The question is, were they written pre-AD70. If the internal evidence suggests they were, then this is a pretty serious thing because the temple's destruction would have been impossible to predict. You will all continue to be wrong about the gospels as long as you cling on to this assumption that they were written post-70, because you won't trust them.
Spud - regardless of when the original might have been written we know with absolute certainty that every single copy of the gospels, whether fragment or full text, was written long after 70AD. As such they could easily have been amended retrospectively with hindsight knowledge of the destruction of the second temple.
But lets, for the sake of argument, assume we have an original text (we don't of course) that we know for certain was written prior to AD70 (we don't of course) that predicted the destruction of the second temple. So what. All sorts of texts make predictions and sometimes those predictions turn out to be correct - in those countless other examples we don't assume that the predictor must be a god, so why should we in this case.
But I'll go back to my first point - regardless of when the gospels were originally written the ones we have available to us were, at the earliest, written decades or centuries later and we have no way of knowing how the versions we have compare to the original.
