Embellishments in the Gospel of Mark.

[Drich]

we know luke's work where complete by then as he was apart of Pauls efforts as paul mentions luke several times

Problem with that argument is that Paul mostly mentions Luke in Deutero-Paulines and Pseudo-Paulines, meaning not written by Paul but forgeries - so there is no point talking about them.

Now, Paul does mention certain Luke in one of, what is considered, his works and that is Epistle to Philemon 1:23–24, but it only says that some Luke along with Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, and Demas, is said to be sending his greetings to Philemon, there is no reason to put much trust of who that Luke was. Not to mention that nowhere in Acts or Luke does the author claim to be a companion of Paul and if that Luke was with Paul and Paul's student he probably wouldn't disagree with Paul's theology, either.

Never read the book of acts have you? 

If you had you would see a professionalism almost a duty to history up until the point where Luke begin to describe who paul is up until his planning of his mission trip to Rome where the book ends but history shows he was executed. In the introduction of Paul there is far too much day to day knowledge for luke to be an observer or passer by. Luke from his detailed account in acts conclusively shows he knew paul or was a companion of paul. Not to mention Luke's work here in acts establishes who this man is by being able to record his thoughts fears and aspirations. again look at the beginning of the book of acts and luke does not pretend to assume to know what peter feels or thinks. However with paul his whole person is displayed on page.

Not to mention where or the source material of Luke's gospel, Many believe luke's gospel to be the gospel of Paul because of his closeness to him and subsequent service to paul after his commission to theopliphus was complete. which by any account put the bookof luke first by decades because again the book of luke need be completed before he was allowed to record the book of acts. Like it or not pretend it is not in the bible all you want but the staunch truth is Paul does indeed identify luke specifically which is not a hebrew name, it is a rare name as it describes an italian district. Not just in the philomone letter but his letter to timothy, and in colossians which of the 3 sources is the only one contested, and by contested content is not being contested but who physically wrote the letter. Paul himself admits to using dictation/scribes to pen down his teaching or letters because of failing eyesight. (thorn in the flesh) the content is not in question because the letters meet all the other criteria of an authentically written epistle.

in essence all the stuff I said luke included as in the way of thoughts and feelings of paul which is an ear mark of paul's direct hand in writting is missing in the disputed letters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship...e_epistles

Which if you are going to argue the disputed letters of paul you must accept why they are disupted which again only strengthens the case I am making for the record of luke in acts,which btw is another form of disputing the letters of which paul was supposed to have written like thess book 3 this was not i the bible because Luke records Pauls doing something else at the time this letter was supposed to been written.

Again which point to the book of luke having to have been completed before any of his work in acts which point even futher back