Have you ever considered this:
Tradition says that Luke, the physician and traveling companion of Paul, wrote the “Gospel according to Luke”, the fourth gospel in the Christian New Testament. The overwhelming majority of conservative Christians believe the authorship of the Gospel of Luke by Luke the physician is indisputable fact based on vague statements by Papias in 130 AD and by Irenaeus’ declaration of their traditional authorship in 180 AD, one hundred and fifty years after the alleged events.
Conservative Christians also believe that the four Gospels are eyewitness accounts. They believe that the Gospels of Matthew and John were written by two of Jesus’ disciples, and the Gospels of Mark and Luke, by close associates of eyewitnesses.
In the case of the Gospel of Luke, conservative Christians believe that Luke wrote down his account of the life of Jesus and the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus by receiving this information from Paul. But,…the problem is…Paul was not an eyewitness to the Resurrection! Christians can say that Paul received his information directly from Jesus in one of Paul’s visions, such on his intergalactic trip to the Third Heaven, but even so, that still does not make Paul an eyewitness to the Resurrection. It is much more likely that if Paul did tell Luke these accounts of Jesus’ life that Paul received this information from someone else. The question is, from whom? From an eyewitness? Or, from someone who heard it from someone, who heard it from someone, who heard it from someone, etc., etc..
Therefore, if Luke the physician wrote the Gospel according to Luke, he wrote it based on, at best, third hand information. This is not eyewitness testimony.
“Unless Luke received the information from a true eyewitness, such as one of the disciples,” conservative Christians will say.
Ok. Let’s look at that. Luke claims to have received his information from accounts “handed on to us” from eyewitnesses (see passage below). What does this mean? Did one or more of the original disciples of Jesus give this information directly to Luke or did someone give Luke information, that someone had given him, that someone had given him, that someone had given him, etc., with each person in this succession of “telling”, saying that the information came originally from an apostle?
“Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus” (Luke 1:1-3).
If Luke’s source was an actual apostle or several apostles, why did Luke need to “investigate” his source(s)? Why would a non-apostle and a non-witness need to investigate his sources if his sources were eyewitness Apostles speaking the inspired Word of God?
And even more bizarre is this: Why would Luke need to do an investigation of his sources and of the facts, if, God himself were the real author of this book??? Is that how inspiration works?: Man does all the research and vetting of sources, then God comes along at the end and stamps the final product with his seal of approval???
Ridiculous. Sounds like a collection of folk tales to me, folks.
Bottom line, Christians must remove the Gospel of Luke from their list of “eyewitness accounts” of the alleged supernatural event of Jesus of Nazareth’s resurrection. At best, it is hearsay.