"The bible test" Answered.

[Aractus]

No you did not disprove anything you made a counter claim, that's it. To dis-PROVE is to provide evidence to the contary. Because you left no evidence, and only made the counter claim stating luke's work in his two book 'volume wise' exceeded or matched paul's work, means nothing.

Paul did write 2/3's of the total books of the NT. Or perhaps I should have said Paul is responsiable for 2/3's of the books in the NT. Their are 27 books in the NT, 13 of which he was directly credited to him. (by his own hand or scribe) The writtings of Luke can also be ascribed to Paul because Luke was Paul's desciple. Luke did not experience what He recorded in His Gospel, he got his gospel from his mentor and those Paul worked with. It is also unclear whether or not He was present at the establishment of the Chuirch (the first part of Acts.)

Eitherway without Paul 2/3's of the NT as we know it would be different or just missing.

That's bullshit.

You're making it up as you go along. Luke's writings are not based on Paul's, they write independent to each other. Furthermore, Luke also probably knew St. Peter, if true then it disproves the theory that Peter died in the 60's AD around the same time as Paul, and wold mean that Peter would have met his death no later than c.55 AD.

But you know, even if he didn't know Peter, he knew other early church figures and he himself was present at the events he describes from Acts 12 on. That means he's recording his own experiences from there on, and doesn't need to rely on anybody else.

The Gospel of Luke is based on Mark and the gospel of Matthew and at least one other written source. Or it is based on Mark and a Q document, either way he uses the writings of Mark extensively and this has nothing to do with Paul. He addresses his books to Theophilus, who has no connection that we know about to Paul.

I'll post back later and disprove what you claim about works/Paul.