(April 4, 2019 at 9:38 am)Drich Wrote: If you had you would see a professionalism almost a duty to history up until the point where Luke begin to describe who paul is up until his planning of his mission trip to Rome where the book ends but history shows he was executed. In the introduction of Paul there is far too much day to day knowledge for luke to be an observer or passer by. Luke from his detailed account in acts conclusively shows he knew paul or was a companion of paul.
Lol! It's just the opposite! Writer of Acts makes a number of biographical errors and theological points are held to conflict with what Paul says in his letters. For example, Paul says in Gal. 1:15–18 that he did not go to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles after his conversion experience; Acts 9:10–30 says that he did. Likewise, in Romans 1:18–23, Paul says that idol worshipers are without excuse because knowledge of God has always been evident, but Acts 17:29–30 portrays Paul as saying God will overlook the worship of idols as a consequence of ignorance.
