Birth of Jesus Christ

[Moonwood]

The above is just another tradition and dogma of a denomination that we born again protested and have no lomger have affliation with.

Matthew 15:
8. This people draweth nigh unto ME with their mouth, and honoureth ME with their lips; but their heart is far from ME.
9. But in vain they do worship ME, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men.

Brethren,

As per my post, the 'source' from the Gospel into all the truth to Revelation for the disciples of Jesus Christ who became Apostles commissioned to all nation, came from FATHER, Son and the Holy Ghost.

And similar 'source' in patern by narative can also be seen in the Gospel according to Luke, which verifies his claim was the Apostles eyewitnesses from the beginning, and ministers of the word.

My point is, if Mary and family was included as 'their' source as well, why didn't they testify the absent years of Jesus after 12 years old, what happened to Joseph and so on?

If it were me then like Luke a learned doctor, i would have asked Mary all other things furthermore, since she shared with me the initial ones to begin with.

Until now i beleive so many born again believers are curious about the absent years of Jesus from 12 years of age to 30, and what happened to Joseph.

Therefore to conclude, our opposition's fabricated and speculated version is not 'tangible' by common sense to the scripture.

According to 2Timothy3:16&17 even, 'All scripture is given by inspiration of GOD, ...................'

None of what I wrote depends on “tradition” or “dogma.” Every point I made comes directly from Scripture itself — especially Luke and Acts. You can disagree with my conclusions, but you cannot dismiss them as “denominational dogma” when they are grounded in the text.

Let’s address your new claims one by one.

1. Your claim that the Apostles’ “source” was only the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit contradicts Luke 1:1-4​

Luke explicitly says he relied on:

• “eyewitnesses”
• “ministers of the word”
• “those who were from the beginning”

This is not my tradition.
This is Luke’s own prologue.

If Luke’s only source were the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then Luke 1:1-4 would be meaningless.
Luke himself says he used human witnesses.

Your claim contradicts the Gospel you are trying to defend.

2. Your argument about the “missing years” misunderstands how ancient biography works​

You wrote:

“If Mary was a source, why didn’t she testify about the absent years of Jesus after age 12?”

This assumes:

• If Mary told Luke anything, She must have told him everything.
• If Luke didn’t record it, Mary didn’t say it.
• If Mary didn’t say it, She wasn’t a source.

None of these assumptions are valid.

Ancient biography does not record everything a source said.​

John 21:25 explicitly says:

“There are also many other things that Jesus did… the world itself could not contain the books.”

By your logic, because John didn’t record those “many other things,”
John’s sources didn’t exist.

That is obviously false.

Luke chose what was relevant to his theological purpose. The “missing years” were not relevant to his Gospel’s aim.

3. Your argument proves too much — it would eliminate all human sources​

You wrote:

“The source came from Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”

If that were true, then:

• Peter was not a source.
• John was not a source.
• James was not a source.
• The women at the tomb were not sources.
• The disciples who witnessed miracles were not sources.

But Luke explicitly says he used eyewitnesses.

Your claim contradicts Luke’s own method.

4. Your argument about Mary not reporting Joseph’s death is irrelevant​

You wrote:

“If Mary was a source, why didn’t she tell Luke what happened to Joseph?”

Because Luke did not need that information for his Gospel’s purpose.

Luke does not record:

• what happened to Thomas after the Resurrection
• what happened to Bartholomew
• what happened to Andrew
• what happened to Philip
• what happened to Mary Magdalene after John 20
• what happened to Nicodemus
• what happened to Joseph of Arimathea

By your logic, none of these people existed as sources because Luke didn’t record their later lives.

That is not how Scripture works.

5. Your claim that my argument is “fabricated” ignores the textual evidence​

You have not addressed:

• Mary’s presence in Acts 1:14
• Mary’s eyewitness role
• Mary’s faith
• Mary’s unique access to the infancy events
• Jesus recounting His early life to the apostles
• Luke’s reliance on women’s testimony
• Luke’s prologue
• The nature of ancient biography
• The NT’s routine omission of transmission chains

Instead, you shifted the topic to “missing years,” which has nothing to do with the infancy narratives.

6. Your appeal to 2 Timothy 3:16 does not support your conclusion​

You quoted:

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God…”

Correct — and Luke 1:1-4 is Scripture.

And Luke 1:1-4 says:

• Luke used eyewitnesses
• Luke used ministers of the word
• Luke used those from the beginning

You cannot quote 2 Timothy 3:16 to dismiss Luke’s own inspired statement about his sources.

7. Your argument still does not refute the actual point​

You have not refuted:

• that Mary was present at the events
• that Mary was present with the apostles
• that Mary was a believer
• that Luke relies on women’s testimony
• that Jesus entrusted the Resurrection proclamation to a woman
• that Jesus Himself would have told the apostles His early‑life story
• that the infancy narratives contain details only Mary could have known
• that the NT routinely records events without naming the source

Therefore, your conclusion does not follow.

 

[Mark51]

I would say the first one. The shepherds were told by the angel that they would find the Baby lying in a manger, and they did. By the time the wise men got to Bethlehem, it was up to two years later:

(Mat 2:16 NKJV) Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men.

So Jesus was no longer a Baby in a manger, but a toddler in a house:

(Mat 2:9-11 NKJV) After listening to the king, they went on their way. And behold, the star that they had seen when it rose went before them until it came to rest over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. And going into the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

The magi or wise men did not see Jesus in the manger, and did not visit Jesus at the same time as the shepherds.

Incidentally, two other things that are often assumed about the wise men which are not found in the Bible are 1) how many of them there were. It is often assumed that there were three, because they brought three gifts, but two men, ten men, a hundred men could bring three gifts. 2) that they followed the star all the way from their home in the east to Bethlehem. That is not what the Bible says. It says that they saw the star when they were at home, but that it only started going before them after they had left Herod's palace in Jerusalem:

(Mat 2:9-10 NKJV) When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceedingly great joy.

"The star which they had seen in the East," not "The star which they had followed from the east." If the star had been leading them all the way, why did they stop off in Jerusalem and ask where the King of the Jews had been born?

Well presented post!

In support: Only these astrologers, Magi or stargazers-which is condemned in the scriptures (Deuteronomy 18:10-12)-were the only ones that reported to have “seen” a special star. If the star had been an actual physical body, it would have been as visible as a beacon to the public in general. Even King Herod had to ask them about the details of its appearance.

Furthermore, as you mentioned, this star did not guide these astrologers to the child first. This is significant because of their adverse results of their visit to King Herod first: placing in danger the life of the future Messiah. In consideration of the likelihood of this probability of being directed by a source adverse to God’s purposes-as relating to the promised Messiah; it is certainly reasonable to ask if the one who “keeps transforming himself into an angel of light,” whose operation is “with every powerful work and lying signs and portents,” who was able to make a serpent appear to speak, and who was referred to by Jesus as “a manslayer when he began,” could not also cause astrologers to “see” a star like object that guided them first, not to Bethlehem, but to Jerusalem, to Herod, where resided a mortal enemy of the promised Messiah.-Matthew 2:1, 2, 16; John 8:44; 2 Corinthians 11:3, 14; 2 Thessalonians 2:9.

These facts give evidence that the star was certainly from an evil source: Satan the Devil. The Bible describes him as using “lying signs and portents.”-2 Corinthians 4:4; 11:14; 2 Thessalonians 2:9.

 

[Moonwood]

Only these astrologers, Magi or stargazers-which is condemned in the scriptures (Deuteronomy 18:10-12)-were the only ones that reported to have “seen” a special star.

If the Magi were practicing something God condemns, then why does Matthew show God protecting them — warning them in a dream, guiding them safely home, and receiving their worship of His Son? Divine protection is never given to people engaged in demonic deception. The narrative itself shows God’s favor toward them, not condemnation. Their role fits Matthew’s theme of Gentiles recognizing the Messiah, not the category condemned in Deuteronomy 18.

If the star had been an actual physical body, it would have been as visible as a beacon to the public in general. Even King Herod had to ask them about the details of its appearance.

Matthew never describes the Star as a normal astronomical body. It rises, disappears, reappears, moves ahead of the Magi, and stops over a single house. That is not how physical stars behave. Selective visibility is exactly what we see in angelic or supernatural manifestations throughout Scripture. The argument collapses once we stop treating the Star as a natural object and recognize it as a supernatural sign, consistent with biblical angelic guidance.

Furthermore, as you mentioned, this star did not guide these astrologers to the child first. This is significant because of their adverse results of their visit to King Herod first: placing in danger the life of the future Messiah. In consideration of the likelihood of this probability of being directed by a source adverse to God’s purposes-as relating to the promised Messiah; it is certainly reasonable to ask if the one who “keeps transforming himself into an angel of light,” whose operation is “with every powerful work and lying signs and portents,” who was able to make a serpent appear to speak, and who was referred to by Jesus as “a manslayer when he began,” could not also cause astrologers to “see” a star like object that guided them first, not to Bethlehem, but to Jerusalem, to Herod, where resided a mortal enemy of the promised Messiah.-Matthew 2:1, 2, 16; John 8:44; 2 Corinthians 11:3, 14; 2 Thessalonians 2:9.

These facts give evidence that the star was certainly from an evil source: Satan the Devil. The Bible describes him as using “lying signs and portents.”-2 Corinthians 4:4; 11:14; 2 Thessalonians 2:9.

The Star did not lead the Magi to Herod. They went to Jerusalem because it was the obvious place to inquire about a newborn “King of the Jews.” Jerusalem was the capital, the seat of the king, and the location of the Scriptures. Matthew’s narrative logic is clear: the Magi followed normal political reasoning, not a deceptive sign. Their arrival in Jerusalem reflects human inference, not satanic manipulation.

And when the Star appears again, it leads the Magi — not Herod — directly to God the Son, where they fall down and worship Him. Satan does not guide anyone to adore God Incarnate. He does not orchestrate events that result in homage, gifts, and recognition of Jesus as King. The outcome of the Magi’s journey directly contradicts the claim that the Star was satanic. The event aligns with divine revelation, not with lying signs.

 

[Fred J]

None of what I wrote depends on “tradition” or “dogma.” Every point I made comes directly from Scripture itself — especially Luke and Acts. You can disagree with my conclusions, but you cannot dismiss them as “denominational dogma” when they are grounded in the text.

Let’s address your new claims one by one.

1. Your claim that the Apostles’ “source” was only the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit contradicts Luke 1:1-4​

Luke explicitly says he relied on:

• “eyewitnesses”
• “ministers of the word”
• “those who were from the beginning”

This is not my tradition.
This is Luke’s own prologue.

If Luke’s only source were the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then Luke 1:1-4 would be meaningless.
Luke himself says he used human witnesses.

Your claim contradicts the Gospel you are trying to defend.

2. Your argument about the “missing years” misunderstands how ancient biography works​

You wrote:


This assumes:

• If Mary told Luke anything, She must have told him everything.
• If Luke didn’t record it, Mary didn’t say it.
• If Mary didn’t say it, She wasn’t a source.

None of these assumptions are valid.

Ancient biography does not record everything a source said.​

John 21:25 explicitly says:


By your logic, because John didn’t record those “many other things,”
John’s sources didn’t exist.

That is obviously false.

Luke chose what was relevant to his theological purpose. The “missing years” were not relevant to his Gospel’s aim.

3. Your argument proves too much — it would eliminate all human sources​

You wrote:


If that were true, then:

• Peter was not a source.
• John was not a source.
• James was not a source.
• The women at the tomb were not sources.
• The disciples who witnessed miracles were not sources.

But Luke explicitly says he used eyewitnesses.

Your claim contradicts Luke’s own method.

4. Your argument about Mary not reporting Joseph’s death is irrelevant​

You wrote:


Because Luke did not need that information for his Gospel’s purpose.

Luke does not record:

• what happened to Thomas after the Resurrection
• what happened to Bartholomew
• what happened to Andrew
• what happened to Philip
• what happened to Mary Magdalene after John 20
• what happened to Nicodemus
• what happened to Joseph of Arimathea

By your logic, none of these people existed as sources because Luke didn’t record their later lives.

That is not how Scripture works.

5. Your claim that my argument is “fabricated” ignores the textual evidence​

You have not addressed:

• Mary’s presence in Acts 1:14
• Mary’s eyewitness role
• Mary’s faith
• Mary’s unique access to the infancy events
• Jesus recounting His early life to the apostles
• Luke’s reliance on women’s testimony
• Luke’s prologue
• The nature of ancient biography
• The NT’s routine omission of transmission chains

Instead, you shifted the topic to “missing years,” which has nothing to do with the infancy narratives.

6. Your appeal to 2 Timothy 3:16 does not support your conclusion​

You quoted:


Correct — and Luke 1:1-4 is Scripture.

And Luke 1:1-4 says:

• Luke used eyewitnesses
• Luke used ministers of the word
• Luke used those from the beginning

You cannot quote 2 Timothy 3:16 to dismiss Luke’s own inspired statement about his sources.

7. Your argument still does not refute the actual point​

You have not refuted:

• that Mary was present at the events
• that Mary was present with the apostles
• that Mary was a believer
• that Luke relies on women’s testimony
• that Jesus entrusted the Resurrection proclamation to a woman
• that Jesus Himself would have told the apostles His early‑life story
• that the infancy narratives contain details only Mary could have known
• that the NT routinely records events without naming the source

Therefore, your conclusion does not follow.

Boring.................

Even can put a baby to sleep.

 

[Moonwood]

Boring.................

Even can put a baby to sleep.

If you think the argument is wrong, then show where the reasoning fails. Simply calling it “boring” doesn’t refute anything I wrote.

I addressed your claims point‑by‑point using Scripture — Luke’s prologue, Acts, John 21:25, and the nature of ancient biography.

If you want to continue the discussion, respond to the actual evidence. If not, that’s fine — but dismissiveness is not an argument.

 

[Fred J]

If you think the argument is wrong, then show where the reasoning fails. Simply calling it “boring” doesn’t refute anything I wrote.

I addressed your claims point‑by‑point using Scripture — Luke’s prologue, Acts, John 21:25, and the nature of ancient biography.

If you want to continue the discussion, respond to the actual evidence. If not, that’s fine — but dismissiveness is not an argument.

Ironically, have you read all my post?

Apparently is an evidence that completely disagree with yours.

Have made my points with scripture quote and explanation.

Your version by copy and paste, twisting and adding things is not welcomed, period

 

[Moonwood]

Ironically, have you read all my post?

Apparently is an evidence that completely disagree with yours.

Have made my points with scripture quote and explanation.

Your version by copy and paste, twisting and adding things is not welcomed, period

I did read your whole post and I addressed your claims point‑by‑point using Scripture. You say you “disagree” and that you used Scripture, but you still haven’t shown where any specific part of my reasoning fails.

If you believe I twisted or added something, quote the exact sentence and explain the error from the text. General accusations don’t advance the discussion.

My argument is built on Luke 1:1-4, Acts 1:14, John 21:25, and the nature of ancient biography. If you want to continue, engage those points directly. If not, that’s your choice—but saying my view is “not welcomed” is still not a rebuttal.

 

[Fred J]

True born again readers,

Our testimony regarding Luke's 'source' and the Apostles' 'source' remain as posted.

We gave the 'parallel' scripture who was actually Luke's 'source', the Apostles and the believers under them and their testament.

As for the Apostles, their 'source' were FATHER, Son and the Holy Ghost, since they were from the beginning from the baptism of John.

And, with Christ outside from all their families, till His death, resurrection, ascension, baptism of Holy Ghost and fire, and forth furthermore led into all truth.

It was all to do with the Law and the Prophets and Jesus Christ fulfilling them, likewise gave and made the New Covenant with the chosen Apostles in His lifetime on earth.

The Gospel according to Luke reasonably parallel to the Gospel according to Matthew, where in the beginning Luke has Christ's geneology in reverse order compared to Matthew.

For example arguement sake, if Mary would have been partly 'source' for the Apostles and Luke, surely they would have added after 12 years of age Jesus' absent years for one.

Likewise Joseph's absent years and death as follows, and even about the other sons and daughters, and forth, think with the spirit and truth in the Holy Bible youselves.

It has nothing to do with men or women who had their role and part in participation as servants, but has everything to do with GOD and HIS Kingdom, HIS Old and New Testament.

To conclude, even to all of them in writing is given by the inspiration of GOD, so on even to the compilation of books, period

 

[Moonwood]

True born again readers,

Our testimony regarding Luke's 'source' and the Apostles' 'source' remain as posted.

We gave the 'parallel' scripture who was actually Luke's 'source', the Apostles and the believers under them and their testament.

As for the Apostles, their 'source' were FATHER, Son and the Holy Ghost, since they were from the beginning from the baptism of John.

And, with Christ outside from all their families, till His death, resurrection, ascension, baptism of Holy Ghost and fire, and forth furthermore led into all truth.

It was all to do with the Law and the Prophets and Jesus Christ fulfilling them, likewise gave and made the New Covenant with the chosen Apostles in His lifetime on earth.

The Gospel according to Luke reasonably parallel to the Gospel according to Matthew, where in the beginning Luke has Christ's geneology in reverse order compared to Matthew.

For example arguement sake, if Mary would have been partly 'source' for the Apostles and Luke, surely they would have added after 12 years of age Jesus' absent years for one.

Likewise Joseph's absent years and death as follows, and even about the other sons and daughters, and forth, think with the spirit and truth in the Holy Bible youselves.

It has nothing to do with men or women who had their role and part in participation as servants, but has everything to do with GOD and HIS Kingdom, HIS Old and New Testament.

To conclude, even to all of them in writing is given by the inspiration of GOD, so on even to the compilation of books, period

You’re addressing your readers, but you still haven’t addressed the actual arguments I made.

You keep repeating that the Apostles’ “source” was only the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but you have not explained how that claim fits with Luke’s own inspired statement in Luke 1:1-4 that he relied on eyewitnesses, ministers of the word, and those who were from the beginning. That text is still sitting there, untouched.

You also repeat that if Mary were a source, Luke and the Apostles “surely” would have recorded Jesus’ entire childhood, Joseph’s death, and the siblings’ lives. But that is not an argument—it’s an assumption. Ancient biography does not work that way, and the NT routinely omits later biographical details of people who were unquestionably sources. You have not shown why your assumption overrides the actual literary practices of Scripture.

You say everything is “by inspiration of God,” but inspiration does not erase Luke’s own statement about his method. Inspiration guarantees truth; it does not eliminate human witnesses, human memory, or human testimony. Luke 1:1-4 is part of the inspired text, and it explicitly contradicts your claim.

You can address me or not—that’s up to you. But if you want to maintain your position, you still need to explain:

• why Luke 1:1-4 does not mean what it plainly says,
• why Acts 1:14 does not matter for Mary’s presence among the apostles,
• why John 21:25 does not undermine your “they would have recorded everything” assumption,
• and why the NT’s normal omission of transmission chains suddenly becomes decisive only in this one case.

Until you engage those points directly, your conclusion remains asserted, not demonstrated.

 

[Fred J]

You’re addressing your readers, but you still haven’t addressed the actual arguments I made.

You keep repeating that the Apostles’ “source” was only the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but you have not explained how that claim fits with Luke’s own inspired statement in Luke 1:1-4 that he relied on eyewitnesses, ministers of the word, and those who were from the beginning. That text is still sitting there, untouched.

You also repeat that if Mary were a source, Luke and the Apostles “surely” would have recorded Jesus’ entire childhood, Joseph’s death, and the siblings’ lives. But that is not an argument—it’s an assumption. Ancient biography does not work that way, and the NT routinely omits later biographical details of people who were unquestionably sources. You have not shown why your assumption overrides the actual literary practices of Scripture.

You say everything is “by inspiration of God,” but inspiration does not erase Luke’s own statement about his method. Inspiration guarantees truth; it does not eliminate human witnesses, human memory, or human testimony. Luke 1:1-4 is part of the inspired text, and it explicitly contradicts your claim.

You can address me or not—that’s up to you. But if you want to maintain your position, you still need to explain:

• why Luke 1:1-4 does not mean what it plainly says,
• why Acts 1:14 does not matter for Mary’s presence among the apostles,
• why John 21:25 does not undermine your “they would have recorded everything” assumption,
• and why the NT’s normal omission of transmission chains suddenly becomes decisive only in this one case.

Until you engage those points directly, your conclusion remains asserted, not demonstrated.

That's my given testimony in sound doctrine posted opposed to yours apparently, and for readers to read carefully.

Ironically in your 'folly' and 'ongoing', i did not include Mary as the 'source', because if she was, the narative of Jesus' absent years and Joseph's life would be 'recorded' as well.

That's my very 'argument' and 'point' that she's not the 'source' to the Apostles' and Luke's Gosples, period.

What makes you think you have the authority to force us to unwisely respond to you or 'David Lamb', when we've disagreed with your version from the start?

Stop being a 'bully', like Brother Paul advice Brother Timothy not to allow 'such' since he's young, period

 

[Moonwood]

That's my given testimony in sound doctrine posted opposed to yours apparently, and for readers to read carefully.

Ironically in your 'folly' and 'ongoing', i did not include Mary as the 'source', because if she was, the narative of Jesus' absent years and Joseph's life would be 'recorded' as well.

That's my very 'argument' and 'point' that she's not the 'source' to the Apostles' and Luke's Gosples, period.

What makes you think you have the authority to force us to unwisely respond to you or 'David Lamb', when we've disagreed with your version from the start?

Stop being a 'bully', like Brother Paul advice Brother Timothy not to allow 'such' since he's young, period

You’re still repeating the same assumption, not defending it.

Your argument is:

• If Mary were a source, Luke would have recorded Jesus’ entire childhood and Joseph’s life.
• Luke did not record those things.
• Therefore Mary was not a source.

But that is not an argument grounded in Scripture or ancient biography. It’s simply a premise you keep asserting.

You still have not explained:

• why Luke 1:1-4 does not mean what it plainly says about eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,
• why Acts 1:14 does not matter for Mary’s presence among the apostles,
• why John 21:25 does not undermine your “they would have recorded everything” expectation,
• or why the NT’s normal omission of transmission chains suddenly becomes decisive only here.

Repeating your conclusion does not demonstrate it.

As for the “bully” accusation: pointing out unaddressed arguments is not bullying. It’s how serious discussion works. Paul’s advice to Timothy was about resisting intimidation, not avoiding textual engagement.

If you want to maintain your position, you still need to show — from Scripture, not assumption — how your claim fits with Luke’s own inspired statement about his sources. Until then, your conclusion remains asserted, not demonstrated.

 

[Fred J]

You’re still repeating the same assumption, not defending it.

Your argument is:

• If Mary were a source, Luke would have recorded Jesus’ entire childhood and Joseph’s life.
• Luke did not record those things.
• Therefore Mary was not a source.

But that is not an argument grounded in Scripture or ancient biography. It’s simply a premise you keep asserting.

You still have not explained:

• why Luke 1:1-4 does not mean what it plainly says about eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,
• why Acts 1:14 does not matter for Mary’s presence among the apostles,
• why John 21:25 does not undermine your “they would have recorded everything” expectation,
• or why the NT’s normal omission of transmission chains suddenly becomes decisive only here.

Repeating your conclusion does not demonstrate it.

As for the “bully” accusation: pointing out unaddressed arguments is not bullying. It’s how serious discussion works. Paul’s advice to Timothy was about resisting intimidation, not avoiding textual engagement.

If you want to maintain your position, you still need to show — from Scripture, not assumption — how your claim fits with Luke’s own inspired statement about his sources. Until then, your conclusion remains asserted, not demonstrated.

Moonwood, man get a life and don't give up your daytime job!

Next, you'll be in my 'ignore' list.

 

[Moonwood]

Moonwood, man get a life and don't give up your daytime job!

Next, you'll be in my 'ignore' list.

You’re free to ignore me if you choose. But stepping away from the discussion doesn’t resolve the textual issues you’ve left unanswered.

Your claim rests entirely on the assumption that if Mary were a source, Luke would have recorded Jesus’ entire childhood and Joseph’s life. You’ve repeated that premise several times, but you have not shown—from Scripture, from Luke’s stated method, or from ancient biographical practice—why that assumption should override the actual evidence.

The inspired text still stands:

• Luke 1:1-4 explicitly states that Luke relied on eyewitnesses and ministers of the word. You have not explained how your claim fits with Luke’s own description of his sources.
• Acts 1:14 places Mary among the apostles in the period when Luke gathered material. You have not shown why her presence is irrelevant.
• John 21:25 directly contradicts your expectation that “if she were a source, everything would be recorded.”
• And the NT routinely omits biographical details even when the authors unquestionably had access to them. You have not explained why this normal pattern suddenly becomes decisive only in this one case.

None of these points disappear because you threaten to “ignore” me. They remain part of the inspired text, and they remain unanswered.

If you want to maintain your conclusion, you still need to demonstrate—rather than simply assert—how it fits with the biblical evidence. Until then, the argument stands unresolved.