quote:

ORIGINAL: realcoolhand

My authority is, primarily, the book of Acts. As you point out, judaic Christians--and I would add Christians in general--were not much mentioned by non-Christian sources for a half-century after the death of Christ. However, the book of Acts makes clear that the 11 remaining Apostles remained in Jerusalem during the early years of the Church, only gradually scattering out, and during the earliest years directed the Church from Jerusalem, even directing Paul in his travels. As, despite his loyalty, Paul's letters reflect a serious and persistent tension with his sponsors in Jerusalem, I doubt very much that intentionally overstated their influence or authority.

Now, if you had authority suggesting the the nascent Church was centered somewhere other than Jerusalem, that would be something.

quote:

ORIGINAL: realcoolhand

[I]n the first decade after Christ Jerusalem was the center of christendom.

quote:

ORIGINAL: realcoolhand

quote:

ORIGINAL: realcoolhand

[I]n the first decade after Christ Jerusalem was the center of christendom.

So I'm describing the early Church, which was centered in Jerusalem.

Edited to note that "decade" is in the singular, and to suggest that it shouldn't be read too literally, but rather as that period of years preceding the apostolic diaspora.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

Uiversally accepted because Luke became the patron saint of physicians?  There is no historical record that tells exactly how Luke earned a living.  Yet in my reading Luke's gospel as well as Acts, there seems to be details that could not have been substantiated by eye-witness account.  But they would make for a great opening argument at a particularly interesting trial.

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ffb/luke-portrait_bruce.pdf
In former times it was argued by more than one scholar that Luke’s narrative was written to provide Paul’s counsel for the defense with factual material to be used at his trial before Caesar; if this thesis can no longer be sustained in its earlier form, it may still be argued that a document prepared for this purpose served Luke as one of his sources for this part of his narrative. (Why could such a document not have been prepared by Luke himself?) The issue of the relief fund would in that case have been too delicate to be treated in detail; Luke, or the author of his source, judged that Paul’s reference to “alms and offerings” in his defense before Felix was as much as it was politic to say on this subject. If the “alms and offerings” are said to have been designed for Paul’s “nation”, this should not be dismissed as a suggestio falsi: Paul himself hints here and there in his letters that he envisaged the relief fund not only as a gift to the church of Jerusalem but also as a witness to the whole Jewish nation at the centre of its life.

Why would it be impossible to believe that a learned man like Luke could not have been the author of such documents or that he would not act as an advocate for Paul?  Why would my view be necessarily be wrong?  I'm just saying, I try to have an understanding of the context of the writings.  I'm one of those people who do not see any part of the bible or any version of bibles to be the Word of God.  Nor to I believe anything was written as part of any evil conspiracy.  It's an interesting book and I have enjoyed reading it.

The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up to heaven, after he had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom he had chosen. To these he also presented himself alive after his suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the Kingdom of God. Gathering them together, he commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, "which," he said, "you heard of from me for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
I am out of my depths here.

I do recall - if correctly? - that in the earliest universities in The Netherlands there were only four studies: Theology, Law, Medicine and (perhaps) arts. Some students studied more than one. Luke may have been one such universal student.