I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

Your reasoning is completely idiotic. Of course we have to believe it was written after the fall, because we have no reason to believe prophecy,

What I stated was exactly that one does not need to believe in prophecy to posite an earlier date. Vague predictions happen all the time; it can be coincidence or reasonable anticipation. In this case, all other factors (contemporary knowledge of Jesus time and place, and consonantly so between the different perspectives of different Gospels that aren't shared in the others), point to an early knowledge origin in the contemporaries of Jesus, rather than a late one.

Even then, if we had to assume it was prophecy for it's dating to be earlier, which we emphatically don't have to assume from a neutral point of view for an early date, all you are saying amounts to: I presuppose that prophecy is impossible; therefore, this thing which might constitute evidence that prophecy is possible if the date is earlier, cannot be evidence that prophecy is possible, therefore the date is later rather than earlier. Obviously, that is not historical evidence: it proceeds from a philosophical presupposition that is not shared by all. A priori regardless of evidence, it renders even Christianity unprovable, thus begging the question. This is not evidence, and obviously, a Christian who does not share the philosophical presupposition is not going to accept it.

But even then, now don't ignore the first paragraph. One does not have to presuppose that an early date necessitates supernatural, or even any kind of prophecy, beyond coincidentiality and reasonable anticipation. If one does do that, however, you are going to exclude it on philosophical grounds, not on grounds of historical evidence.

You try to say we're making faulty presuppositions when we're dealing with provable fact and you're making the biggest assumptions of all and so your reasoning is utter crap.

You are just asserting it. You have neither pointed to unrevealed presuppositions (for I have made the issue obvious and clear) in my arguments, nor shown my reasoning to be "utter crap". I have, to the contrary, been able to analyse different viewpoints, pointed to your implicit presupposition, which you have enforced, and shown your reasoning to be - just that, utter cr.., something.