depths of knowledge.

The writer [a Naassene writer], it will be seen, makes free use of the New Testament. He seems to have used all the four Gospels, but that of which he makes most use is St. John's. He quotes from Paul's epistles to the Romans, Corinthians (both letters), Galatians, and Ephesians.

"and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." [1 Co 3:14?] For in these words which Paul has spoken they say the entire secret of theirs

These are, he [a Naassene writer] says, what are by all called the secret mysteries, "which (also we speak), not in words taught of human wisdom, but in those taught of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him." [1 Co2:13-14] And these are, he says, the ineffable mysteries of the Spirit, which we alone are acquainted with. Concerning these, he says, the Saviour has declared, "No one can come unto me, except my heavenly Father draw some one unto me." [Jn 6:44]

And again, it is said, the Saviour has declared, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." [Mt 7:21]

And this, he [a Naassene writer] says, is what has been declared: "The sower went forth to sow. And some fell by the wayside, and was trodden down; and some on the rocky places, and sprang up," he says, "and on account of its having no depth (of soil), it withered and died; and some,"he says, "fell on fair and good ground, and brought forth fruit, some a hundred, some sixty, and some thirty fold. And this, he says, is what has been declared: "The sower went forth to sow. And some fell by the wayside, and was trodden down; and some on the rocky places, and sprang up," he says, "and on account of its having no depth (of soil), it withered and died; and some," he says, "fell on fair and good ground, and brought forth fruit, some a hundred, some sixty, and some thirty fold. Who hath ears, ... let him hear." [the three quotes are from Mt 13:3-9]

About Basilides:
From https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xiii.xiii.html:

Basilides quotes the passage of Paul concerning the groaning and travailing of the creation expecting the revelation of the sons of God (Rom. 8:19). In the process of redemption he conceded to faith (pistis) more importance than most of the Gnostics, and his definition of faith was vaguely derived from Hebrews 11:1.
In his moral teaching Basilides inculcated a moderate asceticism, from which, however, his school soon departed. He used some of Paul’s Epistles and the canonical Gospels;

Basilides (120-140), as reported by Irenaeus, 'Against Heresies', I, 24, 4

"[Basilides thought] He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles. Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead [gMark, gLuke & gMatthew], so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them."

Note: Gnostic "teacher" Basilides, because he thought Christ could not die, used the synoptic gospels mention of 'Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross' to have the same Simon crucified on it, instead of Jesus.

According to Hippolytus of Rome, in 'Refutation of all heresies', book VII:

Chapter XV "... all the events in our Lord's life occurred, according to them [Basilidians], in the same manner as they have been described in the Gospels."

(which would imply Basilides knew about a few gospels, as can be confirmed next, from the same book)
- Basilides knew about GJohn:

Chapter X "The seed of the cosmical system was generated, he [Basilides] says, from nonentities; the word which was spoken, "Let there be light." And this, he [Basilides] says, is that which has been stated in the Gospels: "He was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."[words in italics are as in Jn1:9]"

Chapter XV "And that each thing, says [Basilides], has its own particular times, the Saviour is a sufficient [witness] when He observes, "Mine hour is not yet come."[words in italics are as in Jn2:4]"

- Basilides knew about GLuke:

Chapter XIV "This, he [Basilides] says, is that which has been declared: "The Holy Spirit will come upon thee," that which proceeded from the Sonship through the conterminous spirit upon the Ogdoad and Hebdomad, as far as Mary; "and the power of the Highest will overshadow thee," [bolded italics as in Lk1:35]"

- Basilides knew about GMatthew:

Chapter XV "And the Magi [afford similar testimony] when they gaze wistfully upon the star [according to Mt2:1-2,9-10]. For [Jesus] Himself was, he [Basilides] says, mentally preconceived at the time of the generation of the stars,"

I think your ship (gospels written around 150, Paul's epistles written around 175) has more holes in its hull and should be sunk by now.

Cordially, Bernard