A Flood of Nonsense

[PruePhillip]

Biblical scholars disagree about the circumstances of Saint Luke's death. Most Catholic scholars contend that he either died at the age of 84 in Greece, while many Orthodox scholars assert that he was martyred after the death of Saint Paul.
How Did the Apostle Luke Die? | Reference.com
www.reference.com/world-view/did-apostle-luke-die-253b93dbd41378c3

I have listening to lectures on Postmodernism and Marxism from Nietzsche's
perspective about the "death of God"
You can't help but develop a healthy suspicion of "scholars" or "scribes" as
they are called in the bible.
My browser reduced this link to a single word column - need to update stuff
here. But no matter - no doctrine is as removed from its foundational tenants
as Catholicism.
IMO Luke died with Paul. Peter died at this time also, so the early Christian
preachers (far removed from Cardinals and Popes of the RCC interpretation)
were getting it in the neck. And Luke would have been a condemned man
also. The prisoners on that boat to Rome - some others could have been
Christians also.
No writer mentioned the sack of Jerusalem. The end of the temple was a
seriously big thing to these preachers who rejected the temple, the altar
and the priesthood (reinvented by the RCC) and believed God would
bring all that to an end. As He did.
I am happy with Luke the idea that Luke hurried to finish his Acts as he
knew, like Paul, that he was about to die.

 

[sooda]

I have listening to lectures on Postmodernism and Marxism from Nietzsche's
perspective about the "death of God"
You can't help but develop a healthy suspicion of "scholars" or "scribes" as
they are called in the bible.
My browser reduced this link to a single word column - need to update stuff
here. But no matter - no doctrine is as removed from its foundational tenants
as Catholicism.
IMO Luke died with Paul. Peter died at this time also, so the early Christian
preachers (far removed from Cardinals and Popes of the RCC interpretation)
were getting it in the neck. And Luke would have been a condemned man
also. The prisoners on that boat to Rome - some others could have been
Christians also.
No writer mentioned the sack of Jerusalem. The end of the temple was a
seriously big thing to these preachers who rejected the temple, the altar
and the priesthood (reinvented by the RCC) and believed God would
bring all that to an end. As He did.
I am happy with Luke the idea that Luke hurried to finish his Acts as he
knew, like Paul, that he was about to die.

Luke did most of his writing from Antioch. He didn't know anything about the geography of Palestine.

Gospel of Luke

St. Luke the Evangelist - AD 1-300 Church History Timeline
https://www.christianity.com/.../timeline/1-300/st-luke-the-evangelist-11629578.html
St. Luke preached the gospel with great success in a variety of places, independent of his assisting St. Paul. He traveled into different parts of Egypt and Greece, in the latter of which countries the idolatrous priests were so incensed against him that they put him to death, which they effected by hanging him on the branch of an olive-tree.

 

[PruePhillip]

Luke did most of his writing from Antioch. He didn't know anything about the geography of Palestine.

Gospel of Luke

St. Luke the Evangelist - AD 1-300 Church History Timeline
https://www.christianity.com/.../timeline/1-300/st-luke-the-evangelist-11629578.html
St. Luke preached the gospel with great success in a variety of places, independent of his assisting St. Paul. He traveled into different parts of Egypt and Greece, in the latter of which countries the idolatrous priests were so incensed against him that they put him to death, which they effected by hanging him on the branch of an olive-tree.

We don't know anything about this author - other than he was with Paul,
read Matthew and Mark, knew lots of people connected to Jesus, was
a prolific writer and observer and went to Rome at a time when Christians
were being murdered by Nero.
It doesn't matter - if it did we would have spades of information on the man.
He saw himself as being insignificant in the great scheme of things. Which
is good. What is important is to read and take on board what he wrote.