A leading witness for the Prosecution states that Paul says, "Prove all things". He then quotes our Lord acknowledging the validity of witnesses (John 8:3-11), and asks for Paul's witnesses to this event whilst on the road to Damascus. Secondly, he suggests that Luke wrote The Acts by second-hand reports and was not an eye-witness. And thirdly, Paul repeats this story twice with differing accounts, thus showing conflict within his own reports.

The first point stating the necessity for witnesses is invalid. The quote from Deuteronomy 19:15…

is only of concern when a legal matter requires witnesses to enforce the death penalty of the Law, which our Lord endorses in the passage quoted by the 'Prosecution' (above) i.e. John 8:3-11. The passage concerns the stoning of the woman caught in the act of adultery. However, Saul did have witnesses at the time of this event - but more about that later.

As for the second suggestion that Luke wrote The Acts using 'second- hand' reports, this is not entirely true. Luke accompanied Paul on some journeys and would have gathered eye-witness reports of other events. Luke was the first historian of the 'early Christian' movement and a historian cannot be in every place and at every occasion about which he writes. Luke collected information from reliable sources in cases when he was not personally present, but he was often in the company of Paul on his travels. Acts 16:10 is such an example where the change from the third person 'they' in verse 8 becomes the first person 'we' in verse 10. This indicates that Luke had joined Paul here, which happens in other passages as well.

Does this mean then that Luke's account of The Acts cannot be trusted? Not at all. Moses was not an eye-witness to Genesis, but he wrote it; must we also doubt his account?

If we suppose that this report of The Acts cannot be taken as truth, then what of the rest of Luke's writings including his Gospel? Let us assume for a moment that this report was false, it would not only reflect on the character of Luke, but also of Ananias whom Jesus sent in order that Paul should receive his sight back. Not to mention Peter, who vouches for the authenticity of Paul's conversion in II Peter 3:14-16. Here are three unimpeachable witnesses. If one is a liar, then they all must be collaborators to support that lie within the Scriptures - God's Own Book.

The third point concerns Paul's differing accounts of the same event. As we are trying to assess the stability of Paul's character, then it should be noted that NOT ONE of these accounts was written by Paul, himself. In fact, all three accounts of this story are given by Luke in The Acts. Once again, do we conclude that Luke's testimony is here also in conspiracy with Paul ... in God's written word? Each account (Acts 9:3 & following, 22:6 & following, 26:13 & following) throws more light on the event than the previous one, but none conflict except for an apparent contradiction, which arises not from any fault on Paul's part, but from the inability of our translators to translate the text correctly as will be shown in Section Three.

Remember, God is PERFECT. And The Bible is His word - from Genesis to Revelation (as written in the original Hebrew and Greek texts). This is His testimony of guidance for the belief and instruction of His people. How could any of His witnesses be unreliable? Whether the chosen writers were eye-witnesses to the events recorded by them or not, the inspiration of the Spirit would ensure that the accounts rendered were PERFECT and acceptable in His sight as Luke himself states categorically in Luke 1:3, which reads from the Greek text ...

Providing that the translation into English faithfully reads what God caused to be written in the original languages, then all that Luke wrote must be classed along with the rest of Scripture.