I've never heard of a gospel being written prior to 70 CE. Mark's Jesus predicts the fall of the temple and it is therefor post 70 CE.
So, you're a "Christian", yet you don't believe in prophecy....got it. What next, do you moonlight as an astronomer who doesn't believe in gravity?
Also, the gospel of Luke references prior writings of gospel accounts (see Luke 1:1), and the gospel of Luke itself is referenced in the introduction of the book of Acts (see Acts 1:1), and the historical account of the book of Acts ends while Paul is still awaiting trial in Rome...so, if Acts was written prior to Paul's death, then so was Luke and also the written gospel accounts referenced in Luke.
---
Paul's letters were written prior to that obviously because he died in the early 60's. In what way is what I've stated contrary to the NT?
well, if you admit Paul's letters were written prior to 60AD, and since Paul account of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection parallels the gospels...what exactly is your entire point?! how does one go from admitting Paul's letters were written prior to 60AD, to claiming the gospels were embellished to make the Jews look bad after the revolt?! how does one make that jump?
Are you kidding or high? Paul references what was known about Jesus' life but doesn't quote the gospels. This is insane and absurd to even suggest. I've never heard a serious scholar once suggest that the gospels were written prior to 70 CE. Paul even speaks of the resurrection in spiritual terms at first. In other words there wasn't a physical resurrection at first in all likelyhood regarding the evolution of Christianity. There is no jump, but only historical analysis.
I'd suggest you read more broadly. I may not agree with Jmfsct's tack here, but you really need to find some material not written by Crossan/Borg, Ehrman, et al.
Paul obviously quotes from sources used by the Gospel writers (in Romans alone: 12:14 and 17, 13:7-9, 14:10, 14:14, 16:19). If you don't want to say that this was him quoting from the Gospels, fair enough, but it's splitting hairs at that point.
Dating the Gospels is tricky business, it's hardly an exact science, and any scholar that tells you otherwise probably shouldn't be considered "serious", as you put it. They could have been written in the 50s or the 90s, based on hard evidence alone there's no way we could say either way. There are/were scholars at respected institutions who would date Mark prior to 70AD, somewhere around 65AD iirc is the earliest date. Hugh Anderson of the University of Edinburgh (died 10 years ago), John A.T. Robinson from Cambridge (died in the 80s, did work on it in the 70s), C.E.B. Cranfield of Durham University, and Dennis Nineham of Oxford support or supported the early date. There are other guys who were/are evangelical but taught in first tier UK schools and would go with earlier dates. Furthermore there are quite a few scholars who say it could go either way: Joel Marcus at Duke, John Nolland at the University of Bristol are two. This is just Mark (there are others who hold to an earlier Matthew and teach at reputable schools). See, this is what one can do in 10-15 minutes of research, you should try it...
This is just hackish. There's such a vast array of material out there on the subject that for you to make such a blanket accusation is ridiculous and reveals a fair amount of immaturity. You know this? Really? Your appeals to scholarship fall flat here because I don't need to look anything up to name dozens of authorities who would call that statement absurd.
Scholarship doesn't involve placing colored beads into a hat based on whether you like something in the text or not. It's more serious than Dan Brown books and wild unfounded assertions.
