Why does Luke get a whole book?

There was no Luke or John or Matthew or Mark

The Early Bishops of Rome during the 2nd thru 5th Centuries assembled whatever writing aided their cause. Editing, translating, redactions and outright inventions certainly took place.

There was no Mark or John or Luke or Matthew. These are the names assigned to the Gospels by the Bishops. It was as if they wanted to cite a "third party". "I did not say that, John said that!"

"It is written!" was the authority.

The Gospel writers are anonymous: An author is not named in the Matthew text. The superscription "according to Matthew" was added some time in the second century.

Iranaieus, Bishop of Lugdunum, circa 202 CE, declared that there must be only four Gospels, not 5 not 3, because there are four corners to the Earth.

The repeated editing, translating, redacting and outright forgery continued for over a thousand years. The printing press put an end to it.

The New Testament is an anthology, a collection of Christian works written in the common Greek language of the first century, at different times by various writers, who were early Jewish disciples of Jesus (ie: Matthew, a tax collector and Luke, a physician). John wrote 5 books in the New Testament and was widely known amongst Jesus' followers as "Jesus' favourite disciple".

In almost all Christian traditions today, the New Testament consists of 27 books. The original texts were written in the first and perhaps the second centuries of the Christian Era, generally believed to be in Koine Greek, which was the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean from the Conquests of Alexander the Great (335–323 BC). All of the works which would eventually be incorporated into the New Testament would seem to have been written no later than around AD 150, and some scholars would date them all to no later than AD 70 or AD 80.

Collections of related texts such as letters of the Apostle Paul (a major collection already compiled by the early 2nd century) and the Canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (asserted by Irenaeus of Lyon in the late-2nd century as the Four Gospels) gradually were joined to other collections and single works in different combinations to form various Christian canons of Scripture. Over time, some disputed books, such as the Book of Revelation and the Minor Catholic (General) Epistles were introduced into canons in which they were originally absent.

The New Testament consists of:

► four narratives of the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus, called "gospels" (or "good news" accounts);

► a narrative of the Apostles' ministries in the early church, called the "Acts of the Apostles" - written by the same writer as the Gospel of Luke, which it continues;

► twenty-one letters, called "epistles" in the biblical context, written by various authors, and consisting of Christian doctrine, counsel, instruction, and conflict resolution;

► an Apocalypse (the Book of Revelation) which is a book of prophecy, containing some instructions to seven local congregations of Asia Minor, but mostly containing prophetical symbology, about the end times.

Two books if you count Acts, 1/4 of the new testament. Perhaps he had something important to say that made it worth including.

Brevity was not a concern. The scribe would just have to work a month or two longer to transcribe, eh.

First of all, what is your definition of "disciple''?

The primary consideration in deciding if a book should be in the canon was 'inspiration.' The powers that be decided the book was inspired.

You are just figuring out the Bible is messed up?

Here is what I have learned from both sides of the fence. The universe is about 14.5 billion years old. While God did create it, he also used science to seed life here and watch it develop. He provided some spiritual direction in as much as he inspired some holy men to write things down that we now call a Bible. Sadly many have corrupted the Bible which has led to Atheism. Also religion and its leaders have led many away from their spiritual side instead of seeing the bigger picture. The flood was only in the area of Mesopotamia where man resided. There is a God and he truly is a God of love. He has lovingly given us free will so we may learn, develop and grow as a species. Everyone wants to blame him when they suffer problems from their own bad decisions. They forget to thank him for all he has done when things go right. He is so very forgiving and really wants the best for all of us. But if he rescues us from our problems we will not learn to solve them on our own. He will help you if you ask him for help but because so many do not believe him they do not see it when he helps them. He wants all the souls to return to him, the source of our life. The only way to do that is by showing unconditional love to one another.

None of the gospels were written by disciples. The names were attached decades later and scholars regard them as pious fiction. None of them are written in the first person and none have personal recollections anyway.

The authors of the four canonical gospels were ALL anonymous (the names weren't added until 180 CE by church "father" Irenaeus), they were ALL written decades after Jesus died, and NOT one of them knew Jesus or anyone who new Jesus.

More here:

http://stuffconcerningstuff.blogspot.com/2015/03/m...

The Romans took the accounts of Jesus' life that painted the picture THEY wanted, and put them together to form a mythbook.

He could not get it in piece-meal. It cannot be broken piece by piece. It can also not be fragmented.

Yeah St. Luke the Evangelist was a disciple of Jesus (Christian) he was a physician that lived in Antioch and was a follower of St. Paul. Some claim he was one of the 72 disciples of Jesus but I find this hard to believe because his residence was in Antioch not in Jerusalem. Some also believe St. Luke the Evangelist was a Hellenistic Jew but again tradition states he was a Gentile (Non-Jew).