No one suggested an eyewitness wrote the gospels. That does not prove they did not get the accounts from eyewitnesses and those that might have written things down in the meantime.
My parents are perfectly capable of telling me about events that happened 40 years ago in great detail down to the color of the carpet and who said what when. If they had taken notes while following around a revolutionary teacher (which would be more probably than not), these stories would be even more accurate. I can write better and type faster than either can and would produce a better finished product about their memories than they would. We can even discuss the final product around the dinner table a few nights to see if I wrote everything down correctly. Your conclusion that since 40 years past and and the writer was not the eyewitness and therefore there is something inherently wrong with the account is faulty logic.
Your Characterization of 3 versus in Matthew as "whoppers" seems overstating your "proof" of utter nonsense. Read some commentaries and not a list off of your favorite atheist blog who couldn't possibly be biased.
Isaiah 7:14 - how can you say that that verse does not talk about the Messiah? Immanuel means "God with us"?
Regarding Egypt, he was writing to a Jewish audience with which coming out of Egypt was a big event and double meanings and symbolism was big. Again, read a commentary for different views. Hardly a "gotcha" verse.
The slaughter for babies in Bethlehem would not make the news for Herod. There were only a couple of hundred residents and how many babies could there be under 2--a handful? Regarding Jer 31, it is a chapter encouraging the captives, assuring them God would restore them someday and eventually send the Messiah. The tribe of Benjamin (and therefore Bethlehem) was a decent of Rachel. You really need to research before you cut and past.
Regarding Matthew 27 and the saints, that was what the author wrote down. There have been discussions on this for almost 2000 years. I will not solve the mystery for you here.
You mentioned 3 instances where Matthew says that prophesy was fulfilled. You didn't want to mention the other 20+. Your "questionable" prophesies to non-questionable prophesies ratio is telling.
Your "blasting" away at John was not awe-inspiring and certainly not rising to the level that I should reconsider my stance on the Gospels.
My parents are perfectly capable of telling me about events that happened 40 years ago in great detail down to the color of the carpet and who said what when. If they had taken notes while following around a revolutionary teacher (which would be more probably than not), these stories would be even more accurate. I can write better and type faster than either can and would produce a better finished product about their memories than they would. We can even discuss the final product around the dinner table a few nights to see if I wrote everything down correctly. Your conclusion that since 40 years past and and the writer was not the eyewitness and therefore there is something inherently wrong with the account is faulty logic.
Your Characterization of 3 versus in Matthew as "whoppers" seems overstating your "proof" of utter nonsense. Read some commentaries and not a list off of your favorite atheist blog who couldn't possibly be biased.
Isaiah 7:14 - how can you say that that verse does not talk about the Messiah? Immanuel means "God with us"?
Regarding Egypt, he was writing to a Jewish audience with which coming out of Egypt was a big event and double meanings and symbolism was big. Again, read a commentary for different views. Hardly a "gotcha" verse.
The slaughter for babies in Bethlehem would not make the news for Herod. There were only a couple of hundred residents and how many babies could there be under 2--a handful? Regarding Jer 31, it is a chapter encouraging the captives, assuring them God would restore them someday and eventually send the Messiah. The tribe of Benjamin (and therefore Bethlehem) was a decent of Rachel. You really need to research before you cut and past.
Regarding Matthew 27 and the saints, that was what the author wrote down. There have been discussions on this for almost 2000 years. I will not solve the mystery for you here.
You mentioned 3 instances where Matthew says that prophesy was fulfilled. You didn't want to mention the other 20+. Your "questionable" prophesies to non-questionable prophesies ratio is telling.
Your "blasting" away at John was not awe-inspiring and certainly not rising to the level that I should reconsider my stance on the Gospels.
