The only mention of the temple in the gospels is Jesus' prophecy of its being destroyed while in its presence. There's your evidence that it was still standing.
In other words not one of them actually claims that the Temple was still standing. You just assume that they would have mentioned the destruction if they were written later. However, it's not exactly something they would need to mention, is it ? It would be very public knowledge.
And the evidence for their being eyewitnesses is that they say they were, and they say it in a way that is believable to any honest reader.
Do they ? Perhaps you would like provide the relevant verses. I'd love to see what you have from Mark or Matthew.
As I said, the Bible is for simple honest hearts
If that were true you wouldn't have to resort to commentaries all the time. Nor would you object so strongly to "simple honest" readings that contradict your dogmas.
I don't assume anything, I see that the only mention of the temple is when Jesus is pointing to it and telling the disciples it will be destroyed, and this is also what all the theologians say, the trustworthy ones.
Which neither states nor implies that the Temple was still standing at the time the Gospels were written. It's not an issue of believing the writers.
And may I take it that you know perfectly well that neither the Gospels of Matthew or Mark claim to have been written by an eye-witness and that the Gospel of Luke is traditionally assigned to a follower of Paul who witnessed some events seen in Acts, but no more.
That's a lot to pack into one statement. Especially when you have Jesus telling people to believe books that hadn't even been written. Want to quote the verse in context?
It gets worse still when we consider that you've told us the the Gospels claim to have been written before the destruction of the Temple, to that the authors all claimed to be eye-witnesses, neither of which is true.
And yet you have problems with things that the Bible does say. Like the fact that Leviticus does not make a distinction between "moral" and "ceremonial" law. Or that Daniel's "End Times" are set before Jesus was born. And I cannot think that you truly believe Matthew 7:1-5. You certainly don't act like it!
You really ought to listen to some orthodox traditional Protestant preachers some time. Everything you say in this post is wrong, especially your misreading of what it means to judge another.
I'm only telling you what the Bible says. If "orthodox traditional Protestant preachers" disagree with the Bible, that's not a reaon to believe them.
I just want to answer the one complaint you make about the ceremonial law: Jesus fulfilled ALL the laws of the Old Testament and all of them stopped operating for believers except the moral law because that is of the very nature of God Himself.
That really doesn't address my point the the distinction is absent from Leviticus.
Try reading the Bible with a simple honest heart instead of imposing your own ideas on it.
So, the only thing that Jesus was asking anyone to believe was the "good news". Which in context seems to be that "the Kingdom of God is at hand". Your long list in Message 463 goes well beyond that, just as I expected.