Luke's Gospel Rejects Matthew's Previous Gospel!!

Luke's Gospel begins with this preface:

1 Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, 3 I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received. [NABRE - New American Bible (Revised Ed.)]

Luke's Gospel rejects significant stories told in Matthew's previous Gospel!!

Biblical scholarship shows us that Luke's Gospel follows after Matthew's Gospel, which followed after Mark's first Gospel. This is very significant. Luke says he has investigated what has been written before him, and is putting it down in chronological order. For anyone interested in biblical inspiration you have a huge problem. Anything Luke omits from Matthew potentially means Luke probably didn't think it happened, especially if what he omits has good reasons to be omitted. When we look at it all, it's as if Luke was rejecting and correcting the Gospel of Matthew on some important issues. Here are seven of them:

1. Joseph's dream (Matthew 1). As evidence that Mary was telling the truth about her pregnancy dreams offer us nothing. Dreams cannot provide any evidence as to the truth of a divine virgin birthed child. LINK.

2). Matthew's genealogy (Matthew 1). It traces the Messianic lineage of Jesus to Joseph. But Joseph was not the father of Jesus. To correct this, Luke's Gospel (Luke 3) invents a different genealogy to show the messianic lineage ends with Mary, the mother of Jesus. But this still leaves the problem of the male chromosome required to produce a human baby. In addition, any baby cloned from female DNA would only produce another female. LINK.

3) Matthew's Bethlehem Star (Matthew 2), which makes no sense because no one had seen such a star pointing down to a specific location. LINK.

4) The massacre of the innocents (Matthew 2:16-18), which no one had seen taken place nor heard about. It’s clear that the first-century Jewish historian Josephus hated Herod. He chronicled in detail his crimes, many of which were lesser in kind than this alleged wholesale massacre of children. Yet nowhere does Josephus mention this slaughter, even though he would have been in a position to know of one had one happened, and even though he would have every reason to mention it.

5) The faked "prophesies" from Isaiah (Matthew 1:22) and Hosea (Matthew 1:14-15) which had no basis in the original Old Testament texts. LINK.

6) Matthew's unbelievable story of the soldiers who were told to guard the tomb so no one would steal the body of Jesus (Matthew 27:62-66; 28:11-15). Is Pilate really expected to believe these soldiers, that the body of Jesus is missing because he arose the grave? Pilate would conclude no such thing. He would sentence them to death for dereliction of duty. LINK.

7) Luke's gospel also eliminated the unbelievable story (in Matthew 27:51-53) that Old Testament saints were resurrected along with Jesus and walked around Jerusalem, which no one had ever seen, nor attended their funerals upon dying a second time, nor having been interviewed about the afterlife! This makes no sense, as Robert Conner notes:

“Holy zombies doing a march on Jerusalem is unmentioned in the other gospels or by any histories of the era. If a hoard of dead people proved Jesus had risen from the tomb, why didn’t Jesus Himself show up in Jerusalem accompanied by angels and dressed in shining raiment? …Why didn’t Jesus appear post mortem to his persecutors and settle the question of his resurrection then and there, once and for all as he promised at his trial?” (pp. 42-43) LINK.

Do you see any others?