Why do Christians say that the Bible contains eyewitness accounts when it doesn't?

Question

Which books were eyewitness accounts?

Matthew and John are the only 2 that were actually Jesus' apostles and both Gospels were written by their followers. Acts was also written by a follower of an apostle. Paul wrote his letters but he never actually met Jesus and nobody really knows which John wrote Revelation....

So which part was an eyewitness testimony again?

Answer 1

Exodus.

Answer 2

Don't know where you get your information, but Matthew and John, who were contemporaries of Jesus and wrote their gospels (not their followers), were eyewitnesses.

You don't have to write during His lifetime to be an eyewitness. If that were true, I could not write about my father, who died 42 years ago. Get a grip.

Answer 3

A fragment of Matthew's Gospel has been found, dating back to 48 ad. Eye-Witness account.
Mark was most likely the unnamed young fellow who had to escape without his clothes when one of those who had arrested Jesus grabbed him.
John, who lived to a ripe old age, wrote his Gospel - it is generally believed to have been written toward the end of the 1st century, possibly even earlier than previously believed (with every new discovery, the Gospel documents are dated earlier and earlier).
Luke is the only Gospel writer that doesn't claim to be writing an eye-witness account. He did serious scientific hiistorical research, interviewing a lot of eye-witnesses, sorting out the evidence, etc.
It seems we have at the very least as much eye-witness evidence of the Gospel acounts as we do of the Napoleonic period. and much more than we have of Julius Caesar.

Answer 4

It's so that people will continue believing in it. It was meant to keep society together as a whole (the whole Ten Commandments comes to mind), and serve as a pseudo-government before laws were created and put in place.

My religion teacher (I went to a Catholic school, it was mandatory) used to tell me that the Bible wasn't true (Adam + Eve, Virgin Birth, Parting the Water), but the fact that people believe in it, makes it a true account.

I told her she made no sense, and I got a D in Religion.

Answer 5

Mark got his information from the Apostle Peter, and Luke got his information from a number of credible sources, including Mary herself. How can you sit in judgment on a book you've never read?

Answer 6

Biblical scholars do not believe that any of the Gospels are first hand accounts There are absolutely no first hand accounts of Jesus. However, Christians never let the facts get in the way of their beliefs. They are going to live forever and ever. LOL

Answer 7

(WE = APOSTLES John= John the Apostle))

1 John 1
We proclaim to you the one who existed from the beginning,[a] whom we have heard and seen. We saw him with our own eyes and touched him with our own hands. He is the Word of life. 2 This one who is life itself was revealed to us, and we have seen him. And now we testify and proclaim to you that he is the one who is eternal life. He was with the Father, and then he was revealed to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we ourselves have actually seen and heard so that you may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We are writing these things so that you may fully share our joy.[b]

Answer 8

None. none were written while he was alive.

Besides, if any of this were true he would have been huge. Rock-star huge with crazed fans. Nobody wrote any of that down? No one sent a letter? All we get is a badly written new testament decades and centuries later and then some Josephus forgeries?

Answer 9

Well... there you go being picky again... don't the "eyewitness accounts" from 40 to 100 years later count? I mean, really....*insert mocking tone*

Answer 10

What eyewitnes? No one alive can give any eyewitness to anything that happened 2000+ years ago.