Understanding the bible

[Epimethean]

Plutarch makes reference to gods as a plural, refers to Apollo as the greatest of the gods, then later suggests it is Zeus, and allows that demi-gods exist. This alone is sufficient to suggest that he is not in any fundamental way a christian, nor aligned with the christian program of thought; but further, Plutarch never makes reference to christ. At best approximation to christianity, Plutarch is a Platonist, and this, combined with his temporal overlap with the writers of the NT, sees him conflated with their number, but it is not through any set of facts and rather, through that most beloved of christian tools, through the very absence of facts to support the contention.

I wouldn't say there's an absence of facts. The 'Luke' that scholars describe and the 'Lucius' that historians (and Lucius' own works) describe are almost the same person: well travelled historians who used 'medical' terms but most likely not doctors by profession. Another key piece of the puzzle is given by the start of Luke 1 when he confesses that he has used other sources as the basis of his work. Assuming that Mark was the first written, it can be said that he was referring to Mark.

http://www.carrington-arts.com/cliff/JOEGOS4.htm

As it seems, Mark, Matthew and Luke seem to parallel the writings of Joseph ben Matityahu (Matthew) or better known as Josephus. So I think there's some reason to think Plutarch, whose works are similar in style to Luke-Acts, borrowed from Josephus who may also be involved.

This is only the tip of the iceberg though. I'm planning on writing a concise paper on my theory after my university exams are over in 3 weeks.

Good luck with that. You'll need to be able to read Greek (or use drich's whizbang set of concordances), and will need a Classics and history background as well as a solid grounding in theology, and then, the best you'll do is what Gott's already done, which is piece together parts of a puzzle with blank cardstock and a sharpie. I think you are looking for things that are not there, and the evidence points away from Plutarch, who, as a priest of Apollo and someone truly steeped in the Greco-Roman traditions, reveres the Greco-Roman ideals of what the gods were. Your biggest problem is motivation: Plutarch would have had no motivation to write such stuff. By the way, Plutarch does not describe himself in any detail. Your contention that the author of Luke admits to using other sources means nothing by way of pointing to Plutarch, and only suggests that the author borrowed from other work. By the way, Plutarch is not much of a historian but rather a biased biographer.