I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Eilonnwy]

No, a late date is accepted only on the grounds of the prediction of the fall of the Jerusalem, which to some mean that it must have been written after the fall of Jerusalem (e.g. past 70 A.D.). That is a philosophical presupposition I don't share. The prediction is entirely possible, even in naturalistic terms as a coincidence or an anticipation on reasonable grounds, or for a Christian, simply a prophesy. It depends on ones philosophical presuppositions what date is possible to entertain. For me, the philosophical reasons to postpone the date beyond the fall of Jerusalem are simply not there, and the historical indications that it is much earlier are almost universally recognised (which is one of the reasons earlier documents like Q are proposed).

So I'm supposed to accept that the gospels were written earlier because some think the guy had predictive powers? Come on, I know you believe in it so that's not far fetched for you, but after what I've been saying, demanding strong evidence for supernatural/extraordinary claims you MUST know that you're essentially wasting your breath. No one with half a brain would accept your assertion. You were all about saying that the majority of scholars accept someone named Jesus existed but then veer from that majority when it suits you. Nice.

You believe in Jesus without any substantial evidence at all, so you're wasting your breath.