Illiterate men.

[Drich]

Please state your source because all I have read point to his death being anywhere from 64-68AD by execution of the Emperor Nero.

From the catholic encyclopedia:

The task of determining the year of St. Peter's death is attended with similar difficulties. In the fourth century, and even in the chronicles of the third, we find two different entries. In the "Chronicle" of Eusebius the thirteenth or fourteenth year of Nero is given as that of the death of Peter and Paul (67-68); this date, accepted by Jerome, is that generally held.
http://www.catholic-saints.info/patron-s...t-paul.htm


Paul died in 64 AD
Date of Death: Saint Paul died in A.D. 64

Cause of Death: Beheaded
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm

These are the points i am making:
peter died after Paul. (It makes no difference when because

Luke was a disciple of Paul.
Mark was a disciple of peter.

Luke's works to Theoplus were complete before he could go on to be a disciple of Paul. This means the book of Luke/Acts was well before Paul's Death in 64 AD.

Peter did not die till after 67-68 AD. We know his book/The book of Mark was not complete till after Peter's death.

Again their exact deaths are irrelevant even if they died on the same day as some believe, Luke's work to theolopus (The book of Luke and the book of acts) would have been completed before then, and the book of Mark was not completed till some time after Peter's death.

That makes the rest of your post irrelevant when speculating the book of Luke as being copied from the book of Mark.

Because I believe that your date for Peter's death is implausible, let's take the worst case scenario (in your eyes) and say he died in 64AD. This gives a 3 year gap where Luke could have written his Gospel and then joined forces with Paul after Mark had been penned down (according to your theory of when Mark was penned down). This would perfectly explain Luke 1:1-4:

[1]Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us
-Implicitly saying that Mark was written already.

[2]just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us
-Explicitly saying that these writings have been passed around.

[3]it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write and orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus
-Explicitly saying he is writing his own Gospel like others have.

[4]that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught
-Not sure what he means here. Possible saying he will confirm the content of the Gospel of Mark(?)

As explained when you first brought up this passage and point. The only "words" available to the first century believers was the words of the prophets/the OT. (That is why Paul only quotes from the OT) Luke sees his obligation as important if not more so to record the events of Christ with the same dedication and attention to detail as the OT prophets took upon themselves.

At best your argument here points to lost gospels of Christ. For we know without doubt that Luke was written before Mark. Since we can also prove the rest of the accounts come after Mark this would indicate an unknown gospel account.. Lest you think the four we have were the only four ever written.