There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[Brian2]

So, when you look to Luke 1.1 as evidence of a tradition grounded on eyewitness testimony, you are arguably relying on

1. an anonymous Gentile author
2. writing primarily to a Gentile audience
3. decades after the storied life of Jesus,
4. an apologist who is making an ambiguous claim*
5. in a verse that some believe to be a later anti-Marcionite addition.

(* the reference to unnamed but presumed folk - people he does not even claim to have met - who were presumably "eyewitnesses and servants of the word" seems exceedingly poor evidence.)

There are always going to be arguments of the late writing and alternative authorship. And the opinions of people opposed to the traditions of the Church will always be picked up on by others opposed to those traditions and used as if they were facts.
Iranaeus of Lyons and the Muratorian Canon seem late attestations to the authorship of the gospels but there were plenty of quotes from writings earlier than that, which show what New Testament books were known and used.

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Ignatius

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament

www.ntcanon.org

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Polycarp

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament

www.ntcanon.org

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Marcion

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament

www.ntcanon.org

Even Paul is said to have quoted from the gospel of Luke and alluded to it as authoritative/scripture (1Tim 5:18)
So there is plenty of evidence of an early writing for Luke's gospel and there is plenty of internal evidence for the authorship of Luke.
Was it necessary for the early Christians, who probably knew the authors, to add an attestation to that at the start of the gospels. It seems it could have become necessary in the latter half of the 2nd century before that knowledge died out.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, because once again, NOBODY HAS EVER DEMONSTRATED THE EXISTENCE OF SUPERNATURAL ANYTHING.

Therefore, you can't posit it as an explanation for anything. It's not in the running until you can show it actually exists in the first place.
It doesn't provide one iota of explanatory power either.

I've been explaining this to you for years, at this point. And here you are just repeating the same thing you've been saying since Day 1.

Maybe it is because you are a skeptic thinker that you cannot see that the experiences of people in life and in history can be evidence for the supernatural.

 

[1213]

Mark was the first written (as was first noted by German textual critics at the end of the 18th century). At Mark 13:2 Jesus "predicts" the destruction of Jerusalem, meaning Mark was written after 70 CE. (The author of Matthew copies Mark but specifies the Temple (Matthew 24:2). Mark's trial scene before Pilate is modeled on Josephus' account of the trial of Jesus of Jerusalem in The Jewish Wars, Bk 6 Ch. 5.3. Wars was not available until 75 CE, so Mark was not written earlier.

So there are two good reasons for you.

Sorry, baseless speculation doesn't work for me. More likely Josephus' account was modeled on Mark's text.

 

[blü 2]

Sorry, baseless speculation doesn't work for me. More likely Josephus' account was modeled on Mark's text.

I gave you two clear dating points for Mark. They don't qualify as "baseless speculation", they qualify as evidence. Any historian would consider them as good evidence.

In reply, you've offered zero actual evidence for any earlier date for Mark.

It looks like 'baseless speculation' is more your style.

 

[oldbadger]

I've gone when requested to appear for jury duty. I spoke to the judge about the reason why it would not be to the benefit of the court to put me on a jury. He dismissed me and actually praised me for my honesty. That was the last time I went before the judge. Before that another judge got rancorous and dismissed me in a harsh way. But he dismissed me. The last time I appeared I rephrased my presentation to the judge as to why it would not be fruitful to put me on the jury. It was a different judge anyway.

Good for you.
People who don't want to take part in Jury duties really should not be forced to take part.