Bernard Muller wrote:
Where does "Luke" involve God in the 3 descriptions of Jesus' apparitions near Damascus in Acts?
Nowhere. It is an omission, not a contradiction.
Where did I say it was a contradiction?
It is implied in the word "not":
According to Paul, his first revelation came from God. According to 'Acts', Paul had that revelation from the heavenly Jesus, not God....
I am pointing out that Acts does not say "not God" — that is going beyond what Acts says.
So, if Gary writes: the first time I knew about Bruce having a daughter is when he revealed her to me.
But later Mike wrote three times: the first time Gary met Clarisse (Bruce's daughter) is when Gary was going to work (with no mention of her father being present then). And with a conflicting detail and significant difference about what Clarisse said then.
I suppose you would think there are no significant differences in Gary and Mike's accounts about when Gary met Clarisse for the first time.
And that Mike could have read Gary telling about his first meeting with Clarisse.
Yes, of course
Mike could have read Gary's account before writing his, despite the differences.
And that Mike's accounts can be trusted to be true.
I do not know either Mike or Gary, so how in the world would I know if their accounts can be trusted?
It is as if you have slipped into debating inerrancy or something here, Bernard, where every little difference is an error and every error means something huge. It sounds like you are suggesting that no mention
of something ("no mention of her father being present then") is a point in favor of the two storytellers never even having heard the other story. But that is absurd. And, if pressed, it would mean that the synoptic gospels are all independent of one another.
The difference between God revealing his son to Paul and God's son being revealed to Paul is nowhere near as serious as the differences (some of them outright contradictions) I gave you between the synoptic gospels.