Version 60 New Formats Of Form 24 Returns: Fill & Download for Free

Gamers get bent out of shape by the various monetisation strategies of publishers because they will invariably use those monetisation strategies to make their video games worse.The model of video games used to be simple: developers made good video games and you paid them $60 for that game. Developers were encouraged to make the best game possible because that is how they made money. However the addition of monetisation strategies has changed that system.Let’s start with DLC (downloadable content, generally sold separately from the game, for those who aren't familiar with the initialism), the first real additional monetisation strategy pursued by publishers.The idea was simple: publishers could extend the life of games that people love without having to make a sequel and asking gamers to buy an entirely new game. DLC could also theoretically be used to explore and expand upon things that gamers really enjoyed in the game such as the origins of a side character or boss. There is nothing wrong with using DLC in this way.Instead what happened was that publishers found it easier to carve content out of their games and sell it back to us than to make additional content on top of all the original content. Rather than release a full game and see what people wanted more of, they made a full game then cut out the parts that they thought gamers would enjoy to be sold separately.(Basically this)One of the most egregious examples of this was Mass Effect 3 which cut out a character to be Day One DLC (another shit show) who happens to be really important to the story of the game and trilogy and who was obviously designed to be in the game from the start.This is Javik. He is the last surviving member of an alien race that was destroyed by the game’s main antagonists and he is vital to understanding the nature of the threat that the player is facing. He was sold separately for $10. EA made the conscious decision to make the game worse by selling an important character that was clearly designed to be part of the game separately. Imagine going to see Lord of The Rings and being told that if you wanted to see the version of the movie with Gandalf in it you had to pay an extra $10. Not a different version without Gandalf as a character, the same movie but with all the scenes with Gandalf in removed even if the movie now no longer makes sense. Nobody would tolerate that and yet gamers are expected to be excited that their favorite games are being chopped up and sold to us separately.Perhaps story doesn’t matter to you? Perhaps you are one of those people who thinks story is for nerds. You like gameplay like a real gamer. Well DLC ruined that too. Multi-player FPS games like Call of Duty were also not safe from having their content chopped out and sold back to the players. The first game in a series would come with 20 maps. The sequels would start removing those maps and selling them back to the players as DLC; game number 2 would have 15 maps and sell an additional 10 for $15, game 3 would have 12 maps and sell you 3 map packs of 4 maps each for $15 a pop and finally game 4 would have 4 maps included with 4 map packs of 3 maps each for $20 each. Gamers would get progressively less stuff for more and more money. The worst part was that the community would always migrate to the new maps so if you didn’t have them then you functionally couldn’t play the game you bought. This also happened to racing games where the one game would have 100 cars and 50 tracks then the next game would have 80 cars and 30 tracks with the rest of the content hidden in DLC. Fighting games also suffered because their rosters would shrink just to sell your favorites back to you. Call me old fashioned but I believe that sequels should contain more things than the previous games.Then as if hacking their games to pieces to sell to us separately wasn’t enough they decided to make us pay for the pleasure up front. Many publishers started giving their games Season Passes which are a way to make gamers pre-order DLC that the developers haven’t even planned out yet. Many of these Season Passes go on sale without any consideration for what the DLC will be about usually just dates for their launch. The result is often that season passes consist of: one challenge arena which is always the first one, since it is the easiest to make, one DLC that should have been part of the game, since they were already doing that to begin with and maybe one actual DLC if you were lucky. Then because Season Passes were not enough some games got multiple Season Passes or simply released more content that was not included in the original Season Pass. Not only were gamers asked to pre-order content that had been carved out of their games but they might not even still get all of that content anyway.To accommodate all of this fuckery publishers also moved to a new system of releasing a game. In the past if you wanted a game then you could go to the shops and buy a game and that had everything that you needed. Now gamers need a fucking spreadsheet to navigate what version of the game you want.Now that $60 that a game used to cost only gets you the shell of a game meant to be filled with DLC. Words also end up becoming meaningless because the Ultimate edition ends up not even including all the stuff despite being called the Ultimate edition. Publishers don’t even know what the word Ultimate means anymore. Publishers do this in the hopes of confusing the customer into spending more. Rather than offering their customers value they try and trick them into spending more money.Publishers are also releasing Collector’s Editions of games that nobody even knows are good. The garbage fire that is “Alien: Colonial Marines” has a collectors edition when that game should be buried in a landfill. Collector’s editions used to be for games that had already come and were successful. They were a re-release of a game that people have demonstrated that they want and a way to reward fans.(This is not a thing that should exist)But all of this nonsense pales in comparison to the scourge of microtransactions.Now let me first say that I don’t have a problem with microtransactions in theory.They can be used well to support games that are free-to-play. I understand that game development costs money and developers can’t give their work away for nothing so as long as a game is free, the microtransactions don’t affect gameplay and are open and honest then nobody will have a problem with them. If a developer makes a fun, free game and includes an honest and fair way for you to support them for their effort then that is a perfectly valid and reasonable business.The gamers start getting upset when microtransactions start creeping into full priced premium games and when they start being coercive and deceitful.Firstly there should not be microtransactions in full priced games. These games are paid for upfront so the developer is already making money. They then still sell DLC and make even more money to pay. Adding in microtransactions feels like triple dipping. Publishers are trying to squeeze even more money out of their customers even though they have already paid. Just like DLC adding microtransactions to full priced games makes the games worse. Let’s look at some examples.Diablo 3 at launch had two problems because of additional monetisation. It contained a real money premium action house and as a result had to be always online so that players could use it but the developers purposefully made the loot tables in the game terrible in order to “encourage” players to spend real money on items. When the games came to console they didn’t have the real money auction house and had reworked loot tables to fix the balancing. The result was that the console versions of Diablo 3 were much much more fun that the PC version until that removed the auction house and got the reworked loot tables. Even the developers admitted that the auction house ruined Diablo’s gameplay[1]Dead Space 3 completely broke the game in order to shove microtransactions into the game. The excellent and high skill combat was simplified down so that crafting mechanics could be forced in and the game could sell you crafting materials and blueprints. A franchise that had built its reputation on atmosphere and immersion threw all of that out the window so that every time you opened the crafting menu a store could pop up and offer to sell you stuff shattering your immersion like a brick through a window.[2]“Middle Earth: Shadow of War” took the previous game’s best unique selling point, the Nemesis System, and broke it in order to sell microtransactions. The Nemesis system was a complex mechanic based around the player’s interactions with the Orc hierarchy in the game with rivalries, betrayals and promotions within that power structure creating unique emergent gameplay for players to all have unique stories and experiences in the game. In Shadow of War the developers decided instead to commoditise the Orcs in premium loot boxes and in order to “encourage” the player to spend more money they made Orcs have the lifespan of mayflies. Thus the mechanic was ruined because it meant that the players barely got to know any of their Orcs before they were killed, resulting in very few interesting organic stories emerging. The ridiculous turnover rate of orcs also meant that players ended up seeing 20 orcs of the same name throughout their play through. Once again the developers admitted that the microtranscation ruined their game and removed them.[3]Ubisoft’s entire gameplay design philosophy has shifted in order to accommodate microtransactions. Most of their games now contain RPG elements and crafting but the games also reward the player with much less experience and crafting materials so that they can sell them back to the players in the form of “time savers”. When Assassin’s Creed Odyssey players were using the custom mission tool to create ways to earn experience faster and more easily Ubisoft removed those missions because they didn’t want competition for their online store[4]. Ubisoft are making their games more grindy to sell players ways to skip that grind. They are making their games worse so that they can monetise ways to make them better.The big one however is EA’s Star Wars Battlefront 2 (2017). Battlefront 2’s multiplayer allowed players to advance the ranks in their preferred classes and heroes and unlock various stat bonuses in the form of Star Cards. However in Battlefront 2 these upgrades were locked behind a steep progression system that took forever to advance in and behind randomised loot crates that could be bought for real money. [5] This means that a player could spend money to gain a material advantage over other players. EA created what they hoped would be a competitive multiplayer game where you could buy an advantage over your opponents. Not only did the loot crates offer you a potential advantage over opponents but they were incredibly stingy when it came to giving out good items which when tied to the steep progression system meant that the only way to really advance and compete was to spend a ton of cash on loot crates. Due to backlash from the community (and possibly Disney) the loot crates were temporarily removed and when they returned they only had cosmetic items in them. Once again a game was made less fun and worse in order to add a new monetisation strategy to the game. The worst part is that it was entirely unnecessary because while EA told gamers that without microtransactions they can’t afford to make games they then told shareholders and investors that removing the microtranscations from Battlefont 2 would not “affect earnings”[6] . Basically EA lied to gamers to try and get sympathy but they legally can’t lie to shareholders and investors so we now know that microtransactions are there to make pure profit and do not affect the viability of a game in any way.Abusive and predatory microtransactions have also taken hold of Free-to-play games. Where once the market was about making a good game and then finding a way to monetise the game, modern Free-to-play games are built around creating the most coercive possible microtrasactions that they can get away with. Some people will probably have a problem with my use of the term coercive but I still think it fits given that the publishers and developers of these games try to create the most frustrating gameplay loop possible in order to grind down the player’s willpower and make them purchase a microtransaction. Games like these are barely fun and sell ways to make them more fun. These monetisation strategies make these games worse because they are about breaking down the player rather than giving them a good experience.(South Park knows what is up)Here are some of the ways that they do this:Putting constantly escalating timers on every action then selling you a way to shorten those timers also known as Free-to-wait games. This works well because the initial timers are very short in order to get you into the game then reach a point where you cannot really advance without spending money. Dungeon Keeper Mobile was notorious for this because its timers would quickly become ridiculous to the point that breaking down a single block would take over 24 hours. This can be linked to competitive games such as Clash of Clans where it is impossible to compete at the top level of the game without spending money because the players that do have an advantage over you.Then there are the games that limit the amount of actions that you can do in a specific time period. The amount of energy that you need to perform actions or the amount of actions that you need to perform constantly goes up until you reach a point that you have to pay or basically stop playing. “Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery” is infamous for this because its energy had been set up to run out during a sequence where your avatar was being strangled by Devil’s Snare thus creating the effect that you either had to pay or watch a child be strangled[7].Finally there are the games that are just straight forward pay-to-win. Games where the best items, weapons and mechanics are only available to people who spend money. This can create a game where free players are treated like second class citizens by the paying players and developers and where the top tiers of play are impossible to reach unless you spend money. I wonder why gamers would get upset about games where the people with the most money win.Basically all of these games and methods are designed to brute force their way through a player’s willpower to get them to spend money on the games. They do this by making a fun game worse so that they can sell the fun back to you. These developers and publishers know that people have a limited amount of self control and they do everything they can to reach that limit and “encourage” their players to spend money.Then there are the many deceitful ways that developers and publishers try to get gamers to spend more money on their games.The most common route is through the use of dual currencies. These games have two currencies, one that is meaningless after a short while and the “real” currency. These serve multiple purposes:They allow the game to create a suckering in period where you use the meaningless currency to progress until you feel attached to the game then the game throws up the paywall to get you to spend money on the real fake currency. However the game will still give you the meaningless currency so that you feel like you are making progress even though you are not.Having a fake currency allows the game to abstract the true costs. If the game popped up and said “Spend $15 to continue” most players would realise that it is ridiculous and stop there but when it says “Pay 800 gems to continue” then that extra layer of abstraction makes it difficult for the players to know how much they are spending. Even if $15 buys you 800 gems this little bit of maths can help short circuit some people’s logic.The game gets to mess around with its own economy in order to make the real money to fake money conversion even more difficult. The most common is to bundle currency so that the more you spend the more you save. This means that you can buy 800 gems or whatever for $15 dollars or you can buy 2000 gems for $30. Suddenly the maths as to what is a “good deal” and what is not a good deal becomes even more cloudy. The second tactic is to make sure that all the items in the game will almost always leave “change” so that the player is tempted to spend more money so as not to waste the extra fake currency they have for example only selling fake currencies in bundles of thousands then only selling items in multiples of 412 gems.Developers put a time limit on particular items making them available only for a short period. This increases player anxiety as the clock runs out and they want to purchase the item before they can no longer do so thus making them more likely to spend money. There is literally no reason for them to do this other than to manipulate players as the items cannot expire or run out of quantity.Another popular trick is to offer the players deals that would require them to spend money even if it is only a little bit. The game will detect that a player has 200 fake currency then put an item on “sale” (again the term sale is meaningless in terms of digital items) for 250 fake currency. However if the player has 300 fake currency they will receive a different “sale” for 325 fake currency. The idea is to get the player to spend money at least once because that makes them more likely to spend money in the future.Video game players are often drawn to collectibles and some games take advantage of this by messing with the drop rates of collectibles such as with loot boxes (which I will get to soon). Another common trick is to make most of a set of items easy to get but the last one or two incredibly difficult without spending money. This can lead to encouraging players to spend money to complete the set as its incomplete status will bother them.Some games use avoidance to lure players back and keep them invested. These games threaten your progress if you do not return regularly. Your castle might decay, your crops might spoil, your village might be destroyed. Players will try their best to avoid negative consequences in the game even if they don’t really matter because they don’t want to lose the time that they have sunk into the game already.Activision are working on a matchmaking engine that will attempt to use predictive software algorithms to encourage players to purchase microtransactions[8] by matching them with high skill players using weapons that are only available for real money. While it is currently not in use it could potentially create a situation where the game will put a player in a situation where they are out of their depth just to sell them a new weapon because it will seem so good in comparison to their own.This then brings us to the topic of loot boxes. These insidious little bastards have been ruled as gambling in several countries[9] [10] due to the fact that take advantage of several psychological tricks to exploit gamers such as :Gambling Fallacy- The belief that due to a number of negative results a positive result must occur soon i.e: “I have opened 20 boxes and got nothing so the next box must contain something.”Sunken Cost Fallacy- The continued pattern of behavior because of resources already spent i.e: “I have already spent $50 on loot boxes and don’t have what I want, if I stop now then all that money is wasted.”Finding a rare item in a loot box is accompanied by enhanced music and effects to give the player a rewarding shot of dopamine in the same way that winning a boss fight or leveling up does.Loot boxes get tied into progression and thus a player’s reward for progression can be held back encouraging them to spend money to get that reward.All of these psychological tricks once again make games worse because instead of relaxing and enjoying the game, gamers have to constantly be aware of and fight against all the bullshit and try not to get tricked into spending money that they can’t afford for digital crap.[11]So why do gamers get bent out of shape about the various monetisation tactics used by publishers? It is because every single time a publisher finds or implements a new monetisation strategy it makes the game a worse experience? There is not a single example of a game where new monetisation strategies have made a game better, even good games that happen to contain these strategies I would argue that they would be better without them.Footnotes[1] Why Diablo's Auction House Went Straight to Hell[2] Dead Space 3 includes micro-transactions for buying better weapons[3] Shadow of War Is Now Microtransaction-Free[4] Ubisoft's putting a stop to Assassin's Creed Odyssey farming quests[5] Star Wars Battlefront 2's Loot Box Controversy Explained[6] EA tells investors turning off Battlefront 2's microtransactions will not affect earnings[7] Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery forces you to pay - or wait - to save a kid from being strangled[8] http://* Some games use avoidance to lure players back and keep them invested. Some games threaten your progress if you do not return regularly and [9] Netherlands Gaming Authority cracks down on loot boxes in some games[10] Belgium's Gambling Commission rules against loot boxes in Overwatch, FIFA 18, and CS:GO[11] Someone Spent Over $150,000 In Microtransactions On A Transformers Game

No one can say absolutely one way or the other as none of the gospels came with an “about the author” section. They do not contain the names of the authors in the text. Going by historical context, I think this anonymity suggests the gospels were written early enough the authors were still in fear of the authorities, while those who were trusted knew who the authors were and that’s how the church tradition concerning authorship began—but there is nothing definitive. There is only probable.What we have are clues: contextual clues, tradition, the early church fathers, internal indications of eye-witness testimony, and dating. We use these clues and strive for good logical reasoning with the goal of determining the best, most reasonable answer—and then we argue a lot.First, let’s examine the case against the authors having been contemporaries of Jesus.Form CriticismI know of no scholar who argues that the gospels were not originally based on eye-witness testimony, but the 20th century tradition formed by Bultman’s version of form criticism says the early Christian communities took that testimony and then altered and adjusted it to their needs—according to their “situation in life.” They were the ones to do the actual writing of the gospels after having had sufficient time to form the legendary material surrounding the itinerant preacher called Jesus. Form criticism, therefore, dates the writing of all the gospels late, after most of Jesus’ contemporaries were dead.If that’s correct, it would mean the answer to your question would be no.However, multiple contemporary studies have taken the heart out of this theory. Studies of nations with a continuous practice of oral history, going back to the time of Jesus and beyond, have shown the communities themselves are not the ones who formulate their community’s stories.Oral histories are memorized by those designated as responsible for preserving them— such as a ‘shaman.’ Then they are shared with the communities. The listeners learn the stories as they are told and retold, and they allow some flexibility in presentation—but like a child with a favorite book—skip or change something important—and they call the speaker on it. Communities act as a check on the narrator. They are not the creators.This is not what form criticism pictured.The error seems to have come about because the form critical view is largely based upon their understanding of how “Icelandic Folklore” formed. As it turns out, the practices of nations that still do oral history pretty thoroughly rebut folklore as a legitimate model for the formation of the gospels. It’s an entirely different category.Biblical scholar Richard Burridge explains that this has contributed to a bit of a crisis in form criticism:The general critique of form criticism came from various sources, putting several areas in particular under scrutiny. The analogy between the development of the gospel pericopae [small sections] and folklore needed reconsideration because of developments in folklore studies; it was less easy to assume the steady growth of an oral tradition in stages... the length of time needed for the "laws" of oral transmission to operate was greater than taken by the gospels; even the existence of such laws was questioned.[1] [2]The form critical view leaves many open—even unanswerable—questions: in particular, what is form criticism to do with the disciples and the many other eyewitnesses referenced in the Gospels? In the form critical models, they all simply vanished leaving the anonymous communities to themselves.How likely is that?The twentieth century view of ‘community creation’ is crumbling at its foundation, but biblical criticism has now moved away from historical pursuits. It could be awhile before these issues are definitively addressed.That leaves us searching for those clues.Who wrote the Gospel of Matthew?The church ascribed the book to Matthew.For nearly two millennium, tradition has attributed the gospel of Matthew to the tax collector turned disciple. However, Matthew is hardly mentioned in the entire New Testament. He was not one of the three Jesus took to the mountaintop with him. He was not one of those clamoring for position in chapter 20. He is not really described anywhere.Matthew’s lack of prominence in the New Testament suggests to some that the early church must have had good reason to attribute the gospel to him. If the early church wasn’t sure who wrote this gospel, why would they choose an author that was obscure—that people might not readily recognize as authoritative?The use of the name Matthew in 9:9.All three synoptic gospels and the book of Acts list Matthew among the twelve disciples, but only the book of Matthew explicitly says he’s a tax collector.All three synoptic gospels record an account of Jesus calling a tax collector to discipleship, but interestingly, while the book of Matthew calls him Matthew, Mark and Luke both identify this man as Levi. It’s worth noting that all four lists of apostles include Matthew, and none of them include someone named Levi.Some scholars argue that these are two separate men, but most believe Matthew was known by two names, either as a case of renaming as with Simon/Peter or because he belonged to the tribe of Levi.Some scholars argue this deviation in names could be an indicator of Matthew’s authorship since it’s reasonable to assume he would be comfortable changing his own name in his own account.Papias mentioned MatthewThe earliest external evidence that Matthew wrote the gospel comes from a fourth-century historian Eusebius quoting Papias, a second-century church father.“Matthew compiled (or ‘arranged,’ or ‘composed’) the logia (‘oracles,’ ‘sayings’ or perhaps ‘gospel’) in the Hebrew (or, ‘Aramaic’) language (or, ‘style’?), and everyone interpreted (or, ‘translated’) them as best they could.”Obviously, Papias leaves us with a lot of questions. Nevertheless, Papias does refer to Matthew recording something — it could be an early gospel or one of its sources.The Gospel of Matthew is highly organized.Being a tax collector required constant upkeep of records and the accurate relaying of information. Book-keeping requires organizational skills, and the author of the book of Matthew appears to be highly organized.The major sections of the gospel are neatly divided into parts. Jesus has five prominent sermons in Matthew, and each ends with some variation of the same transition: “When Jesus had finished saying these things . . .” (Matthew 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). In Matthew 13, the author gives us seven parables in a row. And in Matthew 23 we read seven woes to the pharisees.Many scholars see this neat, organized style as evidence of Matthew’s ‘tax collector’ personality and his likely authorship.The Gospel of Matthew talks about money more than the other Synoptics.The parable of the talents is only found in Matthew. Gold and silver are mentioned 28 times in the Gospel of Matthew, but they’re only mentioned once in Mark and four times in Luke.The author also uses specific money-related terms the other gospels don’t mention, such as the two-drachma temple tax in 17:24 and the Greek word stater in 17:25.In the Lord’s Prayer, the author of Matthew says “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matthew 6:12), whereas the author of Luke says, “Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us” (Luke 11:4).This substitution—plus the prominence of money and tax-collecting themes—seems to suggest that the author understands the gospel through the world of finances—as we might expect of a tax collector-turned-disciple.Arguments against Matthew as the authorThe problem scholars have with Papias’ statement is that the work we call The Gospel of Matthew reads like a Greek original, not a translation.That being said, it is possible that Matthew wrote or compiled another work—possibly a collection of Jesus’ sayings or a complete gospel—in Hebrew or Aramaic, and then wrote a separate, original Greek edition later using the original as one of his sources.Greek was the ‘lingua franca’ of the day—most business was conducted in Greek—and a Jewish man working as a tax collector for the Roman government would likely have been proficient in both languages. So he had the language skills.However, most scholars believe the authors of Matthew and Luke wrote using Mark and some combination of other sources, and some believe Papias may be indicating that Matthew wrote one of these undiscovered source texts. This is not far-fetched. The majority of scholars agree there was an undiscovered source text they call “Q” of sayings of Jesus—the logia—used by the synoptic authors. That’s exactly what Papias says Matthew wrote—logia.A tax collector wouldn’t emphasize Jewish ritual or the Law.If the Gospel of Matthew was written by a tax collector, the gospel writer would not likely have such intimate knowledge of the Law as the author of Matthew had as tax collectors were religious outsiders. However, if Matthew was from a family of Levites, he would have been trained in Jewish Law and ritual from childhood.Most scholars believe Matthew borrowed material from Mark.Most scholars believe the author of Matthew used the Gospel of Mark as one of its sources. Since John Mark wasn’t an apostle, would Matthew the apostle, the eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry, use the written account of someone who wasn’t? It sounds pretty unlikely on the face of it, but it’s possible since there’s good reason to believe John Mark wrote Peter’s version of the events, which Matthew would certainly be willing to reference.Unfortunately, there isn’t enough evidence to prove or disprove Matthew’s authorship.Still, since the long-standing tradition says Matthew is the author of the gospel of Matthew, and since there is nothing to disprove that claim, it remains generally accepted.Who wrote the Gospel of Mark?Several early church fathers claim that the Gospel of Mark was written by a man named John-Mark—hereafter Mark—a companion of both Paul and Peter.According to Eusebius, Papias also claims that John “the Elder” (believed to be the apostle John) told him (Papias) that John Mark had written the gospel which bears his name.Let’s recap that:Eusebius (fourth century) tells us thatPapias (first–second century) said thatJohn the Elder (first century) told Papias thatMark wrote this gospel based onThe Apostle Peter’s memoriesIf that convoluted trail of information doesn’t convince you though, numerous other early church writers also claimed Mark wrote it, including Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Jerome. These writers add that Mark wrote the gospel using the eyewitness accounts of Peter.Some examples:“Having become the interpreter of Peter, Mark wrote down accurately whatever he remembered. However, he did not relate the sayings of deeds of Christ in exact order. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter. Now, Peter accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s saying. Accordingly, Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For one thing, he took special care not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.” – Papias (c. 120, E), 1.155, as quoted by Eusebius.“After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.” – Irenaeus (c.180, E/W), 1.414.“Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, begins his Gospel narrative in this manner.” – Irenaeus (c.180, E/W), 1.425.“Mark was the follower of Peter. Peter publically preached the Gospel at Rome before some of Caesar’s equestrian knights, and adduced many testimonies to Christ. In order that thereby they might be able to commit to memory what was spoken by Peter, Mark wrote entirely what is called the Gospel according to Mark.” – Clement of Alexandria (c.195, E), 2.573.“Such a ray of Godliness shown forth on the minds of Peter’s hearers, that they were not satisfied with a single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation. So, with all manner of entreaties, they pleaded with Mark, to whom the Gospel is ascribed (he being the companion of Peter) to leave in writing a record of the teaching that had been delivered to them verbally. And they did not let the man alone until they had prevailed upon him. And so to them, we owe the Scripture called the ‘Gospel of Mark.’ On learning what had been done, through the revelation of the Spirit, it is said that the Apostle was delighted with the enthusiasm of the men and approved the composition for reading in the churches. Clement gives the narrative in the sixth book of the Sketches.” – Eusebius, citing Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.579.The early church appears to have unanimously believed Mark was the writer of the Gospel of Mark, and no alternatives were ever proposed.While Scripture shows a strong association with Mark and Paul, there’s only one verse connecting Peter to someone named Mark, and that’s in 1 Peter 5:13 where Peter sends greetings from “my son Mark.” Some have argued that this is a different Mark (the name was very common), but given the early church’s explanation of Mark’s relationship to Peter, it’s probably safe to assume this Mark, and the Mark we see throughout Acts and Paul’s letters, are one and the same.He wasn’t an apostle, and probably wasn’t an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus, but he was close to one who was and received his memoirs.So we have good reason to believe Mark was in fact the author of the gospel that bears his name.What about the late dating of Mark?If Mark was written in AD 70, and the other Gospels were written later, doesn’t that mean that these other Gospels were too late to be written by eyewitnesses who actually knew Jesus? It would, probably, yes.For this we need to examine the reason why scholars think that the first Gospel was written in AD 70 because it isn’t based on evidence. It’s based on assumptions, and assumptions should always be held lightly.Historians are absolutely sure that in AD 70 the Jewish Temple was destroyed during the fall of Jerusalem. This event is predicted in Mark 13:2, Matthew 24:2, and Luke 21:6. That would mean Jesus made a prediction that was historically proven to come true.That would smack of the super-natural.So, in order to explain this phenomenon, skeptical scholars have been forced to assume that Jesus never made this prediction. I’m not guessing that they did this. Bultman stated it openly. It was a foundational assumption that nothing supernatural could be taken as factual.But isn’t that the very thing that skeptical scholars need to prove?Instead they moved the dating of Mark, Matthew, and Luke to a late time period just before the destruction of the temple, and say these men were then able—without supernatural aid—to see war coming. Then the authors put this prediction on the lips of Jesus to make him seem supernatural. (As though healings and miracles weren’t enough).The logic is as follows:Premise 1: The Gospels cannot be trusted because they were written several decades after Jesus’ death and are therefore legendary.Premise 2: This is because three of the four Gospels mention Jesus predicting an event (the temple’s destruction) that is known to have occurred 40 years after the supposed prediction.Premise 3: Jesus could not have made this prediction because that would be supernatural. Therefore the Gospels, which contain this prediction, were written just before or after the event occurred.Conclusion: Therefore, the Gospels cannot be trusted because they were written several decades after Jesus’ death and are therefore legendary.Aside from being circular and built on assumptions, I have always wondered about this theory—how well can the average person see war coming? We can know there are tensions and conflicts, but those don’t always lead to war, and even when we believe war is on the horizon, how could anyone foresee the total destruction Jesus describes? It seems very specific historically, so how could anyone have known such a thing would happen prior to it actually happening?How could they have been confident enough they were right to be wiling to put such a claim into the mouth of their revered leader? What if they turned out to be wrong? They could only have been genuinely sure after the fact, and if the gospels were written after such cataclysmic events—why don’t they mention it?In Luke’s Gospel he portrays Jesus as predicting the destruction of the temple, but Luke does not make that prediction come true in his sequel, the book of Acts. If Luke wrote Acts after the destruction of the temple it seems rather strange that he didn’t continue the story beyond Paul’s imprisonment in Rome and conclude his story with a fulfillment of the prophecy they were attributing to Jesus. That would certainly have made Jesus seem even more supernatural. Instead, Acts ends with Paul’s house arrest in Rome in AD 60-62.Continuing the story past Paul’s imprisonment would cause the story to also include Paul’s untimely death in AD 65—which is also not there. Since Luke was Paul’s traveling companion and friend, it would be expected that Luke would pay some kind of tribute to his fallen comrade— if he were writing the book of Acts 5 years after his death.As it is, Luke spends the last five chapters of Acts anticipating Paul’s trial before Caesar. He ends the book with no mention of what happened thereafter. That omission makes it seem much more likely that Luke finished the book before Paul had his trial and before he was beheaded in AD 65.Since Acts is the sequel to the Gospel of Luke, the gospel had to have been written before Acts—before 65 AD. That puts the writing of Luke before 62 and since Luke probably used Mark as a source, Mark had to be written before that. (This would mean Mark was written while Peter was still alive which is reconcilable with the other evidence if ‘exodus’ isn’t translated ‘death’.)This is less than thirty years after Jesus’ death.This would mean that both Mark and Luke were writing at the same time as the eyewitnesses—the contemporaries of Jesus—whom they interviewed for their Gospels were still living and speaking of what they had seen.Matthew and John were eyewitnesses themselves and therefore they based their Gospels on their own memories.Who wrote the Gospel of Luke?The early church credits the Gospel of Luke to Paul’s companion Luke. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and others all list him as the author. Luke is mentioned throughout Paul’s letters (Colossians 4:7–17, Philemon 24, and 2 Timothy 4:11), where we learn that he was a doctor.At the beginning of Luke, the author appears to claim not to be an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus, but rather, someone who has spoken to eyewitnesses and investigated their claims.Is there evidence of eyewitness testimony in the gospel writings?They say so.“For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Peter 1:16).Many have undertaken to compose an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by the initial eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account.. (Luke 1:1–3)“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, of the Word of life.” (1 John 1:1)“That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, … (1 John 1:3).“And he that saw it bears record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe” (John 19:35).“Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know” (Acts 2:22).This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are all witnesses.” (Acts 2:32)These claims are significant for two reasons: in Jewish culture, testimony by witnesses was required in a court of law, and in historical writing of this time, all ‘good history’ was based on eyewitness testimony. Ancient historians denigrated those who depended upon written sources only. These claims are meant to ensure veracity and historicity.Arguments againstHowever, some accuse these authors of knowingly lying—though no contemporary scholar that I know of does so because the remainder of the texts, especially Acts, and the record of their lives makes that an absurdity.Others have theorized they’re being “delusional.” The problem is that the resurrection appearances happened in different places, at different times, in different ways, so it would have to be a kind of bouncing-disappearing-reappearing kind of delusion—which doesn’t actually exist anywhere but on Star Trek.Then there are those who assert the Apostles were simply mistaken. They offer no explanation.Arguments forThe Gospels evidence a ‘literary device’ called an inclusio which refers to the bracketing of a passage in the Bible by similar phrases. Three of the four Gospels work quite deliberately with it. These sections are like quotes—and are meant to be taken together and not separated. It appears the author is putting his material together in a particular way in order to indicate the source of the story he is recording. Matthew does this with the Sermon on the Mount in chapter 5. This is an indication of eyewitness testimony.[3]Internal evidence shows details indicating an eyewitness account. For example, in the account of the storm at sea, (Mark 8:23-27) Mark gives details such as : ‘The waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full” and “he {Jesus} was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow”. This description is one of those unnecessary details often included by eyewitnesses.Another example is the account of the demon-possessed man in Mark 5:2-5. He describes how the man pulled apart his chains and broke them in pieces, and how he would cry out and cut himself with stones. The details do not seem contrived, but rather mentioned matter-of-factly, in passing, as someone who was giving on-the-scene recollections would.John mentions many historical and geographical details that would only be known by a personal witness living at the time and would probably be irrelevant to a later audience.There are a number of geographic locations referenced in John, including a dozen not mentioned in the other gospels, and he uses phrases such as “we went up to…” that indicate an accurate knowledge of local terrain. He mentions, among others, the Siloam Pool, and Jacob’s Well, and describes the Pool of Bethesda as having five porticoes (John 5:2). It was buried and lost for centuries and thought not to exist at all until the actual pool was unearthed, and sure enough, there were five porticoes.The details of the lives of the various people he mentions suggest first–hand knowledge.There are many more such examples.There is evidence of eyewitnesses in addition to the authors. All three Synoptic Gospels show “the women” as eye-witnesses. The gospels repeatedly make the women the subjects of verbs of seeing: they saw Jesus die, they saw his body laid in the tomb, they went on the first day to ‘see’ the tomb, they saw the stone rolled away, they saw the ‘young man’ sitting and the empty place where the body had been.However, the women named are not the same in each gospel. Each gospel names two or three women—but different women. It seems the evangelists writing the gospels were careful to name precisely and only the women who were known to them as witnesses and no others.Additional eye-witness evidence is connected to Simon of Cyrene. Mark names not only Simon but his two sons, Alexander and Rufus (15:21). Matthew and Luke omit the sons, showing that referencing his native place, Cyrene, was sufficient to identify him to their readers in Palestine. And while critics agree Mark’s naming of the sons presupposes that Mark expected his readers to know who they were, it still doesn’t explain why he named them.There does not seem to be a good reason other than that they were the ones there in Rome passing on their father’s testimony and the people Mark was writing to would have known that.So, yes, there is evidence of eyewitness testimony in all of the gospels.Who was Luke?Church tradition tells us that Luke was a converted Gentile, which scholars suggest is the reason Paul introduces him separately in Colossians 4:11–14, introducing his Jewish companions first.Being a Gentile would also explain why the author takes such an interest in how Gentiles respond to the gospel. Given his familiarity with the Hebrew Scriptures, however, some scholars speculate that Luke may have been a “God-fearer”—a Gentile who worshiped the God of Israel.For three main reasons, almost all scholars believe the Gospel of Luke was written by the same person who wrote Acts:Luke and Acts were written in the same style and express the same theologyBoth books are addressed to the same person—a man named TheophilusActs 1:1–2 appears to tie the two books to the same authorIf we can safely claim that the author wrote both books—which the vast majority of Bible scholars believe we can—then we can use Acts to learn more about the author of Luke.Acts strongly reinforces the author’s close connection to Paul, suggesting that he went with Paul on his second and third missionary journeys, and eventually accompanied him to Rome (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–21; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16). This close relationship and his involvement in Paul’s ministry could give the author of Luke grounds to say he has “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” (Luke 1:3).Luke and Acts both use specific medical terminology, which would appear to support the claim that Luke the physician is the author of both. In Luke 13:11-13, the Greek words Luke uses both to describe her condition (sugkuptousa) and the exact manner of Jesus’ healing (apolelusai, anorthothe) are medical terms.In Luke 14:1–4, Luke uses a word to describe the man in this passage that’s found nowhere else in the Bible: hudropikos. While this passage is the only place this word appears in the Bible, it’s a precise medical term frequently used in other texts—namely, the works of the renowned Greek physician, Hippocrates.The use of medically-accurate phrases and descriptions continues in Acts, such as Acts 28:8–9, where the writer uses puretois kai dusenterio sunechomenon to describe a man’s exact medical condition (“suffering from fever and dysentery”).Arguments against Luke as the authorThe main arguments against Luke as the author are the books’ portrayal of Paul and the theology presented therein. Some scholars claim that the theologies are different, and that the Paul we see in Acts is different from the Paul we see in his letters. The most apparent difference in the portrayal of Paul is his treatment of Judaizers. In Acts 21, a group of them tell Paul to participate in purification rituals to prove he still follows Jewish customs and will teach Gentiles to follow them as well—including Jewish food laws—and he complies.Paul is far less sympathetic with the Judaizers in his letters, and even calls out Peter for his hypocrisy. This could be a matter of timing—things could have gotten worse as time went by. And the Paul of the Epistles makes it clear that sometimes advancing the gospel requires conciliation and concessions (1 Corinthians 9:20).As for the differences in theology, most scholars would argue that the difference is not in the theology itself, so much as it is in theological emphasis, which can be attributed to each book’s different purpose.Other evidences against Luke are found in his supposed ‘errors.’However, evidence indicates Luke did the kind of careful methodical historical research that would be expected of a trained physician, and his historicity is well supported.Luke spoke of Philippi as a “district” of Macedonia. It was believed for a time that he erred because it was thought the Greek word meris did not mean “district.” Then the archaeological evidence showed “district” was correct.Luke referred to Lysanias the Tetrarch of Abilene in his Gospel. Because the only known Lysanias to historians was killed in 36 B.C., Luke was thought to be in error here too. Then an inscription was found bearing the name of Lysanias the Tetrarch dated between 14 and 29 A.D.Luke was thought to be wrong about the census taken at the time of Christ, because critics said there was no evidence of a census and that the governor called Quirinius was in power too late, 6 A.D., to be in his position at the time of Christ. They also stated that it was not required for the people to return to their birth homes.But there is evidence a census—not for taxation purposes—was taken around 3–2 BC for the purpose of the exaltation of Augustus to the “Pater Patriae.” This was a citizen registration for an oath of allegiance to the emperor. As descendants of the royal line of Judah, Joseph and Mary would both have been required to give that oath. At this time Quirinius would have possibly been a procurator and put in charge of this census. Luke does not actually give Quirinius’s title; the Greek word translated “governor” really means a “ruler” or “administrator” at any level; and Luke also does not state that paying taxes was the reason for the census. The Greek word there simply means “registered,” not “taxed.” [4]Luke referred to the Philippian officials as praetors, when some scholars thought the titles should be duumvirs, but archaeological finds showed that in fact praetors was the right title for the Roman magistrates of the colony.Luke used the title politarchs for the Thessalonian officials, but since this title was not found in the classical literature Luke was again assumed to be wrong. Then several inscriptions were found that used the title politarchs, and five of them referred to Thessalonica.So, did Paul's companion Luke write the Gospel of Luke?The overwhelming majority of Bible scholars say “yes.” Between the undisputed claims of early Christians, and the textual evidence pointing to someone like Luke, there’s little reason to believe this gospel was written by anyone else.Who wrote the Gospel of John?Of all the gospels, John comes closest to revealing the identity of its author. At the very end of the gospel, the author begins referring to one disciple as “the one whom Jesus loved,” and eventually suggests this disciple wrote the gospel:“Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, ‘Lord, who is going to betray you?’) When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?’Jesus answered, ‘If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.’ Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, ‘If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?’This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.” —John 21:20–24The author claims to be an eyewitnessThe writer of John claims to be an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus, and there’s good reason to believe that’s true. The gospel contains numerous details that appear incidental, some not even bearing any possible symbolic significance, yet evidence the presence of an eyewitness:The number of water jars at the wedding in Cana (John 2:6)How long the man at the Pool of Bethesda had been crippled (John 5:5)The name of the servant whose ear was chopped off by Peter (John 18:10)The number of fish the disciples caught at Galilee (John 21:11)These details are unimportant in themselves, and are not the kind of thing someone not familiar with the setting would tend to include.The author appears to be JewishThe writer of the Gospel of John also records numerous details about Jewish ceremonies and frequently uses Jewish festivals to show when events occurred. This could suggest he wasn’t a Gentile, but at the very least, he was intimately familiar with Jewish culture:He identifies the purpose of the water jars at the wedding in Cana (John 2:6)He notes that Jesus was in Jerusalem during the Passover (John 2:23)He mentions that Jesus fed the 5,000 near the Passover (John 6:4)He talks about the Festival of Tabernacles (John 7:2, 37)He specifies that it was the Festival of Dedication, where another writer might simply say “it was winter” (John 10:22)He records that Pilate handed Jesus over to be crucified on the day of Preparation for the Passover (John 19:14, 31)The writer also introduces Aramaic words like Rabbi, Rabboni, Messias, and Kēphas. The Gospel of John was once believed to be the “most Greek” of the gospels, but more recently some scholars have called it the “most Jewish,” for the reasons above.The Dead Sea Scrolls support the themes and imagery John uses, such as light vs. darkness, and the children of God vs. the children of Satan, which seems to support that the gospel emerged from a Jewish, rather than a Greek context.Arguments against John’s authorshipSome scholars propose that the textual evidence doesn’t necessarily point to John as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.”They say John would have had important information that isn’t recorded in the gospel. The gospel written by the disciple Jesus loved doesn’t include the main events where only Peter, James, and John were present—the raising of Jairus’ daughter, the transfiguration, or the prayer in Gethsemane. Plus, John followed Jesus from the beginning of his ministry (Mark 1:19), but the ‘disciple whom Jesus loved’ isn’t mentioned until the Last Supper (John 13:23).A fourth-century church historian says there were two Johns. We’re back to Eusebius and Papias. According to Eusebius, Papias claims that there were two men named John ministering in Ephesus (where the gospel is believed to have been written).Some have suggested that this “other John” wrote the gospel, but Papias’ actual words leave room for interpretation, and Eusebius may have been wrong about what Papias meant. Papias mentions John the apostle and John the Elder, both of which could refer to John the apostle. According to Papias’ words, all of the apostles were elders, so John the Elder can easily be John the apostle.So, did the apostle John write the book of John?Despite alternative theories about the “disciple whom Jesus loved”, most evidence still points to the apostle John.The early church father Irenaeus wrote, “afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.” Irenaeus lived in the second century, and claimed to receive this information from John’s disciple, Polycarp.The text seems to point to John, too. The disciple whom Jesus loved was clearly close to Peter:Peter asks him to ask Jesus a question (John 13:24)Peter and this disciple race to the tomb together (John 20:2-10)Peter is fishing with this disciple when Jesus appears to them on the shore (John 21:2)Peter swims to Jesus after this disciple identifies him (John 21:7)After Jesus hints at Peter’s death, Peter asks about this disciple (John 21:20-24)This close relationship supports the likelihood that this disciple was part of Jesus’ “inner circle” (Peter, James, or John). Since James is martyred early (Acts 12:1-5), and Peter died in the 60s, and since John is never mentioned by name in the whole book (which for anyone else would be a mistake), John is believed to be the most likely author.Were any of the authors of the gospels contemporaries of Jesus? If they were, did any of them know him personally?Matthew and John were contemporaries of Jesus who knew him and they are likely the authors of the gospels that bear their names.Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses themselves, but they obtained their information from those who were.Footnotes[1] http://Burridge, Richard A. (2004). What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (Second ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.[2] http://Knierim, Rolf (2000). "Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered". In Kim, Wonil; Ellens, Deborah L.; Floyd, Michael; Sweeney, Marvin A. (eds.). Reading the Hebrew Bible for a New Millennium: Form, Concept, and Theological Perspective. 2. Harrisburg, PA.: Trinity Press.[3] The Gospel of Matthew’s Use of Inclusio or Bracketing[4] The Census of Quintilius Varus

My interest in answering this arose from seeing the very interesting term ‘Triple Squeeze’. This answer is an attempt to trace the Indian-Indonesian and the Pakistani-Indonesian relations. Let me answer it in a timeline oriented way.A good time to start would be the Indonesian National Revolution. Just like the British were our colonizers, Indonesia was colonized by the Dutch. The Indonesian National Revolution was an armed conflict and diplomatic struggle between Indonesia and the Dutch empire, and an internal social revolution. It took place between Indonesia's declaration of independence in 1945 and the Dutch recognition of Indonesia's independence at the end of 1949. Before all this happened, the Japanese invaded Indonesia in 1942 and the Dutch colonial rule was ended. By 1945, when the World War II came to an end, the Japanese had to surrender, but the Dutch were severely weakened in the WWII and were in no position to come back as a serious military force until early 1946.This paved the way for the two most important nationalist leaders Sukarno and Mohammad Hatta to form the Republic of Indonesia. Since the Dutch were still not strong enough to return, the Allies decided to place the archipelago under the jurisdiction of British Admiral Earl Louis Mountbatten, the Supreme Allied Commander, South East Asia Command (the Americans were concentrating on the Japanese home islands) and the British troops started arriving from the end of 1945. The Dutch started arriving from early 1946 onwards. This led to a bloody struggle between the Republic of Indonesia and the Dutch - British forces. After 4 years of struggle, though the Dutch won the war in military terms, Indonesia ended up gaining Independence. Sukarno was the new leader of Indonesia.One of the key reasons for the Indonesian political victory in the Indonesian National Revolution was a defection in the British Indian army. Muhammad Ali Jinnah (who was at that time President of the All-India Muslim League - India and Pakistan were still not Independent nations) encouraged Muslim soldiers serving in British Indian army to join hands with Indonesians against their fight against the Dutch Imperial colonisation of Indonesia. As a result, 600-Muslim soldiers of the British Indian Army deserted the colonial forces putting their lot at stake, allied with Indonesians. Out of these 600 soldiers, 500 of them died in war. This is considered as a precursor for Pakistani-Indonesian relations. Please note that Sukarno was the leader of Indonesia during this period.After India got her Independence, India and Indonesia formally commenced diplomatic relations in 1951. In 1955, India (Jawaharlal Nehru) and Indonesia (Sukarno) were one of the five founding members of the Non Aligned Movement. Diplomatic relations between India and Indonesia, at this point of time, were pretty strong.Proceed to 1963, and Indonesia is involved in a confrontation with Malaysia. The Indonesian–Malaysian confrontation was a violent conflict from 1963–66 that stemmed from Indonesia's opposition to the creation of Malaysia. Please note that Sukarno was still very much the leader of Indonesia during that period. Now what happened was that New Delhi supported Malaysia morally during this struggle. India and Indonesia were less supportive of each other’s broader regional ambitions. When Indonesia sought to achieve regional hegemony in Southeast Asia by scuttling the creation of an independent Malaya, India gave Malaya significant support in various international forums as well as advocating a continuing security role for Great Britain in the region.The rivalry between India and Indonesia during the early 1960s was aggravated by Indonesia’s increasing tilt toward communist China, including the perceived formation of a China-Indonesia-Pakistan axis hostile to India. Indonesian President Sukarno’s growing radicalism led him to seek Chinese support against the “neo-imperialist” West and its Third World “lackeys,” which, for him, included India. When Sukarno stage-managed attacks by mobs on the Indian Embassy in Jakarta in 1962 and again in 1965, India responded with forbearance, downplaying suggestions that Indonesia presented a significant threat to India. This was not helped by the fact that when the Pakistani President Ayub Khan visited Indonesia, he launched an anti India tirade which was supported by Sukarno and Pakistani-Indonesian relations were at their peak. Relations between Nehru and Sukarno on the other hand, were deteriorating.Come the year 1965, and India is involved in a all out war against Pakistan. Since before the war, the People's Republic of China had been a major military associate of Pakistan and a military opponent of India, with whom it had fought a brief war in 1962. China had also become a foreign patron for Pakistan and had given Pakistan $60 million in development assistance in 1965. During the war, China openly supported the Pakistani position. It took advantage of the conflict to issue a strongly worded ultimatum to India condemning its "aggression" in Tibet and hinting at nuclear retaliation by China (China had exploded its first nuclear device the previous year). Despite strong fears of Chinese intervention on the side of Pakistan, the Chinese government ultimately exercised restraint. This was partly due to the logistical difficulties of a direct Chinese military intervention against India and India's improved military strength after its defeat by China in 1962. China had also received strong warnings by the American and Soviet governments against expanding the scope of the conflict by intervening. This was China’s role in the 1965 war.Now we’ve to trace the role of Indonesia. At this point of time Sukarno was still in power (We’ve traced the deterioration of the Indian-Indonesian ties in the earlier points and those points were the motive behind Sukarno’s support of Pakistan. There was also the pressure of the Chinese premier Chou En Lai on Sukarno to support Pakistan) Indonesia offered to provide Pakistan with military help, and 'to seize Andaman and Nicobar Islands' of India so as to distract it from the Kashmir front. In fact, the Indonesian threat to the Andaman Islands was a key reason why the Indian Navy remained in the Bay of Bengal during the 1965 war and failed to take offensive action against Pakistan. Actually, Indonesia at that time operated the largest Naval fleet in Southern hemisphere, much larger than Australian or even Brazilian navies combined at the same time. Unknown to most, the fleet comprised of Soviet made vessels like 12 Whiskey class submarines, a Sverdlov Cruiser (with an option of one more to be delivered), Riga Class frigates (7 of them), Skorry class destroyers (7 of them) and also operated a large fleets of western made Destroyers, submarine chasers, Corvettes and Frigates, especially from Germany, UK and Italy. On the request of Ayub Khan and the visit of Air Marshal Asghar Khan, Indonesian submarines and missile boats were routed to West Pakistan (there was an agreement to send MiG planes too), but by the time they arrived, the war had ended. This was the Indonesian role in the war of 1965.It was at the peak of the war that India sought covert United States help to tackle the ‘triple squeeze’ of 1965. The word ‘triple squeeze’ was used in PM Lal Bahadur Shastry’s letter requesting for help.Just as the Indo-Pak war ended, there were major events happening in Indonesia. The Indonesian killings of 1965–1966 were large-scale killings which occurred in Indonesia over many months, targeting communists, ethnic Chinese and alleged leftists, often at the instigation of the armed forces and government. Initially it began as an anti-communist purge following a controversial coup by the army in Indonesia. The purge was a pivotal event in the transition to the "New Order" and the elimination of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) as a political force. The upheavals led to the downfall of President Sukarno and the commencement of Suharto's three-decade dictatorship.Though Indonesia has a predominantly Muslim population - approx. 90% - and is a member of the OIC, it’s stance towards India began to change after Suharto came to power. Upon assuming power, Suharto government adopted policy of neutrality in the Cold War, but was nevertheless quietly aligned with the Western bloc (including Japan and South Korea) with the objective of securing support for Indonesia's economic recovery. Western countries, impressed by Suharto's strong anti-communist credentials, were quick to offer their support. Diplomatic relations with China were suspended in October 1967 due to suspicion of Chinese involvement in 30 September Movement (diplomatic relations was only restored in 1990).Chinese political influence in Indonesia was swept away, and Jakarta moved quickly to repair damaged relations with India. Indonesia, in fact, effectively ceased to pursue hegemony over maritime Southeast Asia and instead backed the creation of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Indonesia also withdrew its military support for Pakistan and backed India’s claims over Kashmir. Indonesia and India began sharing the view that China constituted the most significant threat to the region.Before I move onto present day, I could write a lot about what happened to India-Indonesian relations in the meantime, the influence of the Cold War, the Chinese effect, India’s ‘Look East’ policy, etc. but it would suffice to say that though there were ups and downs, the relations were good, by and large. The Pakistan-Indonesian ties were good too.Present day situation - The ties between Pakistan and Indonesia, based on history, religion and good rapport between high level leaders, continues from strength to strength as indicated by the US$1 billion bilateral trade, defence cooperation and humanitarian cooperation. But Jakarta only stands to lose if it supports Islamabad at the cost of antagonizing New Delhi - which is an influential regional power, second only to China, and a fast rising world power. So the leaders of India and Indonesia have identified common concerns and the relations are pretty strong as of now. There is still tremendous potential for Indian investment in Indonesia, the sale of Indonesian agricultural products to India - bilateral trade, the common goal of alleviating the Chinese threat - String of Pearls, defence industry cooperation, cooperation in combating Islamic extremism, maritime security cooperation in the Andaman sea and security in the Malacca Straits. The Indian-Indonesian ties are slowly but surely improving in all these areas. There are a lot of similarities in the strategic perspectives of the two nations. As Srinivasan Ranganathan mentions in the comments, “There are a few other interesting facts. Ramayana and Mahabarata are among the two top epics in Indonesia in spite of the fact that over 98% of the population are Muslim. Again, Indonesian airlines is called Garuda from the Ramayana and right in the middle of their main thoroughfare Sudirman in Jakarta there is a statue of Krishna on a chariot giving the Geeta upadesam to Arjuna. A testimony to the religious tolerance of the Indonesians. The people love Indian films and they enjoy watching the dubbed versions of Indian movies almost 5 days a week”Edit 1:As unearthed by Animesh Panda (अनिमेष पंडा) (Thank You!), former Odisha CM Biju Patnaik had an interesting role to play in the Indonesian Freedom struggle.Biju Patnaik met with Jawaharlal Nehru during his participation in Indian freedom struggle and became one of his trusted friends. Nehru viewed the freedom struggle of the Indonesian people as parallel to that of India, and viewed Indonesia as a potential ally. When the Dutch attempted to quell Indonesian independence on 21 July 1947, President Sukarno ordered Sjahrir, the former prime minister of Indonesia, to leave the country to attend the first Inter-Asia Conference, organised by Nehru, in July 1947 and to foment international public opinion against the Dutch. Sjahrir was unable to leave as the Dutch controlled the Indonesian sea and air routes. Nehru asked Biju Patnaik, who was adventurous and an expert pilot, to rescue Sjahrir. Biju Patnaik and his wife flew to Java and brought Sultan Sjahrir out on a Dakota reaching India via Singapore on 24 July 1947. For this act of bravery, Patnaik was given honorary citizenship in Indonesia and awarded the 'Bhoomi Putra', the highest Indonesian award, rarely granted to a foreigner. In 1996, when Indonesia was celebrating its 50th Independence Day, Biju Patnaik was awarded the highest national award, the 'Bintang Jasa Utama'.Edit 2:Dr Milind Narendra Ovalekar had this story to add:The Chinese coast guard ships continue to harass Indonesian patrol vessels who in turn are trying to stop illegal Chinese fishing trawlers in Indonesian waters - another reason as to why Indonesia cannot afford to antagonize India.If need be, please have a look at the comments for links to some sources.