Did the gospel writers of the Bible actually see with their own eyes the events before they write it down?

YES they saw first hand the accounts they wrote about in their later years after they had spread the word.

I would say it was like a president writing his memoirs, or Plato writing on Socrates.

Some did. All of the Gospels were written by the end of the first century, which is not anywhere near enough time to fabricate such a huge fraud. Matthew was an eyewitness, as was John. Mark was a disciple of Peter, the leader of the Apostles, and wrote everything Peter told him. Luke was a disciple of Paul. Luke went about making a thorough investigation into the events of the Gospels and wrote down everything he could determine from the evidence.

The gospel writers actually saw Christ's works. They "recorded" for posterity what they had seen. All of Paul's and James' and Peter's writings were their own witness, not only to Jesus' acts, but also to their own ministries. John's Revelation was an account of the visions Christ showed him about how the future will unfold.

I will give you an example of how the Holy Spirit helps these writers "see" what they record. Other than what they actually witnessed - In Revelation, John states that the antichrist causes all to take his mark, and they cannot buy or sell without it. How could that be? When I was a teenager, I did not see how that could ever happen. However, when computers began to develop into affordable machines that everyone could use, especially in their businesses, I had an AHA moment. Now it is perfectly understandable how the antichrist could control commerce.

If God can create and sustain this universe, He is perfectly capable of insuring that the right people see and record what He wants to impart to His creations.

Assuming that it was actually Matthew, Mark and John who wrote the gospels after which they are named, then yes.

John is definitely commonly understood as having written the gospel of John.

Luke we know is was definitely not an eyewitness to his gospel. But he claims to have conducted thorough research before putting it in writing.

Luke also seems to have been an eyewitness to many of the events he records in the book of Acts.

___________

As for the claims that gospels were written hundreds of years after the events. That is not historically viable.

All of the canonical gospels can be dated within 60 years of the the events.

But more than that, the stories they tell can be traced to be in existence in oral form within a couple years of Jesus' death.

No, but i was under the impression that the earliest possible date of writing of a synoptic gospel was Matthew dated around 40AD. But even biblical scholars are debating the dates to this day so my info could be out of date.

EDIT:did a quick Wiki search, gives the following

Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus [33]) view as follows:

Mark: c. 68–73,[34] c 65-70[35]

Matthew: c. 70–100.[34] c 80-85.[36]

Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[34] c 80-85[37]

John: c 90-100,[38] c. 90–110,[39] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates. Some historians interpret the end of the book of Acts as indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; as Acts does not mention the death of Paul, generally accepted as the author of many of the Epistles, who was later put to death by the Romans c. 65.[citation needed] Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, which is believed to have been written before Acts, and therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50s. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible (for a fuller discussion see Augustinian hypothesis):

Matthew: c. 50 to 70s

Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s

Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s

John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70

Two of them, Matthew and John, were eye witnesses and had been with Jesus. Mark was John Mark, the nephew of Barnabas. Both Mark and Barnabas accompanied Paul on his missionary journeys. Mark was a convert and not an eyewitness himself, but he interviewed those who had been with Jesus and wrote as accurate an account as he could. Luke was another convert, known as the beloved physician. Luke was what we would call an investigative journalist. He traveled the world over interviewing people who had been with Jesus and wrote his account. He writes it from a medical viewpoint, naming the diseases of the people that Jesus healed.

Luke's account is written as a letter addressed to a man named Theophilis. Theophilis is thought to be a high official in Caesar's court. Speculation is that Luke wrote this to present as evidence at Paul's trial in Rome. The book of Acts is Luke's continuation of the early history of the Christian church, a sequel.

If you read the first few verses of both the Gospel of John and First John, John states that he and the other apostles were eyewitnesses of the events of Jesus' life. The only apostle who wasn't an eyewitness was Paul, who was converted on the road to Damascus but received a direct calling from Christ. Galatians chapter 1:11 through 2:2 speaks of Paul's experience. After his conversion, he went into the desert for two years to be alone with God. Christ revealed his Gospel to him. When Paul met Peter and James, Christ's disciples and eyewitnesses, fourteen years later, everything Paul was taught was totally in line with what those two apostles were taught. They did not correct Paul or add anything to his message.

Probably not - the three synoptic gospels were written long after the event and have so much similarity that most scholars beleive they were quoting from a primary source which has since been lost. Maybe John was about at the time, if the author of the gospel of John is the same person as john the disciple.

Yes and no. Two of the Gospel "writers" were eyewitnesses, but they most likely dictated it to a scribe, instead of writing it themselves. Mark and Luke were compiled from interviews of eyewitnesses and other sources.

After some time of Oral telling, the earliest gospel may have been written as early as fifteen to twenty years after Christs death.

The Apostle Peter says in 2 Peter 1:16-21:

"16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

Likewise, the Apostle John says this in 1 John 1:1-4:

"1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life— 2 the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. 4 And these things we write to you that your joy may be full."

The undeniable fact is that the Gospel writers wrote what they personally witnessed.

Historical evidence of Pliny the Younger and Tacitus tell us that Christians were killed. So for that reason alone the church tradition of their deaths is probably true. As for what Church tradition tells us...

Gospel of John-Tells us about Peter's death

Acts-death of James

Josephus-death of brother of Jesus

-Epistle of Clement-death of Peter and Paul

-2 Timothy-Paul's final words before he is about to die

-Eusubius (hope I spelled that name right) gives a pretty detailed explanation of the deaths of the apostles.

As I said why can't we accept the church tradition? I know that according to some atheists extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence. But the death of Christians isn't one of them. So I think the writings of church leaders should be evidence enough that it happened.