A.S.K. your way to proof.

[Bucky Ball]

Again belief and salvation is a seperate act from what i am purposing here.

my interpretation is a straight reading of luke i am reading off page in context and relaying the information almost word for word. there is no magic there is not combining verses/scrap book theology it is a straight read.

all scholars of note not luke wrote luke and the book of acts as the are both signed by luke. luke being a 3rd party non religious observer, and slave to theophilus.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/luke.cfm

Wrong. Only far right fundy literalists claim Luke wrote Luke. The gospels were anonymous for decades if not centuries. As I said, you are no scholar, you have no training, and you are totally unaware of scholarship concerning all the Bible, including the NT. It's one of the things that rings so hollow with you. You really have no clue what you are talking about.  https://ehrmanblog.org/problems-luke-aut...e-members/ 
" However, the earliest manuscripts are anonymous, and the traditional view has been challenged by many modern scholars."
Metzger, Bruce; Coogan, Michael (1993). The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 'Acts of the Apostles', "Luke, The Gospel According to".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship...%80%93Acts
Your interpretation is nothing but your uneducated opinion. It's worthless, AND you have not established its authority. Pasting a link from some fundy web-site is evidence of nothing. The fact is you are not EVEN conversant with problems and issues freshman Bible students learn in Bible 101. It's very typical of ignarants who want to play preacher on the internet. With every post you write, you show us how little you actually know about your cult and it's literature.

No one cares what you're "purposing" here. BTW it's proposing. No one takes seriously what an illiterate writes. It's an indication of how generally uneducated you actually are, and evidence you are suffering from Dunning-Krueger.