But I am going to pick one and attempt to show why I think the apologist is wrong and why.
By Matt Slick (awesome name), President and founder of CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry).
His first point under "When were the Gospels written & by whom?" is that none of the gospels or Acts mention the destruction of the Jewish Temple in A.D. 70. He reasons that since the gospels record that Jesus prophesied that the Temple would be destroyed, surely the writers would have included it to show prophecy fulfilled, if they were written after AD 70. This makes no sense, especially for the gospels. The gospels are written to capture the time when Jesus was alive and teaching his disciples. They end around, give or take, the time of Jesus' ascension. They are also allegedly written by those who were eye-witnesses to Jesus (sans Luke). Why would an author, perhaps writing in the second century, mention an event that happened four decades after the time frame of his story... if he wanted readers to believe he was an eye-witness to the same events?
But what about Luke? It is believed the author of Luke also wrote Acts as a second volume from Luke to Theophilus (perhaps Luke's patron or financier). Why doesn't Acts mention the destruction of the Temple? It is believed to be a sort of history from the ascension of Jesus to the proceedings of the early Church. Mr. Slick believes the Temple destruction is not included because Acts was written before it happened, prior to AD 70. But why would Luke mention this historic event?
I believe it is not mentioned because it doesn't fit into Luke's motif with regards to Acts. Acts also doesn't mention Paul's death, another reason Mr. Slick feels it was written much prior to AD 70. But why would it? Luke is showing his readers a proclamation made by Jesus at the beginning of Acts to its fulfillment at the end of Acts. It isn't about prophecy, it's about the promised word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit. The author indicates that he is aware of Paul's death based on Paul's speech from Miletus (Acts 20:25-38). But Paul's death doesn't fit into his purpose for Acts. In fact it would be anticlimactic.
Acts begins with Jesus telling his disciples "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." Acts ends in chapter 28 with "
for two whole years Paul stayed there [in Rome]
in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. He proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ--with all boldness and without hindrance!"
Between these two theological bookends, Paul is the reflection of how the early church went from a Jewish Christian sect to one that successfully reached the gentile world through Rome and beyond. Saul becomes Paul (Saul being the dogmatic pharisees set to wipe out this new threat to Judaism, and Paul being the enlightened convert who takes the message of salvation, free from Jewish restrictions, to the rest of the world), and thus is born a catalyst that will carry the gospel of grace, "with boldness and without hindrance", to the world of the gentiles. At the end of Acts, Paul is alive and well and speaking freely about Jesus Christ.. in Rome! (the capital of the oppressors of his own country).
This was Luke's intention. He answers the question of how the news of salvation reached the gentiles. How the faith evolved from the Jewish disciples, who were told to go to the children of Israel and adhered to Jewish traditions/rituals, to the newest band of disciples (Paul's group) who taught how the true message was for all men, not just the house of Israel, but Jew and gentile alike.
Including Paul's death would hinder his theological purpose for writing Acts. There are other theological points about Acts that indicate Luke was not just recording church history. For one, he wasn't interested in including the destruction of the Temple because, aside from the reasons previously mentioned, he didn't want his readers to get the impression he was suggesting that Judaism was dead. Rather, he set to show that Paul's message was a natural progression of the faith to include the gentiles. Who else to deliver this progression but Paul, a reformed Pharisee!
So it didn't replace Judaism, but reformed it in such a way that allowed the message to be accepted beyond Jerusalem and the Jewish diaspora (remember Jesus' statements at the beginning of Acts... "to the ends of the earth"... Luke answers this proclamation with Paul, his reformed Pharisee with his reformed message). This is why, IMO, Paul is a much different person in Acts than he is portrayed in the Epistles. Luke tones him down to be more in line with the rest of the Apostles... perhaps a less Gnostic Paul to a more orthodox Catholic Paul. But that is another story.
Edit to add: tl;dr version... Acts isn't about fulfilling prophecy or writing actual mundane history. It should be viewed as the theological document that it is. As such, the actual dating of the document is not as important as the message it presents. I think if people viewed the gospels and Acts as such, they wouldn't get too caught up in trying to fit square pegs into round holes and then arguing about it.
