Who wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles?

 The Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles

First: The Gospel of Luke was written at the end of the first century AD or the beginning of the second century. The author is unknown, but the testimonies of the Church Fathers from the middle of the second century say that Luke was a disciple of Paul.
The testimony of the Church Fathers mentioned is the oldest from the middle of the second century AD, that they waited about 60 years to say that Luke was a disciple of Paul.
Why do you accept this testimony and reject their testimony that most of them rejected the Second Epistle of Peter or the Second and Third Epistles of John or the Book of Revelation?
Second: Luke took from sources, namely source Q and source L, as we mentioned when discussing the Gospel of Matthew.
Third: Luke wrote the two books, the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, addressing them to a person who is believed to have been a ruler or administrator named Theophilus, so they are considered historical books addressed to a person, so how can they be considered a holy book!!?
Fourth: Luke says that he followed the news carefully before writing, because many wrote stories before him, so where is the inspiration and its role in those who followed the news to write and transfer from previous sources!!??

We leave you with the quotes that show what was mentioned above.


1 - Modern interpretation of the Bible - Gospel of Luke. Image 1.
(I suggested three dates for writing the book) .... The date is unknown as usual.
2 - Modern interpretation of the Bible - Gospel of Luke. Image 2.
(The writer is Luke addressing the book to Theophilus) .... What does this have to do with a holy book that is said to be inspired by God!?.
3 - Modern interpretation of the Bible - Gospel of Luke. Image 3.
(Evidence that Luke was the writer - from a heretical writer in the middle of the second century - and from the Mortuary Canon at the end of the second century and from the testimony of the fathers at the end of the second century)
(As for those who rejected attributing it to Luke on the basis that this is a guess, the response is very weak, as the response says that Luke was not a prominent disciple to attribute the two works to him, so it would have been better to attribute them to one of the prominent disciples)
They follow nothing but conjecture.
4 - Explanation of the Gospel of Luke - Ibrahim Saeed - Image 4.
(The historical evidence that Luke is the author is derived from the sayings of Justinus, Irianus, Tertullianus, Origen, Eusebius, and Irenaeus)
Of course, readers will be silent and say that this is strong evidence, but let us review the dates of those mentioned to know the accuracy of their testimony:

Justinus, mid-second century - Irianus, mid-second century - Tertullian, early third century - Origen, early third century - Eusebius, fourth century - Irenaeus, fourth century.
Does the dates of their testimony, at least 70 years after the writing of the Gospel, mean that it is correct to attribute it to him and mean that its author is known!??
And why do you accept their testimony and reject their testimony that most of them rejected the Second Epistle of Peter or the Second and Third Epistles of John or the Book of Revelation?

5 - The beginning of the Gospel of Luke - Image 5.
(Many wrote - I followed things - I also saw - that I should write to you, my dear Theophilus) Where is the inspiration and where is the holiness?

6 - The cultural background of the New Testament - The Gospel of Luke - Image 6 -
(It was suitable for a good historian) ... There is no disagreement that it is a historical writing, but considering it a holy book by divine inspiration is a clear fabrication and attributing historical writings sent to a specific person as the words of God and by divine inspiration.
Human historical writings, there is no disagreement about that, but the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Book are rejected in form, content and reason.
7 - Interpretation of the Gospel of Luke - William Barclay - p. 11 - Image 7.
(Luke followed the news accurately and had a good opportunity to listen to the stories to write)
We do not object that it is a historical book, along with the Acts of the Apostles - and they have no relation to divine inspiration.
8 - The Jesuit translation of the Holy Bible - Image 8.
(Luke used materials for his writing - he made a great effort in processing the materials he received) -

9 - The Jesuit translation of the Holy Bible - Image 9.
(Irianus's testimony that the writer is Luke, a companion of Paul, is not conclusive - he does not know the geography of Palestine) -
Where is the evidence that Luke was a companion of Paul?
Where is the evidence for inspiration with errors in geography?

10 - Bart Ehrman - New Testament.
Luke: Luke was probably written around 80-85 AD by a Greek-speaking Christian living outside Palestine. His sources included Mark, Q, and L.

Ultimately, the Gospel of Luke and Acts are historical books, which required research and scrutiny from the writer, yet they made geographical errors.
Testimonies about the author are late and uncertain.
Those who testified to the author testified that other works of the New Testament were not canonical and their testimony was not taken.
Where is the divine inspiration?

Sometimes some philosophers respond that their inspiration is a dynamic inspiration, moving people to guide them to do something but leaving them to scrutinize and search and perhaps make mistakes.
If this is the case, then there is no objection, but the product would not be by divine inspiration.
This is about there being a Holy Spirit who moved them from the beginning to write!

Where is the inspiration in Luke and Acts?